Kilroy-Silk and racism
Posted by: DAVOhorn on 10 January 2004
So the PC Minority have got upset at an article in a newspaper.
Funny it was published previously but no complaints.
Anyway He used the term ARABS.
So who starts shouting and screaming, the Muslim Council.
He did not state Muslims which is a religion and not a racial group.
There are Arab Jews,Arab Christians and Arab Muslims.
I presume that the Muslim Council identified themselves with this presumed prejudicial statement and were thus offended.
Funny they dont sem to protest at the offensive racial and religious material put out by some of the more extreme Mullahs in London and other major towns.
Oh yeah i forgot only white anglo saxons are racist and every body else is justified in their prejudice as they are a minority.
The CRE also are very outspoken on this but again they ARE SELECTIVE IN WHAT AND WHO OFFENDS THEIR SENSIBILITIES.
If we are to have true tolerance then all peoples regardles of race must learn to live in harmony and respect.
One question, if many Muslims find life in the UK so objectionable why do they not live in a MUSLIM Country where their way of life is the norm?
I presume they seek Asylum here as we are generally a tolerant society and allow people to live how they chose as long as it is within the law.
I hope this post is read in the manner it was posted.
regards David
Funny it was published previously but no complaints.
Anyway He used the term ARABS.
So who starts shouting and screaming, the Muslim Council.
He did not state Muslims which is a religion and not a racial group.
There are Arab Jews,Arab Christians and Arab Muslims.
I presume that the Muslim Council identified themselves with this presumed prejudicial statement and were thus offended.
Funny they dont sem to protest at the offensive racial and religious material put out by some of the more extreme Mullahs in London and other major towns.
Oh yeah i forgot only white anglo saxons are racist and every body else is justified in their prejudice as they are a minority.
The CRE also are very outspoken on this but again they ARE SELECTIVE IN WHAT AND WHO OFFENDS THEIR SENSIBILITIES.
If we are to have true tolerance then all peoples regardles of race must learn to live in harmony and respect.
One question, if many Muslims find life in the UK so objectionable why do they not live in a MUSLIM Country where their way of life is the norm?
I presume they seek Asylum here as we are generally a tolerant society and allow people to live how they chose as long as it is within the law.
I hope this post is read in the manner it was posted.
regards David
Posted on: 14 January 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
Steven Toy, when you say that you agree with the statement "shouldn't the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states and their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim?", what exactly are you agreeing with / suggesting should happen?
I made my position clear on this earlier in this thread:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can condone it all you want Steve. But don't put words in my mouth and don't think everybody's logic is the same as yours.
I don't condone any of the above and the fact that you do makes me sick. But you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't condone Shariah laws one bit. If it were feasible for the Western military powers to go through every nation practising Shariah law without the obvious adverse consequences for world stability and loss of innocent life, I'd be for it.
By that I mean every nation practising Shariah law not just the Arab states.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 15 January 2004 by Simon Perry
Who'd have thought that RKS could cause so many postings on the Naim message board? And I bet he's got a B&O system at home too.
Posted on: 15 January 2004 by matthewr
"By that I mean every nation practising Shariah law not just the Arab states"
Well that would be Saudi Arabia (Arab and Sharia) and Iran (non-Arab and Sharia). So you are now up to two which still makes you a relative moderate by Neocon standards.
That's assuming you are just going for countries practising the glamourous headline punishments (Hadd) such as stoning and beheading. If you extend your definition of practising Sharia to, say, those countries that use it to sort out inheritance tax then you can probably bomb somewhere as innocuous as Bahrain.
Matthew
Well that would be Saudi Arabia (Arab and Sharia) and Iran (non-Arab and Sharia). So you are now up to two which still makes you a relative moderate by Neocon standards.
That's assuming you are just going for countries practising the glamourous headline punishments (Hadd) such as stoning and beheading. If you extend your definition of practising Sharia to, say, those countries that use it to sort out inheritance tax then you can probably bomb somewhere as innocuous as Bahrain.
Matthew
Posted on: 15 January 2004 by Former member
Matthew,
Leave poor Steven alone. The truth just confuses him.
David
Leave poor Steven alone. The truth just confuses him.
David
Posted on: 15 January 2004 by Steve Toy
And then there is Sudan.
That takes the tally up to three; one Arab Shariah, and two non-Arab Shariah states.
Regards,
Steve.
That takes the tally up to three; one Arab Shariah, and two non-Arab Shariah states.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 16 January 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Not forgetting slavery of course in Africa's largest country.
Fritz Von Backonthechaingang
Fritz Von Backonthechaingang
Posted on: 16 January 2004 by Former member
He's just quit his chat show. Such a waste of talent.
Robin
Robin
Posted on: 16 January 2004 by Steve Toy
Now while we are at it, let's see the BBC be stripped of its rights to leech its revenue from anyone and everyone just owning a TV.
Regards,
Steve.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Simon Perry
Steven,
Regarding your comments on the BBC. You're joking right? Or do you like adverts and rampant product placement? I agree the BBC has lots its way a bit lately, but I think it does an excellent job.
Simon
Regarding your comments on the BBC. You're joking right? Or do you like adverts and rampant product placement? I agree the BBC has lots its way a bit lately, but I think it does an excellent job.
Simon
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Steve Toy
Simon I am not serious but I do believe that the BBC should be accountable to public opinion when it is spending public money. It is ok being aloof and arrogant if it's your own money.
Regards,
Steve.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by andy c
quote:
Now while we are at it, let's see the BBC be stripped of its rights to leech its revenue from anyone and everyone just owning a TV.
Yeah, and whilst we are at it subject everone to adverts and Sky.
I agree with Simon on this one - the Beeb have wandered a little off course, but they still provide an above average service - including Radio as well as TV lest we not forget.
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Mick P
If the Licience fee was scrapped, the BBC would have to rely on advertising to generate income.
This has been studied time and time again and let me assure you that both ITV and Sky are both against the scrapping of the TV licience.
There is simply not enough advertising revenue to split amongst the BBC as well as the independant companies. It is accepted that the only way for survival would be an increased level of cheap game shows and old imported shows on all channels to compensate for the reduced income.
The current system works well, in the sense that both the BBC and ITV are able to generate a decent income that allows the production of good quality shows.
These shows are purchased by Sky and the other independants at a later date and then shown by them.
I agree that there should be more public accountibilty by the BBC and I think that is a more important issue that how it is funded.
Regards
Mick
This has been studied time and time again and let me assure you that both ITV and Sky are both against the scrapping of the TV licience.
There is simply not enough advertising revenue to split amongst the BBC as well as the independant companies. It is accepted that the only way for survival would be an increased level of cheap game shows and old imported shows on all channels to compensate for the reduced income.
The current system works well, in the sense that both the BBC and ITV are able to generate a decent income that allows the production of good quality shows.
These shows are purchased by Sky and the other independants at a later date and then shown by them.
I agree that there should be more public accountibilty by the BBC and I think that is a more important issue that how it is funded.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Paul Ranson
We could live without the BBC in its present form. I don't really see providing light entertainment as a public service. And their news and current affairs coverage has seriously deteriorated in the last 10 years.
If the BBC were erased from the schedules what would happen? I don't think I'd notice.
Paul
If the BBC were erased from the schedules what would happen? I don't think I'd notice.
Paul
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
The BBC
I thought Steve's point was about choice
Those who want to use the BBC services PAY for them (eg a license, or a Sky-type of access device). Those who don't want to use the service, don't pay.
Why should BBC users be subsidised by the yobs that watch footie and Coronation Street?
Cheers
Don
I thought Steve's point was about choice
Those who want to use the BBC services PAY for them (eg a license, or a Sky-type of access device). Those who don't want to use the service, don't pay.
Why should BBC users be subsidised by the yobs that watch footie and Coronation Street?
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Paul Ranson
I'd be quite happy not to subscribe to the BBC. Any decent programmes will end up on another channel that I am paying for sooner or later.
Paul
Paul
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Rasher
To have to pay a licence fee just to use a TV is essentially a tax, and if that tax is to pay the BBC to provide a public service, then its products should be available to all. Many parts of the country can't get the digital channels that they are paying for. As far as revenue goes, it is also a monopoly. The BBC make programmes and operate the transmitters. I thought this was made illegal to stop exclusive channel packaging by digital TV companies to prevent monopolies on high demand programmes, like Granada's Coronation Street?
I think BBC funding will change very soon.
I think BBC funding will change very soon.
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by matthewr
(((((((THE BBC)))))))
One of the few things that genuinely makes Britain special. If you don't like/understand it then watch ITV (which is how all TV would be if there was no license fee) or move to America.
Matthew
One of the few things that genuinely makes Britain special. If you don't like/understand it then watch ITV (which is how all TV would be if there was no license fee) or move to America.
Matthew
Posted on: 17 January 2004 by Steve Toy
I agree with Mick that there probably isn't enough avertising revenue to go round, so allowing the Beeb to advertise instead of deriving its revenue from the TV licence would not only be unworkable, but the quality of programmes would deteriorate to include lots more imported American sitcoms and low-budget films, lots of repeats and gameshows.
However, we should consider pay-per-view or voluntary subscription as a viable alternative to the current system where we have to pay for the BBC's dogma and out-of-touch loony political correctness whether we like it or not.
I agree that the BBC's presenters such as Kilroy-Silk should be impartial when on air, but elswhere they should have the same rights of freedom of expression as everyone else.
The decision to get rid of him because he expressed a point of view that just so happens to go against those of its loony leftist directors who are completely unaccountable to its paymasters is reprehensible.
The paymasters should be getting rid of those directors.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on SUNDAY 18 January 2004 at 04:43.]
However, we should consider pay-per-view or voluntary subscription as a viable alternative to the current system where we have to pay for the BBC's dogma and out-of-touch loony political correctness whether we like it or not.
I agree that the BBC's presenters such as Kilroy-Silk should be impartial when on air, but elswhere they should have the same rights of freedom of expression as everyone else.
The decision to get rid of him because he expressed a point of view that just so happens to go against those of its loony leftist directors who are completely unaccountable to its paymasters is reprehensible.
The paymasters should be getting rid of those directors.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on SUNDAY 18 January 2004 at 04:43.]
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by Simon Perry
The BBC is probably our last stand against the total americanisation of British culture. There is no reason why we have to change its funding or how it is held accountable for its actions. I can't think of any other media organisation that receives so much public scrutiny.
Cheers
Simon
Cheers
Simon
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by matthewr
"we should consider pay-per-view or voluntary subscription as a viable alternative"
We should. And ideed we do. It's not viable though.
"where we have to pay for the BBC's dogma and out-of-touch loony political correctness whether we like it or not"
You pay for its programmes (which you can argue about). The BBC is not out of touch and its not loony PC. Give me some examples that aren't perverse corruptions of reality engendered by either the Daily Mail (etc) or else people with a blatant commercial interest in gettting rid of the BBC (The Sun, The Times, Sky News, etc).
"I agree that the BBC's presenters such as Kilroy-Silk should be impartial when on air, but elswhere they should have the same rights of freedom of expression as everyone else"
Nonsense. The point about BBC commentators,persenters and reporters is that they should be scrupiously fair and above reproach. They have every right to freedom of expression but expressingly strong political views in national media fundamentally undermines their position.
BTW Rod Liddle was sacked from his job as Editor of R4's Today becuase he wrote a political column in the Guardian (In which he said when he saw the sort of people on the Countryside Alliance march he remembered why he voted Labour). At the time -- pre Hutton as well -- this was not seen be the Daily Mail, Express, Times, etc as curtailing his freedom of speech or "PC Gone Mad" it was seen as scourging the BBC of evil lefties. In fact they basically campaigned to get him sacked so its a bit rich them complaining about RKS now to say the least.
"loony leftist directors who are completely unaccountable to its paymasters is reprehensible"
The directors are not loony lefites. They are extremely professional and capable people. The BBC is accountable to its "paymasters". Specifically its accountable to the Dept. of Culture, Media and Sport and Parliament via its charter and the rights that governemet has to monitor and investigate its behaviour, accounts, etc.
Matthew
We should. And ideed we do. It's not viable though.
"where we have to pay for the BBC's dogma and out-of-touch loony political correctness whether we like it or not"
You pay for its programmes (which you can argue about). The BBC is not out of touch and its not loony PC. Give me some examples that aren't perverse corruptions of reality engendered by either the Daily Mail (etc) or else people with a blatant commercial interest in gettting rid of the BBC (The Sun, The Times, Sky News, etc).
"I agree that the BBC's presenters such as Kilroy-Silk should be impartial when on air, but elswhere they should have the same rights of freedom of expression as everyone else"
Nonsense. The point about BBC commentators,persenters and reporters is that they should be scrupiously fair and above reproach. They have every right to freedom of expression but expressingly strong political views in national media fundamentally undermines their position.
BTW Rod Liddle was sacked from his job as Editor of R4's Today becuase he wrote a political column in the Guardian (In which he said when he saw the sort of people on the Countryside Alliance march he remembered why he voted Labour). At the time -- pre Hutton as well -- this was not seen be the Daily Mail, Express, Times, etc as curtailing his freedom of speech or "PC Gone Mad" it was seen as scourging the BBC of evil lefties. In fact they basically campaigned to get him sacked so its a bit rich them complaining about RKS now to say the least.
"loony leftist directors who are completely unaccountable to its paymasters is reprehensible"
The directors are not loony lefites. They are extremely professional and capable people. The BBC is accountable to its "paymasters". Specifically its accountable to the Dept. of Culture, Media and Sport and Parliament via its charter and the rights that governemet has to monitor and investigate its behaviour, accounts, etc.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by Paul Ranson
quote:
One of the few things that genuinely makes Britain special. If you don't like/understand it then watch ITV (which is how all TV would be if there was no license fee) or move to America.
I think you're living in the past.
