According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked 'many times' to return wages he received while
suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent images of children, MPs told.
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right thing" rather
than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay back the money it would not
cause people to admire him more, so what's the point?
Repost in ES with Pound Sign replaced in Title
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m2qjodFoj9lU1@mid.individual.net...
According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked 'many times' to return wages he received while
suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent images of children, MPs told.
snip
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right thing" rather
than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay back the money it would not
cause people to admire him more, so what's the point?
No more so surely, than it's "undignified" in general, that the BBC should be required
to pander to the demands of the right wing Press* in order to justify the continuance
of the Licence Fee ?
bb
* Many of whom are direct competitors; or at least would have been, prior to the
advent of Netflix, Amazon etc.
On 05/03/2025 19:06, billy bookcase wrote:
Repost in ES with Pound Sign replaced in Title
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m2qjodFoj9lU1@mid.individual.net...
According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked 'many times' to return wages he received while
suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent images of children, MPs told.
snip
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right thing" rather
than to leave it to the lawyers. And if he were to pay back the money it would not
cause people to admire him more, so what's the point?
No more so surely, than it's "undignified" in general, that the BBC should be
required
to pander to the demands of the right wing Press* in order to justify the continuance
of the Licence Fee ?
Or pander to the demands of the pro-Israel and right wing Jewish lobby, as they
currently are doing.
An excellent documentary about the slaughter of children in Gaza (Gaza: How to Survive
a War Zone) has been pulled from iPlayer for the wholly irrelevant reason that the
child who presented the documentary is the son of a Hamas deputy agriculture minister.
It would have been a simple matter to display a caption notifying the audience of this
fact. But there is now a pretence that the entire documentary is flawed or dishonest.
I've watched it, and there are plenty of anti-Hamas comments in the documentary and no
exhortation to destroy Israel or destroy all Jews.
A piece in the Independent probably explains it best.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-gaza-documentary-tim-davie-israel-b2708547.html
bb
* Many of whom are direct competitors; or at least would have been, prior to the
advent of Netflix, Amazon etc.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m2qjodFoj9lU1@mid.individual.net...
According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked 'many times' to return wages he
received while suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent
images of children, MPs told.
snip
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right
thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers.
And if he were to pay
back the money it would not cause people to admire him more, so what's
the point?
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m2qjodFoj9lU1@mid.individual.net...
According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked 'many times' to return wages he
received while suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent
images of children, MPs told.
snip
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right
thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers.
Don't the Civil procedure Rules encourage people to settle their disputes
out of court rather than always going to litigation? Do you not agree with that principle?
And if he were to pay
back the money it would not cause people to admire him more, so what's
the point?
Presumably that it might conceivably save licence payers a bob or two.
Zoooom ... oink oink.
An excellent documentary about the slaughter of children in Gaza (Gaza:
How to Survive a War Zone) has been pulled from iPlayer for the wholly irrelevant reason that the child who presented the documentary is the
son of a Hamas deputy agriculture minister. It would have been a simple matter to display a caption notifying the audience of this fact. But
there is now a pretence that the entire documentary is flawed or
dishonest. I've watched it, and there are plenty of anti-Hamas comments
in the documentary and no exhortation to destroy Israel or destroy all Jews.
A piece in the Independent probably explains it best.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-gaza-documentary-tim-davie-israel-b2708547.html
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m2qjodFoj9lU1@mid.individual.net...
According to the Times today.
Former newsreader has been asked 'many times' to return wages he
received while suspended before pleading guilty to making indecent
images of children, MPs told.
snip
It is rather undignified of the BBC to plead with him to "do the right
thing" rather than to leave it to the lawyers.
Don't the Civil procedure Rules encourage people to settle their disputes
out of court rather than always going to litigation? Do you not agree with that principle?
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
An excellent documentary about the slaughter of children in Gaza (Gaza:
How to Survive a War Zone) has been pulled from iPlayer for the wholly
irrelevant reason that the child who presented the documentary is the
son of a Hamas deputy agriculture minister. It would have been a simple
matter to display a caption notifying the audience of this fact. But
there is now a pretence that the entire documentary is flawed or
dishonest. I've watched it, and there are plenty of anti-Hamas comments
in the documentary and no exhortation to destroy Israel or destroy all Jews.
