I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants
as "disgusting" it seems to me she was expressing either her own or,
perhaps,
the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected
their own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other applicable law?
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants
as "disgusting" it seems to me she was expressing either her own or,
perhaps,
the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected
their own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other applicable law?
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the disgusting
chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their own opinions
into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other applicable law?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net...
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the >>disgusting
chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as >>"disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's >>opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their >>own opinions
into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other >>applicable law?
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement
on July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ?
Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live >appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on
the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live-appearance/
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as >"offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what
possible
objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg characterised >those
chants which represented the most offensive and deplorable features of his >act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
From what you have said it appears she was expressing the BBC's opinion somy question becomes "Is what the BBC has said acceptable/allowed within
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message news:xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net...
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the disgusting
chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their own opinions
into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other applicable law?
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement
on July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ?
Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on
the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live-appearance/
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as "offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what possible objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg characterised those
chants which represented the most offensive and deplorable features of his act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
bb
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the disgusting
chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their own opinions
into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other applicable law?
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement
on July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ?
Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on
the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live-appearance/
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as "offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what possible objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg characterised those
chants which represented the most offensive and deplorable features of his act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055248$3vbi4$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net...
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to
"the disgusting
chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these
chants as "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the
BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected
their own opinions
into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or
other applicable law?
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement
on July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ?
Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live
appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on
the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live-appearance/
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as
"offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what
possible
objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg
characterised those
chants which represented the most offensive and deplorable features of
his
act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
I wasn't aware of the BBC statement.
As I said in my OP:
"On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants
as "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion."
From what you have said it appears she was expressing the BBC'smy question becomes "Is what the BBC has said acceptable/allowed within
opinion so
the BBC Charter or other applicable law?"
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or
statement is disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing an opinion presumably?
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055248$3vbi4$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net...
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the disgusting
chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as >>>"disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their own
opinions
into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other applicable
law?
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement
on July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ?
Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live >>appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on >>the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live-appearance/
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as >>"offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what possible >>objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg characterised those
chants which represented the most offensive and deplorable features of his >>act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
I wasn't aware of the BBC statement.
As I said in my OP:
"On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion."
From what you have said it appears she was expressing the BBC's opinion somy question becomes "Is what the BBC has said acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter
or other applicable law?"
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or statement is
disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing an opinion presumably?
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or >>statement is disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing an >>opinion presumably?
Your mission, should you accept it:
Define "disgust" and its derivaatives in a manner which leads to the >reasonable conclusion that it is unreasonable to be convinced that Vylan's >pronouncements were disgusting.
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or >>statement is disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing an >>opinion presumably?
Passengers on the Chatham bus come to mind.
It would be appropriate to note that the BBC has long regarded its own corporate
opinion - no matter what the subject - to be the only one to be totally acceptable and
unquestioned for use on BBC programmes and other media material. Other opinions which
vary from that of the Beeb are allowed only to the extent that they are instantly
cross-examined in some way or other.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message news:xn0p8bmie23kaf8009@news.individual.net...
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055248$3vbi4$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>news:xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net...
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement on >>>July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ?
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to
"the disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these
chants as "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the
BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected >>>>their own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or
other applicable law?
Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live >>>appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared
on the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live- appearance/
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as >>>"offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what >>>possible objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg >>>characterised those chants which represented the most offensive and >>>deplorable features of his act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
I wasn't aware of the BBC statement.
As I said in my OP:
"On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these
chants as "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's
opinion."
From what you have said it appears she was expressing the BBC's opinion >>>somy question becomes "Is what the BBC has said acceptable/allowed within
the BBC Charter or other applicable law?"
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or
statement is disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing
an opinion presumably?
The exhortation "Death, Death to the IDF" could easily be interpreted as
an incitement to commit murder.
That's not a matter of opinion; but a matter of fact.
By merely characterising it as "offensive", "deplorable" and
"disgusting" the BBC could be seen to downplaying it's actual potential,
in the hands of the BBC's many detractors.
bb
On 15/07/2025 09:05 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to
"the disgusting
chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these
chants as "disgusting"
Why do you say that, JG?
Exhoring others to kill particular people is a serious criminal offence
in itself. We know that from other cases in the news in recent months.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message news:xn0p8bmie23kaf8009@news.individual.net...
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055248$3vbi4$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net...
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the disgusting
chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as >>>> "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their own
opinions
into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other applicable
law?
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement
on July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ?
Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live
appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on >>> the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live-appearance/
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as
"offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what possible
objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg characterised those
chants which represented the most offensive and deplorable features of his >>> act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
I wasn't aware of the BBC statement.
As I said in my OP:
"On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as >> "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion."
From what you have said it appears she was expressing the BBC's opinion so >> my question becomes "Is what the BBC has said acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charteror other applicable law?"
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or statement is
disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing an opinion presumably?
The exhortation "Death, Death to the IDF" could easily be interpreted
as an incitement to commit murder.
That's not a matter of opinion; but a matter of fact.
By merely characterising it as "offensive", "deplorable" and "disgusting"
the BBC could be seen to downplaying it's actual potential, in the hands of the BBC's many detractors.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:49:04 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in messageappearance/
news:xn0p8bmie23kaf8009@news.individual.net...
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055248$3vbi4$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>news:xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net...
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement on >>>>July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ?
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to >>>>>"the disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these >>>>>chants as "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the >>>>>BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected >>>>>their own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or >>>>>other applicable law?
Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live >>>>appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared >>>>on the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live-
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as >>>>"offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what >>>>possible objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg >>>>characterised those chants which represented the most offensive and >>>>deplorable features of his act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
I wasn't aware of the BBC statement.
As I said in my OP:
"On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these
chants as "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's
opinion."
From what you have said it appears she was expressing the BBC's opinion >>>>somy question becomes "Is what the BBC has said acceptable/allowed within
the BBC Charter or other applicable law?"
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or
statement is disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing
an opinion presumably?
The exhortation "Death, Death to the IDF" could easily be interpreted as
an incitement to commit murder.
That's not a matter of opinion; but a matter of fact.
By merely characterising it as "offensive", "deplorable" and
"disgusting" the BBC could be seen to downplaying it's actual potential,
in the hands of the BBC's many detractors.
bb
So is the wild west tactics of killing children.
On 15/07/2025 in message <t71d7k50vu9615fosv28ui8kvjm59phnv2@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or
statement is disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing an >>> opinion presumably?
Passengers on the Chatham bus come to mind.
It was Clapham in my day but that route may have been discontinued :-)
On 15/07/2025 13:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p8bmie23kaf8009@news.individual.net...
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055248$3vbi4$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net...
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the disgusting
chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as
"disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their own
opinions
into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other applicable
law?
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement
on July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ?
Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live >>>> appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on >>>> the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live-appearance/
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as
"offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what possible
objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg characterised those
chants which represented the most offensive and deplorable features of his >>>> act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
I wasn't aware of the BBC statement.
As I said in my OP:
"On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as >>> "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion."
From what you have said it appears she was expressing the BBC's opinion so >>> my question becomes "Is what the BBC has said acceptable/allowed within the BBCCharter
or other applicable law?"
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or statement is
disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing an opinion presumably?
The exhortation "Death, Death to the IDF" could easily be interpreted
as an incitement to commit murder.
That's not a matter of opinion; but a matter of fact.
It's a matter of opinion, not fact.
To say "Kill an MP" is an incitement to murder. To say "Kill an Israeli soldier" is an
incitement to murder. But "Death to the IDF" is plainly a rhetorical statement in the
same league as "Death to Hamas" or "Death to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of Iran".
It incites nobody to murder. If anything it encourages resistance, even armed resistance, to a powerful militia that deserves to be fought.
By merely characterising it as "offensive", "deplorable" and "disgusting"
the BBC could be seen to downplaying it's actual potential, in the hands of >> the BBC's many detractors.
To most of the huge audience at Glastonbury, the chant wasn't offensive, deplorable or
disgusting. It was met with cheers of support.
It made people admire the band even more than before. If you disapprove, who are you to
say that your views are more valid?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message news:xn0p8bmie23kaf8009@news.individual.net...
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055248$3vbi4$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement
on July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ?
Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live
appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on >>> the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live-appearance/
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as
"offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what possible
objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg characterised those
chants which represented the most offensive and deplorable features of his >>> act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
I wasn't aware of the BBC statement.
As I said in my OP:
"On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as >> "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion."
From what you have said it appears she was expressing the BBC's opinion so >> my question becomes "Is what the BBC has said acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charteror other applicable law?"
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or statement is
disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing an opinion presumably?
The exhortation "Death, Death to the IDF" could easily be interpreted
as an incitement to commit murder.
On 15/07/2025 13:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p8bmie23kaf8009@news.individual.net...
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055248$3vbi4$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement
on July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ?
Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live >>>> appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on >>>> the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live-appearance/
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as
"offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what possible
objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg characterised those
chants which represented the most offensive and deplorable features of his >>>> act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
I wasn't aware of the BBC statement.
As I said in my OP:
"On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as >>> "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion."
From what you have said it appears she was expressing the BBC's opinion so >>> my question becomes "Is what the BBC has said acceptable/allowed within the BBCCharter
or other applicable law?"
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or statement is
disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing an opinion presumably?
The exhortation "Death, Death to the IDF" could easily be interpreted
as an incitement to commit murder.
Surely the fact that the IDF are an army makes a difference. Being killed is part of
the job, and they have lots of weapons to defend themselve with. And the Israelis
aren't our allies in a formal sense, any more than Hamas are our enemies.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdmtjsF8osnU1@mid.individual.net...
It would be appropriate to note that the BBC has long regarded its own corporate
opinion - no matter what the subject - to be the only one to be totally acceptable and
unquestioned for use on BBC programmes and other media material. Other opinions which
vary from that of the Beeb are allowed only to the extent that they are instantly
cross-examined in some way or other.
Indeed. And I would imagine that you yourself, must find such a situation truly heartbreaking.
Because clearly, if BBC employees were allowed to speak their own minds
then there would be a far greater possibility of one or them eventually "speaking out of turn"; thus allowing the likes of yourself, "The Mail",
"The Telegraph" and assorted Murdoch rags to demand their immediate dismissal; the immediate closure of the BBC; and a refund of your Licence Fees.
On 15/07/2025 in message <mdn0rvF993gU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or
statement is disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing an >>> opinion presumably?
Your mission, should you accept it:
Define "disgust" and its derivaatives in a manner which leads to the
reasonable conclusion that it is unreasonable to be convinced that
Vylan's pronouncements were disgusting.
Here is an attempt by me to face the challenge and explain why I don't
find Vylan's chant disgusting.
"Disgusting" Internet definition:
arousing revulsion or strong indignation
synonym: revolting
Comparison with Lucy Connolly case
According to the Independent* Lucy Connolly had tweeted to her 9,000 followers: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels
full of the b******* for all I care, while you’re at it take the
treacherous government and politicians with them.
I can't remember if it was in here or on a Facebook group that somebody
said she had received a heavy sentence because there was a serious possibility her words would lead to violence, and quoted the Serious
Crime Act 2007.
Bob Vylan chanted "Death to the IDF" during a stage act at Glastonbury.
A comparison of the seriousness of the two statements to me would be 50
out of a hundred for Lucy Connolly and 1 out of a hundred for Bob Vylan,
on a par with "ding dong the witch is dead".
In short Vylan's chant doesn't engender revulsion or strong indignation
in me
On 15/07/2025 04:11 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It is certainly a matter of great concern that the BBC, which within
easy living memry, was politically neutral, is now so formly aligned
with the liberal left and the guardian,
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 14:00:09 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2025 04:11 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It is certainly a matter of great concern that the BBC, which within
easy living memry, was politically neutral, is now so formly aligned
with the liberal left and the guardian,
Indeed - the hard time they give that poor Mr. Farage on the very rare occasion they deign to allow him a few seconds on our screens compared to
the endless soft soaping of Labour and their froth with no real analysis
of their policies is a shameful disgrace.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:10584ds$lpo5$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/07/2025 13:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p8bmie23kaf8009@news.individual.net...
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055248$3vbi4$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement >>>>> on July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ? >>>>> Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live >>>>> appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on >>>>> the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live-appearance/
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as
"offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what possible
objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg characterised those
chants which represented the most offensive and deplorable features of his
act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
I wasn't aware of the BBC statement.
As I said in my OP:
"On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as
"disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion."
From what you have said it appears she was expressing the BBC's opinion somy question becomes "Is what the BBC has said acceptable/allowed within the BBC
Charter
or other applicable law?"
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or statement is
disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing an opinion presumably?
The exhortation "Death, Death to the IDF" could easily be interpreted
as an incitement to commit murder.
Surely the fact that the IDF are an army makes a difference. Being killed is part of
the job, and they have lots of weapons to defend themselve with. And the Israelis
aren't our allies in a formal sense, any more than Hamas are our enemies.
I think you've missed out the second, and third lines.
Death, death to the IDF !
But only in accordance with the Geneva Convention !
Otherwise it's murder !
On 16/07/2025 13:40, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:10584ds$lpo5$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/07/2025 13:49, billy bookcase wrote:I think you've missed out the second, and third lines.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p8bmie23kaf8009@news.individual.net...
On 15/07/2025 in message <1055248$3vbi4$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
You do realise I take it. that the BBC themselves issued a statement >>>>>> on July 3rd, in response to the reaction to Bob Vylan's appearance ? >>>>>> Part of which read as follows :
quote:
We fully understand the strength of feeling regarding Bob Vylan's live >>>>>> appearance at Glastonbury on the BBC.
We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on
the BBC.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/bob-vylan-glastonbury-live-appearance/
So that if the BBC were already describing Bob Vylan's behaviour as >>>>>> "offensive" and "deplorable" on July 3rd, its difficult to see what possible
objection you can have, when 10 days later Laura Kuenssberg characterised those
chants which represented the most offensive and deplorable features of his
act, as "disgusting"
Let alone that this in some way ran contrary to the BBC Charter.
I wasn't aware of the BBC statement.
As I said in my OP:
"On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as
"disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion."
From what you have said it appears she was expressing the BBC's opinion somy question becomes "Is what the BBC has said acceptable/allowed within the BBC
Charter
or other applicable law?"
And, perhaps, is there a definitive way of deciding that a chant or statement is
disgusting, if not the BBC can only have been expressing an opinion presumably?
The exhortation "Death, Death to the IDF" could easily be interpreted
as an incitement to commit murder.
Surely the fact that the IDF are an army makes a difference. Being killed is part of
the job, and they have lots of weapons to defend themselve with. And the Israelis
aren't our allies in a formal sense, any more than Hamas are our enemies. >>
Death, death to the IDF !
But only in accordance with the Geneva Convention !
Otherwise it's murder !
Soldiers don't consult the Geneva Convention before killing their enemies.
And Bob Vylan, and most of his audience, didn't carry guns.
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent reason for BBC
vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent
reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The
Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
Presumably you were unaware of the fact; but both "The Times" and "The Telegraph"
are behind Paywalls.
Which would tend to limit their attractiveness to impecunious
job-seekers.
And thus their usefulness to employers hoping to attact those self-same impecunious job-seekers.
Whereas "The Guardian" is not.
Which in fact may have been one of the factors behind the "Guardian's'" decision not to institute a Paywall. So as to attract more advertising
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent reason for BBC
vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
Presumably you were unaware of the fact; but both "The Times" and "The Telegraph"
are behind Paywalls.
Which would tend to limit their attractiveness to impecunious job-seekers.
And thus their usefulness to employers hoping to attact those self-same impecunious
job-seekers.
Whereas "The Guardian" is not.
Which in fact may have been one of the factors behind the "Guardian's'" decision
not to institute a Paywall. So as to attract more advertising
Happy To Help. (As always)
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:49:01 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent
reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The
Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
Presumably you were unaware of the fact; but both "The Times" and "The
Telegraph"
are behind Paywalls.
Which would tend to limit their attractiveness to impecunious
job-seekers.
And thus their usefulness to employers hoping to attact those self-same
impecunious job-seekers.
Whereas "The Guardian" is not.
Which in fact may have been one of the factors behind the "Guardian's'"
decision not to institute a Paywall. So as to attract more advertising
Another explanation is that people who read the Times and Telegraph don't
get their jobs through interviews but by knowing people.