Producing public entertainment shouldn't be a public service, and the commercial Americans seem to be able to do a better job. BBC Current Affairs has deteriorated into badly written superficiality and even Sky News can do a better job.
The BBC should be producing programmes that will be watched by few at a time but will have a life of 100 years. And I don't mean 'Fawlty Towers'.
I have no objection to the licence fee in principle (although it does obviously breach the ECHR), just to its usage.
Paul
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by Derek Wright
quote:
Many parts of the country can't get the digital channels that they are paying for
There is a precendence for the BBC introducing new technology with attractive programming
1 When the TV service was initially introduced it was only available in London, the TV set was very expensive. - equivalent to multiple weeks of average salary
2 It took many years for the tv service to be available throughout the country
3a The introduction of the commercial channel required an addon box or a new tv
3b When BBC 2 was introduced it required the viewing public to either get a set top type box to enable then to get the higher definition signal or go out and buy a new TV
3 When colour arrived on BBC2 they introduced it with very high standard program content that demonstrated the need for colour - each new technology required the viewer to spend money to enjoy the new technology and the attendant programing. OK the colour licence cost more but the mono viewer's program still cost as much to produce as the colour viewer so the mono viewer was subsidising the colour viewer
4 The introduction of the new broadcast tecnology standards did not appear over night it tool several years to propogate across the country - yet the licence was the same
5 the introduction of NICAM sound sound took years to be made available across the country - we in the south did not get it well in to the 90s - yet we all paid the same licence fee.
Re digital - most people can receive satellite Broadcast digital BBC programmes unless their house is has a hill or tall building shading them from the sattelite. It is available free once you have bought the satellite receiver and dish.
THe main reason people that don't get digital TV is beacause they cannot be bothered to get the additional equipment installed or they find it too complicated to understand.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by Derek Wright:
THe main reason people that don't get digital TV is beacause they cannot be bothered to get the additional equipment installed or they find it too complicated to understand.
There really are places in the country that cannot get a digital signal for TV or digital radio yet by Freeview.
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by syd
Derek
I don't remember any add on boxes at the time and as far as I'm aware the 405 line TVs just couldn't handle the 625 line broadcasts. Can you expand on this please.
Yours in Music
Syd
quote:
3b When BBC 2 was introduced it required the viewing public to either get a set top type box to enable then to get the higher definition signal or go out and buy a new TV
I don't remember any add on boxes at the time and as far as I'm aware the 405 line TVs just couldn't handle the 625 line broadcasts. Can you expand on this please.
Yours in Music
Syd
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Derek Wright
To answer
Rasher
Digital TV is available by satellite across the country, reception is not dependant on availability of Freeview - unless you have a hill or tower block in the line of site to the satellite
Syd - I may have misremembered - I thought that there was a way to get the 625 lines program on to a 405 line set - apologies for misremembering.
However the point is that the BBC has introduced new technology that initially is only available to the minority untill the service was made available across the country and the viewer invested in additional equipment. To encourage the investment in new equipment attractive programming was put on the the new technology
The only area were the BBC has not done this is with DAB were they appear to not consider providing a quality signal be worthwile ie the appalling bitrates supplied for the DAB stations. Almost as if they do not want DAB to flourish.
The only criticism I would have the BBC is that have not always gone for the best in new technology eg HDTV and full digital surround sound (whatever the correct acronym is) on the digital network. Also they do not roll outthe new technology very rapidly across the country on the terrestrial network - however that is now the responsibility of the transmission company which is probably dependant on the amount of money the BBC is prepared to pay to the transmission company.
Derek
<< >>
[This message was edited by Derek Wright on MONDAY 19 January 2004 at 10:50.]
Rasher
Digital TV is available by satellite across the country, reception is not dependant on availability of Freeview - unless you have a hill or tower block in the line of site to the satellite
Syd - I may have misremembered - I thought that there was a way to get the 625 lines program on to a 405 line set - apologies for misremembering.
However the point is that the BBC has introduced new technology that initially is only available to the minority untill the service was made available across the country and the viewer invested in additional equipment. To encourage the investment in new equipment attractive programming was put on the the new technology
The only area were the BBC has not done this is with DAB were they appear to not consider providing a quality signal be worthwile ie the appalling bitrates supplied for the DAB stations. Almost as if they do not want DAB to flourish.
The only criticism I would have the BBC is that have not always gone for the best in new technology eg HDTV and full digital surround sound (whatever the correct acronym is) on the digital network. Also they do not roll outthe new technology very rapidly across the country on the terrestrial network - however that is now the responsibility of the transmission company which is probably dependant on the amount of money the BBC is prepared to pay to the transmission company.
Derek
<< >>
[This message was edited by Derek Wright on MONDAY 19 January 2004 at 10:50.]