One wonders what the reaction might have been to a documentary film of the concentration camps of WWII that was narrated by the child of a Nazi government minister, or perhaps the aftermath of Hamburg, Darmstadt, or Rostock. Would they have been viewed as being honest? We all know of the
wild exaggeration of the casualties of Dresden, attained by adding a zero
to the official number, so it isn’t surprising that ‘documentary films’ by
the ‘victims’ might be less than accurate portrayals of the actualité.
A piece in the Independent probably explains it best.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-gaza-documentary-tim-davie-israel-b2708547.html
On 06/03/2025 09:22, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
An excellent documentary about the slaughter of children in Gaza
(Gaza:
How to Survive a War Zone) has been pulled from iPlayer for the wholly
irrelevant reason that the child who presented the documentary is the
son of a Hamas deputy agriculture minister. It would have been a
simple matter to display a caption notifying the audience of this
fact. But there is now a pretence that the entire documentary is
flawed or dishonest. I've watched it, and there are plenty of
anti-Hamas comments in the documentary and no exhortation to destroy
Israel or destroy all Jews.
One wonders what the reaction might have been to a documentary film of
the concentration camps of WWII that was narrated by the child of a
Nazi government minister, or perhaps the aftermath of Hamburg,
Darmstadt, or Rostock. Would they have been viewed as being honest? We
all know of the wild exaggeration of the casualties of Dresden,
attained by adding a zero to the official number, so it isn’t
surprising that ‘documentary films’ by the ‘victims’ might be less than
accurate portrayals of the actualité.
Israel does not permit our journalists to visit Gaza and verify the
facts and figures.
But your comparison is an interesting one. What if, after Dresden or
Hamburg, a German journalist had made a film that portrayed the
devastation and the loss of life and the charred bodies of men women and children?
No doubt the Allies would have said that all such information, all such journalism, needs to be filtered through the Americans or the UK
Ministry of Information, in order to portray events in the most
favourable light and not shock members of the public.
But sometimes there is value in showing footage of horrific scenes. The Allies did so when it suited them, notably after the concentration camps
were liberated.
Was there any "wild exaggeration" of the casualties of Dresden? Was
there exaggeration of the deaths at Hiroshima? If so, was it a devious
and dishonest attempt to mislead the world, or merely illustrative of
the difficulty of how to count corpses that are not in plain view?
A piece in the Independent probably explains it best.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-gaza-documentary-tim-davie- israel-b2708547.html
On 06/03/2025 09:22, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
An excellent documentary about the slaughter of children in Gaza (Gaza:
How to Survive a War Zone) has been pulled from iPlayer for the wholly
irrelevant reason that the child who presented the documentary is the
son of a Hamas deputy agriculture minister. It would have been a simple
matter to display a caption notifying the audience of this fact. But
there is now a pretence that the entire documentary is flawed or
dishonest. I've watched it, and there are plenty of anti-Hamas comments
in the documentary and no exhortation to destroy Israel or destroy all Jews.
One wonders what the reaction might have been to a documentary film of the >> concentration camps of WWII that was narrated by the child of a Nazi
government minister, or perhaps the aftermath of Hamburg, Darmstadt, or
Rostock. Would they have been viewed as being honest? We all know of the
wild exaggeration of the casualties of Dresden, attained by adding a zero
to the official number, so it isn’t surprising that ‘documentary films’ by
the ‘victims’ might be less than accurate portrayals of the actualité.
Israel does not permit our journalists to visit Gaza and verify the
facts and figures.
But your comparison is an interesting one. What if, after Dresden or
Hamburg, a German journalist had made a film that portrayed the
devastation and the loss of life and the charred bodies of men women and children?
No doubt the Allies would have said that all such information, all such journalism, needs to be filtered through the Americans or the UK
Ministry of Information, in order to portray events in the most
favourable light and not shock members of the public.