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent reason for BBC
vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent reason for BBC
vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
Presumably you were unaware of the fact; but both "The Times" and "The Telegraph"
are behind Paywalls.
On the internet, you mean?
Certainly not "behind a paywall" at news-stands and wnewsagents' shops. The conditions
for getting copies of The Times, The Telegraph and The Grauniad are ientical there -
and always have been
You Do remember those days, yes? And paper, and ink?
As you already knew, the BBC's discrimatory policy has been running for decades, long
pre-dating the internet.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent reason for BBC
vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
Presumably you were unaware of the fact; but both "The Times" and "The Telegraph"
are behind Paywalls.
On the internet, you mean?
Certainly not "behind a paywall" at news-stands and wnewsagents' shops. The conditions
for getting copies of The Times, The Telegraph and The Grauniad are ientical there -
and always have been
Why should impecunious job seekers pay out good money every day for
print copies of the "Times" or the "Telegraph", when they can access
the "Guardian" Jobs pages online, for free ?
Why should impecunious job seekers pay out good money every day for
print copies of the "Times" or the "Telegraph", when they can access
the "Guardian" Jobs pages online, for free ?
Whatever the answer to that question (and whatever the true status of
BBC jobseekers whom you describe, in rather unlikely terms, as >"impecunious"), the Graun ahas been at it - that is, recruiting only
Guardian readers - for many decades.
On 17/07/2025 04:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent reason for BBC
vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
Presumably you were unaware of the fact; but both "The Times" and "The Telegraph"
are behind Paywalls.
On the internet, you mean?
Certainly not "behind a paywall" at news-stands and wnewsagents' shops. The >>> conditions
for getting copies of The Times, The Telegraph and The Grauniad are ientical there -
and always have been
Why should impecunious job seekers pay out good money every day for
print copies of the "Times" or the "Telegraph", when they can access
the "Guardian" Jobs pages online, for free ?
Whatever the answer to that question (and whatever the true status of BBC jobseekers
whom you describe, in rather unlikely terms, as "impecunious"), the Graun ahas been at
it - that is, recruiting only Guardian readers - for many decades.
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on Thu, 17
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent reason for BBC
vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for senior
managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally advertised
only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times
Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all your
target audience will be assiduously scanning the one appropriate
publication every week?
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, was the >Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to rent a flat in >London,
In message <mdtfofFbss3U1@mid.individual.net>, at 00:36:47 on Fri, 18
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
Why should impecunious job seekers pay out good money every day for
print copies of the "Times" or the "Telegraph", when they can access
the "Guardian" Jobs pages online, for free ?
Whatever the answer to that question (and whatever the true status of
BBC jobseekers whom you describe, in rather unlikely terms, as
"impecunious"), the Graun ahas been at it - that is, recruiting only
Guardian readers - for many decades.
They are not Guardian *readers* they are Guardian *buyers*, who might
easily obtain a copy just for the job adverts (and of course the
crossword). And maybe the TV listings and the weather forecast.
When I used to buy the Sunday Times to look for jobs, it was about two
inches thick (folded) and I threw away all but the jobs section, unread. Simply didn't have the time. Correction: I used to read the "Rich List"
once a year.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdtfofFbss3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 04:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent reason for BBC
vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
Presumably you were unaware of the fact; but both "The Times" and "The Telegraph"
are behind Paywalls.
On the internet, you mean?
Certainly not "behind a paywall" at news-stands and wnewsagents' shops. The
conditions
for getting copies of The Times, The Telegraph and The Grauniad are ientical there -
and always have been
Why should impecunious job seekers pay out good money every day for
print copies of the "Times" or the "Telegraph", when they can access
the "Guardian" Jobs pages online, for free ?
Whatever the answer to that question (and whatever the true status of BBC jobseekers
whom you describe, in rather unlikely terms, as "impecunious"), the Graun ahas been at
it - that is, recruiting only Guardian readers - for many decades.
But still no actual evidence for your claim.
Which does also raise the question as to how anyone could arrive at
such a conclusion, in the first place
By buying all three newapapaers over decades, and then scupululously
checking each one on a daily basis, for the presence or absence of BBC recruiting adveruisements ?
Seriously ?
Why should impecunious job seekers pay out good money every day for
print copies of the "Times" or the "Telegraph", when they can access
the "Guardian" Jobs pages online, for free ?
Whatever the answer to that question (and whatever the true status of
BBC jobseekers whom you describe, in rather unlikely terms, as
"impecunious"), the Graun ahas been at it - that is, recruiting only
Guardian readers - for many decades.
They are not Guardian *readers* they are Guardian *buyers*, who might
easily obtain a copy just for the job adverts (and of course the
crossword). And maybe the TV listings and the weather forecast.
When I used to buy the Sunday Times to look for jobs, it was about two
inches thick (folded) and I threw away all but the jobs section, unread.
Simply didn't have the time. Correction: I used to read the "Rich List"
once a year.
Do you say that many Guardian "buyers" don't read the publication?
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on Thu, 17
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent reason for BBC
vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for senior
managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally advertised
only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times
Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all your
target audience will be assiduously scanning the one appropriate
publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular type of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other paid content (general advertising). And once you have a reputation for being the place people will look for these adverts, then the advertisers will focus on putting them in your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, was the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to rent a flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because that's where all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you wanted to find a tenant for, you had to advertise it in the Standard because that's where everybody was looking.
In message <mdum1lFhv5hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:13 on Fri, 18
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
Why should impecunious job seekers pay out good money every day for
print copies of the "Times" or the "Telegraph", when they can access >>>>> the "Guardian" Jobs pages online, for free ?
Whatever the answer to that question (and whatever the true status of
BBC jobseekers whom you describe, in rather unlikely terms, as
"impecunious"), the Graun ahas been at it - that is, recruiting only
Guardian readers - for many decades.
They are not Guardian *readers* they are Guardian *buyers*, who might
easily obtain a copy just for the job adverts (and of course the
crossword). And maybe the TV listings and the weather forecast.
When I used to buy the Sunday Times to look for jobs, it was about two
inches thick (folded) and I threw away all but the jobs section, unread. >>> Simply didn't have the time. Correction: I used to read the "Rich List"
once a year.
Do you say that many Guardian "buyers" don't read the publication?
I have said, without any ambiguity, that many only buy it to read the
job adverts.
On 18/07/2025 05:09 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mdum1lFhv5hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:13 on Fri, 18
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
Why should impecunious job seekers pay out good money every day for >>>>>> print copies of the "Times" or the "Telegraph", when they can access >>>>>> the "Guardian" Jobs pages online, for free ?
Whatever the answer to that question (and whatever the true status of >>>>> BBC jobseekers whom you describe, in rather unlikely terms, as
"impecunious"), the Graun ahas been at it - that is, recruiting only >>>>> Guardian readers - for many decades.
They are not Guardian *readers* they are Guardian *buyers*, who might
easily obtain a copy just for the job adverts (and of course the
crossword). And maybe the TV listings and the weather forecast.
When I used to buy the Sunday Times to look for jobs, it was about two >>>> inches thick (folded) and I threw away all but the jobs section, unread. >>>> Simply didn't have the time. Correction: I used to read the "Rich List" >>>> once a year.
Do you say that many Guardian "buyers" don't read the publication?
I have said, without any ambiguity, that many only buy it to read the
job adverts.
Ah... that "many" again. Just like "often", it does so much heavy lifting.
Could you quantify "many", please?
1%?
Less than that?
More than that?
On 18/07/2025 09:59 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtfofFbss3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 04:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent reason for
BBC
vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
Presumably you were unaware of the fact; but both "The Times" and "The Telegraph"
are behind Paywalls.
On the internet, you mean?
Certainly not "behind a paywall" at news-stands and wnewsagents' shops. The
conditions
for getting copies of The Times, The Telegraph and The Grauniad are ientical
there -
and always have been
Why should impecunious job seekers pay out good money every day for
print copies of the "Times" or the "Telegraph", when they can access
the "Guardian" Jobs pages online, for free ?
Whatever the answer to that question (and whatever the true status of BBC jobseekers
whom you describe, in rather unlikely terms, as "impecunious"), the Graun ahas been
at
it - that is, recruiting only Guardian readers - for many decades.
But still no actual evidence for your claim.
Which does also raise the question as to how anyone could arrive at
such a conclusion, in the first place
By buying all three newapapaers over decades, and then scupululously
checking each one on a daily basis, for the presence or absence of BBC
recruiting adveruisements ?
Seriously ?
Which bit of "the BBC only advertises BBC jobs in The Guardian" is too complicated for
you?
In message <mdvcsrFll45U2@mid.individual.net>, at 18:00:10 on Fri, 18
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/07/2025 05:09 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mdum1lFhv5hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:30:13 on Fri, 18
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
Why should impecunious job seekers pay out good money every day for >>>>>>> print copies of the "Times" or the "Telegraph", when they can access >>>>>>> the "Guardian" Jobs pages online, for free ?
Whatever the answer to that question (and whatever the true status of >>>>>> BBC jobseekers whom you describe, in rather unlikely terms, as
"impecunious"), the Graun ahas been at it - that is, recruiting only >>>>>> Guardian readers - for many decades.
They are not Guardian *readers* they are Guardian *buyers*, who might >>>>> easily obtain a copy just for the job adverts (and of course the
crossword). And maybe the TV listings and the weather forecast.
When I used to buy the Sunday Times to look for jobs, it was about two >>>>> inches thick (folded) and I threw away all but the jobs section,
unread.
Simply didn't have the time. Correction: I used to read the "Rich
List"
once a year.
Do you say that many Guardian "buyers" don't read the publication?
I have said, without any ambiguity, that many only buy it to read the
job adverts.
Ah... that "many" again. Just like "often", it does so much heavy
lifting.
Could you quantify "many", please?
1%?
Less than that?
More than that?
The Guardian (and its advertisers) would know. My finger in the air
estimate would be probably 30% and of course different classes of job
are advertised on different days, so they'll only be buying one copy a
week. Therefore even *if* they read the editorial too, that's only a
sixth of the paper's output.
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as "disgusting" it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other applicable law?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdum57Fhv5hU2@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:59 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtfofFbss3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 04:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an
innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The
Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
Presumably you were unaware of the fact; but both "The Times" and >>>>>>> "The Telegraph"
are behind Paywalls.
On the internet, you mean?
Certainly not "behind a paywall" at news-stands and wnewsagents'
shops. The conditions for getting copies of The Times, The
Telegraph and The Grauniad are ientical there -
and always have been
Why should impecunious job seekers pay out good money every day for
print copies of the "Times" or the "Telegraph", when they can access >>>>> the "Guardian" Jobs pages online, for free ?
Whatever the answer to that question (and whatever the true status of
BBC jobseekers whom you describe, in rather unlikely terms, as
"impecunious"), the Graun ahas been at it - that is, recruiting only
Guardian readers - for many decades.
But still no actual evidence for your claim.
Which does also raise the question as to how anyone could arrive at
such a conclusion, in the first place
By buying all three newapapaers over decades, and then scupululously
checking each one on a daily basis, for the presence or absence of BBC
recruiting adveruisements ?
Seriously ?
Which bit of "the BBC only advertises BBC jobs in The Guardian" is too
complicated for you?
I'm asking you for your *evidence*, in support of that claim.
And no; not some insubstantiated claim made by some headbanger on some website or other.
Your motivation is clear; your all too evident anumus towards the BBC.
So that as a result, unless you can produce *actual evidence* in support
of your claim, then it can be simply dismissed as yet another product of
your fervered imagination
Is that clear enough for you ?
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the
disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as >> "disgusting" it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, >> the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their >> own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other
applicable law?
People might be aware of the recent rioting outside a hotel in the Essex
town of Epping, allegedly due to the charging of one of the people staying there with sex crimes in relation to a 14-year-old girl.
A BBC report on the incident spent many paragraphs describing the rioters attacks on the police. One very short paragraph, buried deep in the reporting, mentioned some of the man’s name, but with no other information apart from a reference to the charges he faces.
The article referred once to the hotel as â€suspected’ of being an immigrant
hotel.
The briefest of web searches will find the the leader of the local
authority has for some time been claiming that the use of the hotel for immigrants is inappropriate for the area, having previously written to the Home Office giving among his reasons the lack of support available locally for the needs of those immigrants.
The BBC article is clearly structured to maximise the bad side of the rioters, as little reference was made to the 100+ local people who had been protesting peacefully for the previous two days, and to minimise almost to the point of invisibility the suspect and his alleged crimes.
Balanced reporting? Hardly, it would seem. It might be in the BBC’s charter, but would seem to be honoured only in the breach.
Time to defund the BBC, perhaps.
On 19 Jul 2025 at 11:00:59 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the
disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as >>> "disgusting" it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, >>> the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their >>> own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other
applicable law?
People might be aware of the recent rioting outside a hotel in the Essex
town of Epping, allegedly due to the charging of one of the people staying >> there with sex crimes in relation to a 14-year-old girl.
A BBC report on the incident spent many paragraphs describing the rioters
attacks on the police. One very short paragraph, buried deep in the
reporting, mentioned some of the man’s name, but with no other information >> apart from a reference to the charges he faces.
The article referred once to the hotel as â€suspected’ of being an immigrant
hotel.
The briefest of web searches will find the the leader of the local
authority has for some time been claiming that the use of the hotel for
immigrants is inappropriate for the area, having previously written to the >> Home Office giving among his reasons the lack of support available locally >> for the needs of those immigrants.
The BBC article is clearly structured to maximise the bad side of the
rioters, as little reference was made to the 100+ local people who had been >> protesting peacefully for the previous two days, and to minimise almost to >> the point of invisibility the suspect and his alleged crimes.
Balanced reporting? Hardly, it would seem. It might be in the BBC’s
charter, but would seem to be honoured only in the breach.
Time to defund the BBC, perhaps.
You are aware of sub-judice rules when people have been charged? It seems that
they published all that they are legally allowed to publish about the case. But don't let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Do you say that many Guardian "buyers" don't read the publication?
I have said, without any ambiguity, that many only buy it to read the
job adverts.
Ah... that "many" again. Just like "often", it does so much heavy
lifting.
Could you quantify "many", please?
1%?
Less than that?
More than that?
The Guardian (and its advertisers) would know. My finger in the air
estimate would be probably 30% and of course different classes of job
are advertised on different days, so they'll only be buying one copy a
week. Therefore even *if* they read the editorial too, that's only a
sixth of the paper's output.
I have to hand it to you, that is one of the best data-free standpoints
I've seen here for some time. Well done! :-)
On 19 Jul 2025 at 11:00:59 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the
disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as >>> "disgusting" it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, >>> the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their >>> own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other
applicable law?
People might be aware of the recent rioting outside a hotel in the Essex
town of Epping, allegedly due to the charging of one of the people staying >> there with sex crimes in relation to a 14-year-old girl.
A BBC report on the incident spent many paragraphs describing the rioters
attacks on the police. One very short paragraph, buried deep in the
reporting, mentioned some of the man’s name, but with no other information >> apart from a reference to the charges he faces.
The article referred once to the hotel as â€suspected’ of being an immigrant
hotel.
The briefest of web searches will find the the leader of the local
authority has for some time been claiming that the use of the hotel for
immigrants is inappropriate for the area, having previously written to the >> Home Office giving among his reasons the lack of support available locally >> for the needs of those immigrants.
The BBC article is clearly structured to maximise the bad side of the
rioters, as little reference was made to the 100+ local people who had been >> protesting peacefully for the previous two days, and to minimise almost to >> the point of invisibility the suspect and his alleged crimes.
Balanced reporting? Hardly, it would seem. It might be in the BBC’s
charter, but would seem to be honoured only in the breach.
Time to defund the BBC, perhaps.
You are aware of sub-judice rules when people have been charged? It seems that
they published all that they are legally allowed to publish about the case. But don't let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
In message <me17b9FfftU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:37:45 on Sat, 19 Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
Do you say that many Guardian "buyers" don't read the publication?
I have said, without any ambiguity, that many only buy it to read the >>>>> job adverts.
Ah... that "many" again. Just like "often", it does so much heavy
lifting.
Could you quantify "many", please?
1%?
Less than that?
More than that?
The Guardian (and its advertisers) would know. My finger in the air
estimate would be probably 30% and of course different classes of job
are advertised on different days, so they'll only be buying one copy a
week. Therefore even *if* they read the editorial too, that's only a
sixth of the paper's output.
I have to hand it to you, that is one of the best data-free
standpoints I've seen here for some time. Well done! :-)
I was married to someone for 35yrs who was once a media buyer with a
degree in advertising and marketing, and later went on to work in PR and journalism in the UK. So some of the flavour rubs off.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on Thu, 17
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an
innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The
Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for senior
managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally advertised
only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times
Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all your
target audience will be assiduously scanning the one appropriate
publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular type
of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also
increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other paid
content (general advertising). And once you have a reputation for
being the place people will look for these adverts, then the
advertisers will focus on putting them in your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, was
the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to rent a
flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because that's where
all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you wanted to find a
tenant for, you had to advertise it in the Standard because that's
where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by private >>individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in Northern Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment ads in both a 'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not to run foul of fair emplyment legislation.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:10:35 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on Thu, 17 >>>>> Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an
innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The
Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for senior >>>>> managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally advertised >>>>> only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the paper's politics. >>>>>
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times
Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all your
target audience will be assiduously scanning the one appropriate
publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular type >>>> of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also
increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other paid
content (general advertising). And once you have a reputation for
being the place people will look for these adverts, then the
advertisers will focus on putting them in your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, was
the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to rent a
flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because that's where
all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you wanted to find a
tenant for, you had to advertise it in the Standard because that's
where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by private
individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in Northern
Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment ads in both a
'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not to run foul of fair
emplyment legislation.
NI is a special place for the equality act. As a few recruitment systems
have discovered to their cost.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on Thu, 17
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an innocent reason for BBC
vacancies being advertised in The Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for senior
managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally advertised
only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times
Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all your
target audience will be assiduously scanning the one appropriate
publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular type of >>> paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also increasing the >>> views of your own content (reportage) and other paid content (general
advertising). And once you have a reputation for being the place people will
look for these adverts, then the advertisers will focus on putting them in >>> your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, was the >>> Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to rent a flat in >>> London, you needed to buy the Standard, because that's where all the adverts
were. And if you had a flat you wanted to find a tenant for, you had to
advertise it in the Standard because that's where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by private
individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in
Northern Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment ads
in both a 'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not to run
foul of fair emplyment legislation.
The BBC is not part of the private sector. And it indiscrimately takes
the money of readers of the Times, the Daily Telegraph, I, the Daily
Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Sun, the Financial Times, the Daily Express,
the Daily Star and the Morning Star (and the free papers). It will even
prosecute any reader of any of those (or the Guardian) if it has reason
to believe that they have dared to watch a programme on ITV or Channel 4
without possessing a BBC Tax Certificate.
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the >disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as >"disgusting" it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, >the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their >own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other >applicable law?
On 14/07/2025 in message <xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I made a complaint to the BBC about this and they have said:
On 31/07/2025 09:16 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:10:35 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on Thu, >>>>>> 17 Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an
innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The
Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for
senior managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally
advertised only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the
paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times
Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all your >>>>>> target audience will be assiduously scanning the one appropriate
publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular
type of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also
increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other paid
content (general advertising). And once you have a reputation for
being the place people will look for these adverts, then the
advertisers will focus on putting them in your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet,
was the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to
rent a flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because
that's where all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you wanted
to find a tenant for, you had to advertise it in the Standard
because that's where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by private
individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in
Northern Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment ads
in both a 'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not to run
foul of fair emplyment legislation.
NI is a special place for the equality act. As a few recruitment
systems have discovered to their cost.
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
On 14/07/2025 in message <xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net> Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the disgusting
chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants as "disgusting"
it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, perhaps, the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected their own opinions
into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other applicable law?
I made a complaint to the BBC about this and they have said:
****
Laura Kuenssberg wasn't expressing a viewpoint on the Israel-Gaza war. Her use of the
word "hideous" was specifically in reference to the comments made by Bob Vylan at
Glastonbury. Given the band have been accused of inciting violence at the festival,
after leading chants of "death, death to the IDF", we believe Laura's remark was duly
impartial.
You may be interested in the BBC statement on Bob Vylan's appearance at Glastonbury:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/glastonbury-2025
****
The BBC statement includes:
"The antisemitic sentiments expressed by Bob Vylan were utterly unacceptable"
Based on what I have read in here I am confused as to why the BBC calls the remarks
antisemitic bearing in mind the ICHR says:
"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot
be regarded as antisemitic"
Vylan's criticism was of the IDF.
On 14/07/2025 in message <xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the >>disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants
as "disgusting" it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, >>perhaps,
the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected
their own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other >>applicable law?
I made a complaint to the BBC about this
and they have said:impartial.
****
Laura Kuenssberg wasnÂ’t expressing a viewpoint on the Israel-Gaza war.
Her use of the word “hideous” was specifically in reference to the
comments made by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury. Given the band have been
accused of inciting violence at the festival, after leading chants of “death, death to the IDF”, we believe Laura’s remark was duly
You may be interested in the BBC statement on Bob VylanÂ’s appearance at Glastonbury:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/glastonbury-2025
****
The BBC statement includes:
"The antisemitic sentiments expressed by Bob Vylan were utterly
unacceptable"
Based on what I have read in here I am confused as to why the BBC calls
the remarks antisemitic bearing in mind the ICHR says:
"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic"
Vylan's criticism was of the IDF.
Can anybody give me some guidance?
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 12:14:11 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2025 09:16 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:10:35 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>> wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on Thu, >>>>>>> 17 Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an >>>>>>>>>> innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The
Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for
senior managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally >>>>>>> advertised only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the
paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times >>>>>>> Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all your >>>>>>> target audience will be assiduously scanning the one appropriate >>>>>>> publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular
type of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also
increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other paid >>>>>> content (general advertising). And once you have a reputation for
being the place people will look for these adverts, then the
advertisers will focus on putting them in your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet,
was the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to >>>>>> rent a flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because
that's where all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you wanted >>>>>> to find a tenant for, you had to advertise it in the Standard
because that's where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by private >>>>> individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in
Northern Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment ads
in both a 'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not to run
foul of fair emplyment legislation.
NI is a special place for the equality act. As a few recruitment
systems have discovered to their cost.
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
I suggest you read a history of Ireland from Cromwell to the present day.
On 01/08/2025 04:19 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 12:14:11 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2025 09:16 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:10:35 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>> wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on Thu, >>>>>>>> 17 Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an >>>>>>>>>>> innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The >>>>>>>>>>> Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for
senior managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally >>>>>>>> advertised only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the >>>>>>>> paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times >>>>>>>> Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all your >>>>>>>> target audience will be assiduously scanning the one appropriate >>>>>>>> publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular >>>>>>> type of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also >>>>>>> increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other paid >>>>>>> content (general advertising). And once you have a reputation for >>>>>>> being the place people will look for these adverts, then the
advertisers will focus on putting them in your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, >>>>>>> was the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to >>>>>>> rent a flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because
that's where all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you wanted >>>>>>> to find a tenant for, you had to advertise it in the Standard
because that's where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by private >>>>>> individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in
Northern Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment ads >>>>> in both a 'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not to run >>>>> foul of fair emplyment legislation.
NI is a special place for the equality act. As a few recruitment
systems have discovered to their cost.
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
I suggest you read a history of Ireland from Cromwell to the present day.
Woud it not be possible to just answer the question?
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
On 01/08/2025 04:19 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 12:14:11 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2025 09:16 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:10:35 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>> wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on Thu, >>>>>>>> 17 Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an >>>>>>>>>>> innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The >>>>>>>>>>> Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for
senior managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally >>>>>>>> advertised only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the >>>>>>>> paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times >>>>>>>> Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all your >>>>>>>> target audience will be assiduously scanning the one appropriate >>>>>>>> publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular >>>>>>> type of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also >>>>>>> increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other paid >>>>>>> content (general advertising). And once you have a reputation for >>>>>>> being the place people will look for these adverts, then the
advertisers will focus on putting them in your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, >>>>>>> was the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to >>>>>>> rent a flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because
that's where all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you wanted >>>>>>> to find a tenant for, you had to advertise it in the Standard
because that's where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by private >>>>>> individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in
Northern Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment ads >>>>> in both a 'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not to run >>>>> foul of fair emplyment legislation.
NI is a special place for the equality act. As a few recruitment
systems have discovered to their cost.
