drat01 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Anyway back on topic there were some interesting comments in the standard tonight about the conference. You certainly get the feeling that London would still prefer boris in charge Sent from my iPhone using VillaTalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I can't help wonder why, if the bbc thought it was an outrage they didn't put it on the main web page Did they say it was an outrage? No, they say things like bombings are outrages. Might they be trying to find out privately why they were denied access before making a story of it? Is it about a thousand times smaller than the NSA and GCHQ stuff, which they haven't seemed all that keen to publicise? Has the Beeb become markedly more sensitive to upsetting governments following the David Kelly case? Have they become very fearful about their priorities after the poor decision-making around the child abuse stories? Are they run by the former head of the Conservative Research Department and Tory Cabinet Minister? And would it be wise to make a big deal of this, if they want to keep in his good books? The BBC is being neutered. This story is just one small symptom, not the disease. Tony and Drat, why not take this peculiarly private conversation into private messages? Because they're not on speaking terms? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 OK why do you think they were denied access? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Why do you? :-) Sent from my iPhone using VillaTalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 well I haven't read too much about it, but Peter seems to know more about it than me, that's why I asked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Anyway back on topic there were some interesting comments in the standard tonight about the conference. You certainly get the feeling that London would still prefer boris in charge Sent from my iPhone using VillaTalk Probably so that means they would be shot of him as mayor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 OK why do you think they were denied access? I would go for the jobsworth/cock-up end of the scale, rather than the state-sponsored assassination end. And you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Probably agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I get the feeling that a challenge to Cameron could happen very easily . Obviously not a widely supported leader Sent from my iPhone using VillaTalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Peter even if it was a non political and I don't believe it was surely a marketing led party like the Tory one would have things like that nailed down ? Sent from my iPhone using VillaTalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 OK why do you think they were denied access? I would go for the jobsworth/cock-up end of the scale, rather than the state-sponsored assassination end. And you? A few pages back you were saying "they" had prevented it being reported on the news That would suggest you believed it to be state sponsored assassination wouldn't it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Tony why resort to a ahh but labour .... To be fair to Tony its about all he has got. You can't defend the indefensible. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it indefensible, unless of course you think yours is the only opinion that counts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Peter even if it was a non political and I don't believe it was surely a marketing led party like the Tory one would have things like that nailed down ? It's been said that there were no instructions from the tory party to do this. I believe that. It would have been utter madness to do it and be found out - massive imbalance of risk and reward. I think it's more likely that someone in the police was asked whether G4S should allow BBC access to where they wanted to film, maybe wasn't entirely certain, and opted for the course of action which would minimise any possible embarrassment to the government through showing a massive march of people angry about NHS demolition, far outnumbering the coven of ageing party members and paid lobbyists who were sheltering behind the barricades. I don't even suppose it was done through party political affiliation. I suppose that like most people in the police, security services and armed forces, the person tended towards the authoritarian personality type, and would rather support the status quo than see it challenged - or perhaps assumed that his/her superiors would see it that way. But that's all guesswork, which is why I said ages ago that we need clear answers about exactly what happened, and why. OK why do you think they were denied access? I would go for the jobsworth/cock-up end of the scale, rather than the state-sponsored assassination end. And you? A few pages back you were saying "they" had prevented it being reported on the news That would suggest you believed it to be state sponsored assassination wouldn't it ? Quote, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) Well you've sorta answered the question rather well already with your previous reply to Ian.... But the post I'm referring to is below , maybe I've just misunderstood the intent of the word "they" ?? You said the BBC and test there it is on the BBC web pageSo 100% I am not wrong , I've given you the link to the storyMaybe had you said BBC TV you stood a better chanceThey have stopped the story being shown on tv news. Do you think that having a story on the website somehow negates that? Edited September 30, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 30, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 30, 2013 I suppose that like most people in the police, security services and armed forces, the person tended towards the authoritarian personality type Completely off topic, but that's utter bollocks, in my experience, sorry, Peter. It's an easy stereotype, but way off beam. I'm not saying any personality type isn't possible, or even likely in any profession, but that sort of generalisation is just...wrong. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Well you've sorta answered the question rather well already with your previous reply to Ian.... But the post I'm referring to is below , maybe I've just misunderstood the intent of the word "they" ?? You said the BBC and test there it is on the BBC web pageSo 100% I am not wrong , I've given you the link to the storyMaybe had you said BBC TV you stood a better chance They have stopped the story being shown on tv news. Do you think that having a story on the website somehow negates that? "They" are the forces of repression, Tony. They are everywhere. Reading our e-mails. Recording our phone calls. Monitoring our financial transactions. Shaping our economy. Starting wars. They also include some little guys, who do the things, unbidden, they think the big guys would like. Beating up demonstrators, hosing down homeless people, sanctioning claimants, intimidating immigrants, writing for the Daily Mail, that kind of thing. I think it was the little guys, not the big guys, who were directly and personally responsible for this particular farce. But the responsibility is shared. I suppose that like most people in the police, security services and armed forces, the person tended towards the authoritarian personality type Completely off topic, but that's utter bollocks, in my experience, sorry, Peter. It's an easy stereotype, but way off beam. I'm not saying any personality type isn't possible, or even likely in any profession, but that sort of generalisation is just...wrong. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So, a policy that was discussed and then dropped 2 years ago is still causing the leftie bedwetters of VT anxiety?! Hilarious!I agree with you.There's plenty enough that the obnoxious Tory twunts are doing in government now (both local and national) about which decent people ought to be sufficiently exercised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 well I agree with Blandy Pete. Far too many generalisations about people. Not all Labour supporters are Trots Not Tories are Millionaire tax avoiders. Not all Nurses are good Not all Bankers are bad. Not all Villa fans are good. I often read on here things Like I hate all Liverpool supporters they are all clearings in the woods. Does that include the teachers, as well as any in Prison. Does it include all colours and creeds. I mean if you said every immigrant who supports Liverpool is a clearing in the woods you would be rightly classed as a racist. People are just people, good and bad in every area. (not suggesting you were implying anyones bad) just using this as an example 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 George Osborne is **** tapped. At a time when such things as the NHS A&E is on its knees mainly due to a lack of funding in social care, food banks are at an all time high, disabled people are having their benefits cut or taken from them the arrogant and deluded pratt uses his speech today to talk about running a budget surplus. Public services are at breaking point in this country. Public services that the poorest and most vulnerable are most reliant on and the Tories main priority is running a budget surplus. They are so out of touch it is unreal. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 actually that was 2 different posters ..if you are going to try and insult some one you should really check your post for accuracy and hiding behind " certain posters" is a bit cowardlyHis post was in response to an insulting one about an unspecified 'group' of people (which you liked, Tony).Is it perhaps a bit rum to take issue with Kingfisher's post and yet like the one with a similar m.o.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts