[spireiterob]

Posting links from a right wing propaganda site such as Guido Fawkes which has its own motives does not make anything less true.

It’s quite clear there are and have been PPE issues so I’m not really sure what anyone’s political persuasions has anything to do with personal safety. Or why anyone would want to criticise them for speaking out about it.

Anyway here is a non bias statement about the show;

https://www.bbc.co.u...rama-mon-27-apr

This post has been edited by spireiterob: 01 May 2020 - 10:17 AM

[fishini]

Search and Destroy, on 01 May 2020 - 10:08 AM, said:

I’m saying that if the BBC hadn’t used Labour Party activists they wouldn’t have left themselves open to the accusations of bias

Do you think what they said is true or false?

[azul]

So far we have articles from...

Guido Fawkes - a right wing blog

Politicalite - ultra right website that is a mouthpiece for UKIP - the one that was too far right Farage

Telegraph that uses Trot in the headline to describe a programme that also produced an infamous investigation into Labour Antisemitism just before the election last year

And Times, one I can’t read

This post has been edited by azul: 01 May 2020 - 10:19 AM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Search and Destroy, on 01 May 2020 - 10:02 AM, said:

Crazy that they do this, instantly removes all credibility



You think that programme wasn’t biased?

Far less biased than a paper that paid Bozo nearly three hundred grand to undermine a democratically elected PM (yeah, strange how one democracy was some 'will of the people' to be respected without question whilst another was just a temporary inconvenience, wasn't it...) and a couple of shadily funded right wing websites.

Y'know, the same ones who've spent a decade or more demanding those everyone applauds every thursday night suffer pay freezes to fund millionaire tax cuts...

[azul]

fishini, on 01 May 2020 - 10:14 AM, said:

Do you think what they said is true or false?

Not that there isn’t collaborating evidence in news from all political shades

Instead we get links to fringe right wing websites to muddy the water - straight out the Trump playbook. S&D is certainly getting more sophisticated in his tactics

This post has been edited by azul: 01 May 2020 - 10:25 AM

[Search & Destroy]

fishini, on 01 May 2020 - 10:14 AM, said:

Do you think what they said is true or false?

No idea, but I don’t think they were impartial, that’s my opinion anyway

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 01 May 2020 - 10:20 AM, said:

Far less biased than a paper that paid Bozo nearly three hundred grand to undermine a democratically elected PM (yeah, strange how one democracy was some 'will of the people' to be respected without question whilst another was just a temporary inconvenience, wasn't it...) and a couple of shadily funded right wing websites.

Y'know, the same ones who've spent a decade or more demanding those everyone applauds every thursday night suffer pay freezes to fund millionaire tax cuts...

So that’s a yes then?

[azul]

Did anyone see those armed rednecks storming the Michigan State House demonstrating the extension of the shutdown in that state.

There’s going to be disaster soon enough

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Search and Destroy, on 01 May 2020 - 10:23 AM, said:

No idea, but I don’t think they were impartial, that’s my opinion anyway




So that’s a yes then?

Mate, you're either on a wind-up or, as our friend 'Azul' quite rightly points out, diverting and distracting from realities.

Which your repeated refusal to address issues raised in the report kinda underpins.

But hey, be my guest. I just hope you find comfort in some suspiciously funded website when you or a family member is denied critical care 'cos of the cuts they call for...

[fishini]

Search and Destroy, on 01 May 2020 - 10:23 AM, said:

No idea, but I don’t think they were impartial, that’s my opinion anyway

So you believe what a right wing website say but you don't know if you believe what front line workers are saying? Are you not also being biased?

[Search & Destroy]

Yes I guess so, I’m just awaiting for an admission that you agree the BBC Panorama programme was biased, or are you still maintaining it was impartial?

I don’t subscribe to any right wing websites btw, a simple google search was used to fact check the accusations I saw in The Times

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

azul, on 01 May 2020 - 10:21 AM, said:

Not that there isn’t collaborating evidence in news from all political shades

Instead we get links to fringe right wing websites to muddy the water - straight out the Trump playbook. S&D is certainly getting more sophisticated in his tactics

It's no surprise many NHS staff become Labour supporters or members. They're the ones who see what tory underfunding and undermining really means. Under Thatcher, Cameron, May and now Bozo.

In the starkest possible non PPE supplied terms.

Perhaps now's the right time to remind ourselves how that party opposed Labour's creating and saving of the NHS tooth and nail, too. Churchill's mob voted against it no less than twenty one times with him even describing it as 'the first step to turn Britain into a national socialist economy'.

And now a quick glance at the DT reveals the Derbyshire tories planning to close several care homes leaving vital health service capacity to pick up the pieces...

[fishini]

Search and Destroy, on 01 May 2020 - 10:42 AM, said:

Yes I guess so, I’m just awaiting for an admission that you agree the BBC Panorama programme was biased, or are you still maintaining it was impartial?