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
I suggest you read a history of Ireland from Cromwell to the present day.
Woud it not be possible to just answer the question?
Is there any good reason why discrimination [is] forbidden and policed in Northern
Ireland should be allowed
and even encouraged - in the rest of the UK?
On 1 Aug 2025 12:02:59 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net> Jeff >>Gaines wrote:
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the >>>disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants >>>as "disgusting" it seems to me she was expressing either her own or, >>>perhaps,
the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected >>>their own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other >>>applicable law?
I made a complaint to the BBC about this
What exactly did you write? The BBC answer states "Laura Kuenssberg wasn't >expressing a viewpoint on the Israel-Gaza war"; did you say she was?
and they have said:impartial.
****
Laura Kuenssberg wasnÂ’t expressing a viewpoint on the Israel-Gaza war.
Her use of the word “hideous” was specifically in reference to the >>comments made by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury. Given the band have been
accused of inciting violence at the festival, after leading chants of >>“death, death to the IDF”, we believe Laura’s remark was duly
You may be interested in the BBC statement on Bob VylanÂ’s appearance at >>Glastonbury:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/glastonbury-2025
****
The BBC statement includes:
"The antisemitic sentiments expressed by Bob Vylan were utterly >>unacceptable"
Based on what I have read in here I am confused as to why the BBC calls
the remarks antisemitic bearing in mind the ICHR says:
"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other >>country cannot be regarded as antisemitic"
Vylan's criticism was of the IDF.
Can anybody give me some guidance?
On 01/08/2025 04:19 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 12:14:11 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2025 09:16 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:10:35 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>> wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on Thu, >>>>>>>> 17 Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an >>>>>>>>>>> innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The >>>>>>>>>>> Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for
senior managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally >>>>>>>> advertised only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the >>>>>>>> paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times >>>>>>>> Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all your >>>>>>>> target audience will be assiduously scanning the one appropriate >>>>>>>> publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular >>>>>>> type of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also >>>>>>> increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other paid >>>>>>> content (general advertising). And once you have a reputation for >>>>>>> being the place people will look for these adverts, then the
advertisers will focus on putting them in your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, >>>>>>> was the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to >>>>>>> rent a flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because
that's where all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you wanted >>>>>>> to find a tenant for, you had to advertise it in the Standard
because that's where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by private >>>>>> individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in
Northern Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment ads >>>>> in both a 'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not to run >>>>> foul of fair emplyment legislation.
NI is a special place for the equality act. As a few recruitment
systems have discovered to their cost.
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
I suggest you read a history of Ireland from Cromwell to the present day.
Woud it not be possible to just answer the question?
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
On 01/08/2025 04:19 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 12:14:11 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2025 09:16 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:10:35 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>> wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on
Thu, 17 Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an >>>>>>>>>>> innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The >>>>>>>>>>> Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for
senior managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally >>>>>>>> advertised only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the >>>>>>>> paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times >>>>>>>> Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all >>>>>>>> your target audience will be assiduously scanning the one
appropriate publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular >>>>>>> type of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also >>>>>>> increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other
paid content (general advertising). And once you have a reputation >>>>>>> for being the place people will look for these adverts, then the >>>>>>> advertisers will focus on putting them in your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, >>>>>>> was the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to >>>>>>> rent a flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because
that's where all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you
wanted to find a tenant for, you had to advertise it in the
Standard because that's where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by
private individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in
Northern Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment ads >>>>> in both a 'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not to run >>>>> foul of fair emplyment legislation.
NI is a special place for the equality act. As a few recruitment
systems have discovered to their cost.
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
I suggest you read a history of Ireland from Cromwell to the present
day.
Woud it not be possible to just answer the question?
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
On 1 Aug 2025 at 18:43:16 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/08/2025 04:19 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 12:14:11 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2025 09:16 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:10:35 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry
<roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on >>>>>>>>> Thu, 17 Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an >>>>>>>>>>>> innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The >>>>>>>>>>>> Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for >>>>>>>>> senior managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were
normally advertised only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective >>>>>>>>> of the paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times >>>>>>>>> Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all >>>>>>>>> your target audience will be assiduously scanning the one
appropriate publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular >>>>>>>> type of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also >>>>>>>> increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other >>>>>>>> paid content (general advertising). And once you have a
reputation for being the place people will look for these
adverts, then the advertisers will focus on putting them in your >>>>>>>> publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, >>>>>>>> was the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted >>>>>>>> to rent a flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because >>>>>>>> that's where all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you
wanted to find a tenant for, you had to advertise it in the
Standard because that's where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by
private individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in
Northern Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment
ads in both a 'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not
to run foul of fair emplyment legislation.
NI is a special place for the equality act. As a few recruitment
systems have discovered to their cost.
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the
rest of the UK?
I suggest you read a history of Ireland from Cromwell to the present
day.
Woud it not be possible to just answer the question?
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
Why should *he* answer your question, which is obviously best addressed
to the UK government?
On 01/08/2025 in message <106ioae$gd5b$1@dont-email.me> Handsome Jackat
wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 12:02:59 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net> Jeff >>>Gaines wrote:
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to
"the disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these
chants as "disgusting" it seems to me she was expressing either her
own or, perhaps,
the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected >>>>their own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or
other applicable law?
I made a complaint to the BBC about this
What exactly did you write? The BBC answer states "Laura Kuenssberg
wasn't expressing a viewpoint on the Israel-Gaza war"; did you say she
was?
and they have said:
****
Laura Kuenssberg wasn’t expressing a viewpoint on the Israel-Gaza war. >>>Her use of the word “hideous” was specifically in reference to the >>>comments made by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury. Given the band have been >>>accused of inciting violence at the festival, after leading chants of >>>“death, death to the IDF”, we believe Laura’s remark was duly >>impartial.
You may be interested in the BBC statement on Bob VylanÂ’s appearance
Glastonbury:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/glastonbury-2025
****
The BBC statement includes:
"The antisemitic sentiments expressed by Bob Vylan were utterly >>>unacceptable"
Based on what I have read in here I am confused as to why the BBC calls >>>the remarks antisemitic bearing in mind the ICHR says:
"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other >>>country cannot be regarded as antisemitic"
Vylan's criticism was of the IDF.
Can anybody give me some guidance?
I should have included my complaint:
Title Biased expression of opinion by presenter
Complaint During this broadcast Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the
disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
It is not her role, nor the role of the BBC, to decide what is
disgusting nor to use a broadcast to express her opinion.
There is a lot of sympathy for what is happening to civilians in Gaza
and consequently a lot of disgust at the actions of Israel and its
troops.
On 01/08/2025 18:43, JNugent wrote:
On 01/08/2025 04:19 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 12:14:11 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2025 09:16 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:10:35 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>>> wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on Thu, >>>>>>>>> 17 Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an >>>>>>>>>>>> innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The >>>>>>>>>>>> Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for >>>>>>>>> senior managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally >>>>>>>>> advertised only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the >>>>>>>>> paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times >>>>>>>>> Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all >>>>>>>>> your
target audience will be assiduously scanning the one appropriate >>>>>>>>> publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular >>>>>>>> type of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also >>>>>>>> increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other paid >>>>>>>> content (general advertising). And once you have a reputation for >>>>>>>> being the place people will look for these adverts, then the
advertisers will focus on putting them in your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, >>>>>>>> was the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to >>>>>>>> rent a flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because >>>>>>>> that's where all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you wanted >>>>>>>> to find a tenant for, you had to advertise it in the Standard
because that's where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by private >>>>>>> individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in
Northern Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment ads >>>>>> in both a 'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not to run >>>>>> foul of fair emplyment legislation.
NI is a special place for the equality act. As a few recruitment
systems have discovered to their cost.
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest >>>> of the UK?
I suggest you read a history of Ireland from Cromwell to the present
day.
Woud it not be possible to just answer the question?
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
We like to be as free as possible but not where it leads to people
killing one another.
On 01/08/2025 in message <106ioae$gd5b$1@dont-email.me> Handsome Jack
wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 12:02:59 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/07/2025 in message <xn0p8abf5sv9tk002@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:
I have assumed this is governed by the BBC Charter but perhaps not.
