BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Only jocking

Listed below are comments made by Only jocking between Tuesday, 20th October 2009 and Friday, 23rd October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Nick Griffin on Question Time 2:51pm on 23 Oct 2009 #22 My contribution on this post on this topic posted at 8.23am but was moderated and only just reinstated 6+ hours later with a vastly reduced chance of anybody reading it. Perhaps that was the idea of the complainant?

A system is flawed which permits an objection which is not upheld to effectively allows the objector ro censor the entry by burying it until overtaken by other postings and by events.
Nick Griffin on Question Time 2:31pm on 23 Oct 2009 #22 and #120

Request to moderators.
It is now over six hours since I posted #22 which has been moderated. Still no emails from the moderators to explain why it has been moderated,which surely can't be right. How long does it usually take for this process to happen and/or for the post to be reinstated if it was reported but the complaint not upheld.
Advices please.
Nick Griffin on Question Time 10:38am on 23 Oct 2009 My post at #22 has been moderated. There was nothing controversial or offensive in it and it made no reference to any other posters. I am genuinely bemused as to why it has been moderated. Can anybody enlighten me? The person who asked for it to be moderated or the moderators themselves?

Thanks in anticipation.
Nick Griffin on Question Time 08:23am on 23 Oct 2009 The justification for allowing Griffin on Question Time was to expose the true, nasty nature of himself and his party. Here he was in a deep hole with some deeply unpleasant stuff hidden in the corners of the hole that he desperately wished to leave in the shadows and with only a shovel for company. The other four panelists were equipped with powerful torches and the opportunity to shine a bright light in the hidden corners.

So what did the do? They bullied, harrassed and diverted atention every time one of the corners was approached - assisted by an audience whose behaviour verged on mob-like and a chairman who was more like a ringleader. The representatives of the main parties, particularly Shaw as a member of the government which has been in power for 12 years, did more with their torches to expose their own and each other's inadequacies - not least on the topic of immigration, vital in the context of BNP activites.

It was pathetic. I can't imagine that many people who have voted BNP, or are contemplating to do so, would have learned anything they didn't already know about Griffin or the BNP or been persuaded to change their voting intentions. Fortunately, Griffin came across as a shifty, charisma free zone prone to inapproriate grinning - so very little harm done as a result of his being painted as ganged up on, cornered and bullied and hardly given a chance to finish a single sentence.

Instead of taking the opportunity to show people inclined to vote BNP why they shouldn't, they did more help the rest of us understand why it happened - less by the seductive messages from the BNP than sucked in by a vacuum created by failures of this and past governments.

Pathetic.
What the governor had to say 3:47pm on 22 Oct 2009 Andrew - You said "Far from continuing to dominate economic policy it looks as if the PM has lost control of it."

Is that a bad thing from the country's point of view, or a good thing? Indeed, is it a bad for Labour's election prospects, or a good thing?
Expenses and unemployment 08:37am on 21 Oct 2009 #903 Electic Hermit

Yawn. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Expenses and unemployment 08:36am on 21 Oct 2009 #905 Susan-Croft said it would be pointless to further go on to extend the debate

You are right.
Expenses and unemployment 08:32am on 21 Oct 2009 #900 Electic Hermit said: Then, if not a novel form of PPB, what are they? They are political broadcasts involving political parties which will be governed by the same legislation as existing PPBs.

Last attempt to get through to you on this. To answer your first sentence they are programmes staged, produced and organised by broadcasters unlike PPBs which are produced by or on behalf of political parties and carried by broadcasters. Your second sentence is correct to a point - programmes such as the proposed leaders' debates are covered by some of the same legislation that governs PPBs,but that doesn't mean they ere the same thing - horse chestnut/chestnut horse. The PPB rules those covering the obligations of main to broadcast PPBs There are no rules that oblige broadcasters to put on political programmes but there are rules which apply if they choose to do so.

The right of SNP to challenge the proposed leaders' debates under the law regulating election related broadcasts does not rely on the broadcasts being PPBs.
Expenses and unemployment 00:34am on 21 Oct 2009 #885 Electric Hermit said "Not much to dispute in the rest of your post."

Really !?!? Based on your comments and continued averment of politcal censorship, if you read the post it you just didn't get it and congratulations on once again finding something I never said or implied ie the suggestion that people should refrain from commenting ahead of the matter being resolved.

I'll close with a newsflash. The views expressed by "rabid unionists" on a blog like this are unlikely to alter the course of history or even influence the outcome of the leaders's debate issue. And the same goes for the views and arguments expressed by you. Even a more modest target of you trying persuading them to convert to your view. or vice versa, is is unlikely to be achieved.
Expenses and unemployment 11:55pm on 20 Oct 2009 #873 Electic Hermit said: The whole "Prime Ministerial election" thing is just a feeble ploy by those looking for a way of rationalising political censorship. As is pretending that the proposed debates are not PPBs. It seems the unionists will stoop to anything in the desperate hope of gaining some electoral advantage.

Apart from the PPBs point, what has any of this got to do with anything I have said? Whether or not the debates constitute PPBs, they will be covered by legislation designed to ensure fair representation so pretence would be utterly pointless. The reason I have opined that the are not PPBs is because I think they are not PPBs. Bet you never thought of that? I think you have got it wrong on this point but I haven't gone searching for sinister reasons to explain why it might be a cunning pretence. Stop looking for a unionist tiger behind every bush, why don't you? Incidentally, I am not a rabid unionist or a diehard of any political party, though I might become one if somebody sets up the Pragmatic Cynics' Party.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Only jocking