I don’t subscribe to any right wing websites btw, a simple google search was used to fact check the accusations I saw in The Times

Seeing as all NHS frontline workers are saying the same thing, it doesn't matter to me what their political views are. Unless of course you think they are lying. Do you think they were?

[Search & Destroy]

fishini, on 01 May 2020 - 10:56 AM, said:

Seeing as all NHS frontline workers are saying the same thing, it doesn't matter to me what their political views are. Unless of course you think they are lying. Do you think they were?

Again, no idea

Again, why take the risk in interviewing far left activists and trying to pass them off as impartial, why not interview normal workers?

[fishini]

Search and Destroy, on 01 May 2020 - 11:12 AM, said:

Again, no idea

Again, why take the risk in interviewing far left activists and trying to pass them off as impartial, why not interview normal workers?

So left wing activists as you call them cannot be normal workers too. What is your idea of a 'normal' worker?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Search and Destroy, on 01 May 2020 - 11:12 AM, said:

Again, no idea

Again, why take the risk in interviewing far left activists and trying to pass them off as impartial, why not interview normal workers?

You're assuming the smears are accurate. That's yet to be in any way proven. Infact to turn it on it's head does visiting spurious right wing websites render someone's experiences suddenly invalid? Attending a Brexit rally, perhaps? Supporting a Farage who's advocated privatising the NHS on a non-league football forum, maybe?

There're folk employed by shady millionaire funded organisations to dig through every text or e-mail or post or anything others have done just to find some sort of lefty link. And of course failing that the likes of the Telegraph will trumpet words like 'trots' knowing they'll simply outspend anyone complaining on legal bills.

But hey, let's all target the BBC when it does what we condemn China for never doing instead...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 01 May 2020 - 11:51 AM

[Search & Destroy]

In this instance, in an impartial BBC, taxpayer funded documentary, the interviewees should be from a balanced political viewpoint

Or at least not exclusively from one slated viewpoint, we’re not living in North Korea you know

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Search and Destroy, on 01 May 2020 - 11:36 AM, said:

In this instance, in an impartial BBC, taxpayer funded documentary, the interviewees should be from a balanced political viewpoint

Or at least not exclusively from one slated viewpoint, we’re not living in North Korea you know

Aaaaand still not a single reference to the government's own discredited figures. Still not a single reference to the company representative saying he was supplying Trump because the British government had ignored them. Still not a single reference to families of fallen front line staff criticising the lack of PPE. Still not a single reference to all those not yet smeared resorting to bin bags for lack of WHO advised garb. And of course still not a single reference to the government downgrading the worst virus in a century because it'd ignored 'Cygnus'.

Hmmm, if only I could work out what could've possibly been more important than saving British lives since twenty sixteen...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 01 May 2020 - 11:52 AM

[Search & Destroy]

This is the Dr who featured prominently on the programme


Dr Sonia Adesara spoke of PPE shortages and said there was widespread concern that health workers will die from the covid-19 virus. The programme did not explain that she is a Labour activist who has shared a platform with Jeremy Corbyn and in 2018 stood unsuccessfully for selection to represent Labour in Boris Johnson’s seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip.


Is this not disingenuous?

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 01 May 2020 - 11:50 AM, said:

Aaaaand still not a single reference to the government's own discredited figures. Still not a single reference to the company representative saying he was supplying Trump because the British government had ignored them. Still not a single reference to families of fallen front line staff criticising the lack of PPE. Still not a single reference to all those not yet smeared resorting to bin bags for lack of WHO advised garb. And of course still not a single reference to the government downgrading the worst virus in a century because it'd ignored 'Cygnus'.

Hmmm, if only I could work out what could've possibly been more important than saving British lives since twenty sixteen...

No because I’m discussing the participants in the BBC documentary, the deflection isn’t working here

This post has been edited by Search and Destroy: 01 May 2020 - 11:58 AM

[Wooden Spoon]

fishini said:

1588281587[/url]' post='1516423']
I feel oh so humble that so many on here are bothered about what I think. Just a small question death (who would use that as a name?) What is my agenda?

In this case an illogical hatred of all things German.

Search and Destroy said:

1588284481[/url]' post='1516429']
There will be a full, thorough public enquiry I'd imagine

I’d like to think so. But I won’t hold my breath on it. If it’s likely that it paints the government in a bad light, would they sanction it?

[Wooden Spoon]

Search and Destroy said:

1588327336[/url]' post='1516486']
Crazy that they do this, instantly removes all credibility



You think that programme wasn't biased?

The spreadsheet they had, where individual gloves count as PPE is simply massaging figures. It allows them to say we have a billion items etc. When the reality is there is a shortage.



Downgrading the virus allows them to issue unsuitable PPE which then is deemed unsuitable.




A business making gowns contacted the government MP etc and had no reply for 11 week.




Regardless of anyone’s political stance, be they a Party member, union rep or nothing at all, the above can’t be disputed, and answers regarding these 3 non politicaly motivated questions need to be answered IMO.