On Newscast last night (13 July 2025) Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the >>>> disgusting chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
On the basis that there is no definitive way of describing these chants >>>> as "disgusting" it seems to me she was expressing either her own or,
perhaps,
the BBC's opinion.
There have been other occasions when BBC presenters have interjected
their own opinions into whatever they are presenting of course.
Is what she has done acceptable/allowed within the BBC Charter or other >>>> applicable law?
I made a complaint to the BBC about this
What exactly did you write? The BBC answer states "Laura Kuenssberg
wasn't
expressing a viewpoint on the Israel-Gaza war"; did you say she was?
and they have said:impartial.
****
Laura Kuenssberg wasnÂ’t expressing a viewpoint on the Israel-Gaza war.
Her use of the word “hideous” was specifically in reference to the
comments made by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury. Given the band have been
accused of inciting violence at the festival, after leading chants of
“death, death to the IDF”, we believe Laura’s remark was duly
You may be interested in the BBC statement on Bob VylanÂ’s appearance at >>> Glastonbury:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/glastonbury-2025
****
The BBC statement includes:
"The antisemitic sentiments expressed by Bob Vylan were utterly
unacceptable"
Based on what I have read in here I am confused as to why the BBC calls
the remarks antisemitic bearing in mind the ICHR says:
"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other
country cannot be regarded as antisemitic"
Vylan's criticism was of the IDF.
Can anybody give me some guidance?
I should have included my complaint:
Title
Biased expression of opinion by presenter 
Complaint
During this broadcast Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the disgusting
chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
It is not her role, nor the role of the BBC, to decide what is
disgusting nor to use a broadcast to express her opinion.
There is a lot of sympathy for what is happening to civilians in Gaza
and consequently a lot of disgust at the actions of Israel and its troops.
On 1 Aug 2025 at 18:43:16 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/08/2025 04:19 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 12:14:11 +0100, JNugent wrote:Woud it not be possible to just answer the question?
On 31/07/2025 09:16 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:10:35 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>>> wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on Thu, >>>>>>>>> 17 Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an >>>>>>>>>>>> innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The >>>>>>>>>>>> Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for >>>>>>>>> senior managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally >>>>>>>>> advertised only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the >>>>>>>>> paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times >>>>>>>>> Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all your >>>>>>>>> target audience will be assiduously scanning the one appropriate >>>>>>>>> publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular >>>>>>>> type of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also >>>>>>>> increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other paid >>>>>>>> content (general advertising). And once you have a reputation for >>>>>>>> being the place people will look for these adverts, then the
advertisers will focus on putting them in your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, >>>>>>>> was the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to >>>>>>>> rent a flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because >>>>>>>> that's where all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you wanted >>>>>>>> to find a tenant for, you had to advertise it in the Standard
because that's where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by private >>>>>>> individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in
Northern Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment ads >>>>>> in both a 'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not to run >>>>>> foul of fair emplyment legislation.
NI is a special place for the equality act. As a few recruitment
systems have discovered to their cost.
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest >>>> of the UK?
I suggest you read a history of Ireland from Cromwell to the present day. >>
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
Why should *he* answer your question, which is obviously best addressed to the
UK government?
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 18:43:16 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 01/08/2025 04:19 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 12:14:11 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/07/2025 09:16 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:10:35 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 15:30:21 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:03:49 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>>> wrote:
In message <mdsacuF5rtdU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:59:10 on >>>>>>>>> Thu, 17 Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 16/07/2025 06:49 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdq2h5FotucU1@mid.individual.net...
You snipped it (for your own rasons), but can you posit an >>>>>>>>>>>> innocent reason for BBC vacancies being advertised in The >>>>>>>>>>>> Guardian, but not The Times or The Telegraph?
Even assuming that the claim is true
It is.
And not the slightest bit un-usual. Back in the day, jobs for >>>>>>>>> senior managers in the IT industry (amongst others) were normally >>>>>>>>> advertised only in The Sunday Times. Quite irrespective of the >>>>>>>>> paper's politics.
Similarly jobs for senior schoolteachers, only in the TES (Times >>>>>>>>> Educational Supplement).
Why waste your money advertising elsewhere, when virtually all >>>>>>>>> your target audience will be assiduously scanning the one
appropriate publication every week?
Indeed. It works both ways. Cornering the market for a particular >>>>>>>> type of paid content (eg, job adverts) is a very good way of also >>>>>>>> increasing the views of your own content (reportage) and other >>>>>>>> paid content (general advertising). And once you have a reputation >>>>>>>> for being the place people will look for these adverts, then the >>>>>>>> advertisers will focus on putting them in your publication.
Another one which used to do that very effectively, pre-Internet, >>>>>>>> was the Evening Standard with its rental adverts. If you wanted to >>>>>>>> rent a flat in London, you needed to buy the Standard, because >>>>>>>> that's where all the adverts were. And if you had a flat you
wanted to find a tenant for, you had to advertise it in the
Standard because that's where everybody was looking.
They were private sector adverts, placed most of the time by
private individuals.
Not sure if it's still the case but back when i was working in
Northern Ireland (70s to 90s), firms generally placed employment ads >>>>>> in both a 'Catholic' paper and a 'Protestant' paper so as not to run >>>>>> foul of fair emplyment legislation.
NI is a special place for the equality act. As a few recruitment
systems have discovered to their cost.
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest >>>> of the UK?
I suggest you read a history of Ireland from Cromwell to the present
day.
Woud it not be possible to just answer the question?
Is there any good reason why discrimination forbidden and policed in
Northern Ireland should be allowed - and even encouraged - in the rest
of the UK?
I did answer the question.
The current state of affairs is a result of 800 years of history. There
isn't the time (or in my case the will) to summarise that into 10 bullet points, each of which will form the basis for arguments anyway and which
in no way will affect the reality one tiniest bit.
If people have to ask "why is Northern Ireland like that ?" then it is
self evident that they won't understand the answer. It is, as they say, "complicated".
Feel free to continue to harangue me and others. But the situation is as
it is, whether or not you approve, understand, or even care.
Complaint
During this broadcast Laura Kuenssberg referred to "the disgusting
chants about the IDF at Glastonbury".
It is not her role, nor the role of the BBC, to decide what is
disgusting nor to use a broadcast to express her opinion.
There is a lot of sympathy for what is happening to civilians in Gaza
and consequently a lot of disgust at the actions of Israel and its troops.
Were you surprised when the response indicated that you had, in the
opinion of the Corporation, misunderstood what was said?
If someone shouted "Death to Gaza" from a concert stage, audible during a
BBC broadcast, would you argue that it was not disgusting?
On 02/08/2025 11:31 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:Gross snippage
Feel free to continue to harangue me and others. But the situation is as
it is, whether or not you approve, understand, or even care.
I am haranguing* no-one.
I was asking why British citizens resident in England, Wales and Scotland may not avail
themselves of the same legal protactions as are available to British citizens resident
in Northern Ireland.
And as yet, no-one has put forward a reason as to why that protection should not be
extended to citizens living in GB.
Is there any good reason why discrimination [is] forbidden and policed in Northern
Ireland should be allowed
It was forbidden in Northern Ireland specifically because Protestants owned the majority, but not all of the major manufacturers. Incomers being the
main exception. And so favoured their fellow Protestants, when recruiting
for jobs.
As they also did, when allocating Council Housing. [ And Voting ]
and even encouraged - in the rest of the UK?
There is no such religious discrimination in recruiting being practised
in the remainder of the UK simply because there is *no similar societal
basis for it.
There of course exceptions; when recruiting for religiously sensitive
roles for instance
There is no such religious discrimination in recruiting being practised
in the remainder of the UK simply because there is *no similar societal >>basis for it.
The ownership and management of Industry in the UK simply isn't monopolised >by members of one particular religion who might favour members of their
own religion when jobs are in short supply
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mf6eekF838lU1@mid.individual.net...
On 02/08/2025 11:31 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:Gross snippage
Feel free to continue to harangue me and others. But the situation is as >>> it is, whether or not you approve, understand, or even care.
I am haranguing* no-one.
I was asking why British citizens resident in England, Wales and Scotland may
not avail
themselves of the same legal protactions as are available to British citizens
resident
in Northern Ireland.
And as yet, no-one has put forward a reason as to why that protection should >> not be
extended to citizens living in GB.
............................................................................ ........