But sometimes there is value in showing footage of horrific scenes. The Allies did so when it suited them, notably after the concentration camps
were liberated.
Was there any "wild exaggeration" of the casualties of Dresden?
Was there exaggeration of the deaths at Hiroshima? If so, was it a devious and dishonest attempt to mislead the world, or merely illustrative of
the difficulty of how to count corpses that are not in plain view?
A piece in the Independent probably explains it best.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-gaza-documentary-tim-davie-israel-b2708547.html
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 06/03/2025 09:22, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:Israel does not permit our journalists to visit Gaza and verify the
An excellent documentary about the slaughter of children in Gaza (Gaza: >>>> How to Survive a War Zone) has been pulled from iPlayer for the wholly >>>> irrelevant reason that the child who presented the documentary is the
son of a Hamas deputy agriculture minister. It would have been a simple >>>> matter to display a caption notifying the audience of this fact. But
there is now a pretence that the entire documentary is flawed or
dishonest. I've watched it, and there are plenty of anti-Hamas comments >>>> in the documentary and no exhortation to destroy Israel or destroy all Jews.
One wonders what the reaction might have been to a documentary film of the >>> concentration camps of WWII that was narrated by the child of a Nazi
government minister, or perhaps the aftermath of Hamburg, Darmstadt, or
Rostock. Would they have been viewed as being honest? We all know of the >>> wild exaggeration of the casualties of Dresden, attained by adding a zero >>> to the official number, so it isn’t surprising that ‘documentary films’ by
the ‘victims’ might be less than accurate portrayals of the actualité. >>
facts and figures.
But your comparison is an interesting one. What if, after Dresden or
Hamburg, a German journalist had made a film that portrayed the
devastation and the loss of life and the charred bodies of men women and
children?
No doubt the Allies would have said that all such information, all such
journalism, needs to be filtered through the Americans or the UK
Ministry of Information, in order to portray events in the most
favourable light and not shock members of the public.
But sometimes there is value in showing footage of horrific scenes. The
Allies did so when it suited them, notably after the concentration camps
were liberated.
Was there any "wild exaggeration" of the casualties of Dresden?
Yes. By the time of Dresden the Nazi authorities, who had an iron grip on
the population right down to Blockleiter level, was well rehearsed in the aftermath of Allied bombing raids. Bombed-out people reported to the
nearest NSDAP Aid post for temporary papers and permits, those that went to hospital were booked in, and the Blockleiter had files on all the families
in the block. It was routine to reconcile all these sources to arrive at a figure for those not accounted for.
The wild exaggeration of the dead of Dresden came from the realisation by
the Nazis that they could use the figure as a propaganda weapon, and added
a zero to the official figure of those killed. I’ve seen mention of this false figure in this group, a testament to the willingness of people to accept propaganda as reality, and perhaps a warning to us all about blindly accepting such information.
Was there exaggeration of the deaths at Hiroshima? If so, was it a devious >> and dishonest attempt to mislead the world, or merely illustrative of
the difficulty of how to count corpses that are not in plain view?
I know nothing of Hiroshima casualty-counting.
In Nazi Germany corpse-counting was a bookkeeping exercise.
A piece in the Independent probably explains it best.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-gaza-documentary-tim-davie-israel-b2708547.html
On 06/03/2025 22:35, Spike wrote:
The wild exaggeration of the dead of Dresden came from the realisation by
the Nazis that they could use the figure as a propaganda weapon, and added >> a zero to the official figure of those killed. I’ve seen mention of this >> false figure in this group, a testament to the willingness of people to
accept propaganda as reality, and perhaps a warning to us all about blindly >> accepting such information.
I think it may have been David Irving, a Nazi apologist, who was most notorious for exaggerating the figures. But the figures were high by any standards, wholly dwarfing the numbers of those killed in the Blitz or
by German bombings elsewhere in the UK.
I think you must be wrong when you say that the figures could have been
a propaganda weapon by the Nazis. To tell their own civilians that many
tens of thousands have been killed can only damage morale and make the civilians question the competence of their leaders, surely?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 66:04:53 |
| Calls: | 9,813 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,755 |
| Messages: | 6,189,266 |