..."billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message news:106j2ig$j3up$1@dont-email.me...>>
Is there any good reason why discrimination [is] forbidden and policed in >>> Northern
Ireland should be allowed
It was forbidden in Northern Ireland specifically because Protestants owned >> the majority, but not all of the major manufacturers. Incomers being the
main exception. And so favoured their fellow Protestants, when recruiting
for jobs.
As they also did, when allocating Council Housing. [ And Voting ]
and even encouraged - in the rest of the UK?
There is no such religious discrimination in recruiting being practised
in the remainder of the UK simply because there is *no similar societal
basis for it.
The ownership and management of Industry in the UK simply isn't monopolised by members of one particular religion who might favour members of their
own religion when jobs are in short supply
* Unlike in the early 19th century when Protestant owned Lancashire
Cotton Mills were largely manned by Irish Catholics.
There of course exceptions; when recruiting for religiously sensitive
roles for instance
Which of course was also the start of the Troubles. When in the mid 60's NICRA The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association copped on to the fact that in Law anyway, if not in reality, Blacks In the US had been granted more
Civil Rights than had Catholics in NI.
This then devolved into peaceful marches which though led by Nationalist
MPs met with increasing amounts of violent resistance, from Protestant thugs.
And the rest, as they say, is history
Well to some people at least; who were actually awake at the time
bb
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mf6eekF838lU1@mid.individual.net...
On 02/08/2025 11:31 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:Gross snippage
Feel free to continue to harangue me and others. But the situation is
as it is, whether or not you approve, understand, or even care.
I am haranguing* no-one.
I was asking why British citizens resident in England, Wales and
Scotland may not avail themselves of the same legal protactions as are
available to British citizens resident in Northern Ireland.
And as yet, no-one has put forward a reason as to why that protection
should not be extended to citizens living in GB.
....................................................................................
..."billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message news:106j2ig$j3up$1@dont-email.me...>>
Is there any good reason why discrimination [is] forbidden and policed
in Northern Ireland should be allowed
It was forbidden in Northern Ireland specifically because Protestants
owned the majority, but not all of the major manufacturers. Incomers
being the main exception. And so favoured their fellow Protestants,
when recruiting for jobs.
As they also did, when allocating Council Housing. [ And Voting ]
and even encouraged - in the rest of the UK?There is no such religious discrimination in recruiting being practised
in the remainder of the UK simply because there is *no similar societal
basis for it.
The ownership and management of Industry in the UK simply isn't
monopolised by members of one particular religion who might favour
members of their own religion when jobs are in short supply
* Unlike in the early 19th century when Protestant owned Lancashire
Cotton Mills were largely manned by Irish Catholics.
There of course exceptions; when recruiting for religiously sensitive
roles for instance
Which of course was also the start of the Troubles. When in the mid 60's NICRA The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association copped on to the
fact that in Law anyway, if not in reality, Blacks In the US had been granted more Civil Rights than had Catholics in NI.
This then devolved into peaceful marches which though led by Nationalist
MPs met with increasing amounts of violent resistance, from Protestant
thugs.
And the rest, as they say, is history
Well to some people at least; who were actually awake at the time
There is talk of legislation for Muslims but why oh why don't we have one set of
religious discrimination legislation whether you are a Catholic, CoE, Baptist, Muslim,
Jew whatever?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message news:xn0p92k491t0y36002@news.individual.net...
There is talk of legislation for Muslims but why oh why don't we have one set
of
religious discrimination legislation whether you are a Catholic, CoE,
Baptist, Muslim,
Jew whatever?
But then what about Jedi ?
Or even Atheists ?
Why should they be left out ?
So that almost everyone in the UK who was turned down for a job could
then claim it was because of their relgious beliefs. And pick up
thousands of pounds in compensation
With all the agnostics, quickly having second thoughts.
Are you really sure you've thought this one through ?
bb
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0p92k491t0y36002@news.individual.net...
There is talk of legislation for Muslims but why oh why don't we have one >>set of religious discrimination legislation whether you are a Catholic, >>CoE, Baptist, Muslim, Jew whatever?
But then what about Jedi ?
Or even Atheists ?
Why should they be left out ?
So that almost everyone in the UK who was turned down for a job could
then claim it was because of their relgious beliefs. And pick up
thousands of pounds in compensation
With all the agnostics, quickly having second thoughts.
Are you really sure you've thought this one through ?
On 2 Aug 2025 at 22:31:46 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0p92k491t0y36002@news.individual.net...
There is talk of legislation for Muslims but why oh why don't we have one set of
religious discrimination legislation whether you are a Catholic, CoE,
Baptist, Muslim Jew whatever?
But then what about Jedi ?
Or even Atheists ?
Why should they be left out ?
So that almost everyone in the UK who was turned down for a job could
then claim it was because of their relgious beliefs. And pick up
thousands of pounds in compensation
With all the agnostics, quickly having second thoughts.
Are you really sure you've thought this one through ?
bb
The Equality Act allows persons of any religion, or indeed of no religion, to claim discrimination. But they do have to show that they probably were discriminated against because of their religion, or lack of religion. Just asserting it is not sufficient.
This was done for antisemitism with no regard for any other religion and
now (a) the effect is coming home and (b) Muslims are getting stick in
some quarters but do not have the same level of protection.
On Sat, 02 Aug 2025 23:45:02 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
A simple idea might be to have a list of recognised religions, perhaps >>something like that exists.
Recognised by who ?
A simple idea might be to have a list of recognised religions, perhaps something like that exists.
On Sat, 02 Aug 2025 15:02:37 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf6eekF838lU1@mid.individual.net...
On 02/08/2025 11:31 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:Gross snippage
Feel free to continue to harangue me and others. But the situation is
as it is, whether or not you approve, understand, or even care.
I am haranguing* no-one.
I was asking why British citizens resident in England, Wales and
Scotland may not avail themselves of the same legal protactions as are
available to British citizens resident in Northern Ireland.
And as yet, no-one has put forward a reason as to why that protection
should not be extended to citizens living in GB.
....................................................................................
..."billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message
news:106j2ig$j3up$1@dont-email.me...>>
Is there any good reason why discrimination [is] forbidden and policed >>>> in Northern Ireland should be allowed
It was forbidden in Northern Ireland specifically because Protestants
owned the majority, but not all of the major manufacturers. Incomers
being the main exception. And so favoured their fellow Protestants,
when recruiting for jobs.
As they also did, when allocating Council Housing. [ And Voting ]
and even encouraged - in the rest of the UK?There is no such religious discrimination in recruiting being practised
in the remainder of the UK simply because there is *no similar societal
basis for it.
The ownership and management of Industry in the UK simply isn't
monopolised by members of one particular religion who might favour
members of their own religion when jobs are in short supply
* Unlike in the early 19th century when Protestant owned Lancashire
Cotton Mills were largely manned by Irish Catholics.
There of course exceptions; when recruiting for religiously sensitive
roles for instance
Which of course was also the start of the Troubles. When in the mid 60's
NICRA The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association copped on to the
fact that in Law anyway, if not in reality, Blacks In the US had been
granted more Civil Rights than had Catholics in NI.
This then devolved into peaceful marches which though led by Nationalist
MPs met with increasing amounts of violent resistance, from Protestant
thugs.
And the rest, as they say, is history
Well to some people at least; who were actually awake at the time
You have to remember that at least one MP as recently as the last decade genuinely did not understand that the Republic of Ireland was a sovereign country. With that level of ignorance in the UK about *it's own history*,
I feel the finer points may be lost here.
On 02/08/2025 in message <106m042$19mmo$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0p92k491t0y36002@news.individual.net...
There is talk of legislation for Muslims but why oh why don't we have one set of
religious discrimination legislation whether you are a Catholic, CoE, Baptist, Muslim,
Jew whatever?
But then what about Jedi ?
Or even Atheists ?
Why should they be left out ?
So that almost everyone in the UK who was turned down for a job could
then claim it was because of their relgious beliefs. And pick up
thousands of pounds in compensation
With all the agnostics, quickly having second thoughts.
Are you really sure you've thought this one through ?
No, I haven't thought it through, I have made a suggestion that would help control the
deficiencies and inequalities in current legislation.
A simple idea might be to have a list of recognised religions, perhaps something like
that exists.
If I have understood it, at the moment I could say the Methodists have undue influence
over Parliament/State/Government but I cannot say that about all religions.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:45:27 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |