On 08/06/2021 12:46, JNugent wrote:
> On 08/06/2021 12:05 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 08/06/2021 11:32, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 05/06/2021 12:15 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 04/06/2021 08:49 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My initial reaction was "why on earth is the BBC doing this?" and
>>>>>> the second "who is paying for it?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any answers?
>>>>>
>>>>> A. Because the BBC fully believes in and supports the extremist
>>>>> liberal / left agenda. It cannot conceive of anyone - not even an
>>>>> ultra-orthodox adherent of Islam in a Muslim country - not agreeing
>>>>> with it (or even having the right not to agree with it).
>>>>
>>>> Do I take it then that you approve of the violent abuse and
>>>> subjugation of 50% of the world's population?
>>>
>>> No, and that's a stupid thing to ask, even by your standards.
>>
>> Then you can have no objection to the BBC doing its job, which for a
>> news organisation is investigative reporting.
>
> The UK, let alone the BBC, is not the world's policeman.

Straw man and irrelevant, police can only be involved when a crime is
exposed. BBC News is an international news gathering organisation, and
was just doing business as usual, which may or may not involve exposing
a crime.

>>>>> B. We pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> See my other reply, you don't know whether the investigation cost
>>>> anything over and above the BBC's normal ongoing foreign news
>>>> budget, and if so whether they funded the extra themselves alone.
>>>
>>> We pay for it.
>>
>> But you don't know whether any extra costs were incurred.
>
> Which part of "We pay for it" is too difficult for you?

You pay for the whole thing like you pay taxes, and, like taxes, you
don't get to say what the money is used for. What part of paying taxes
is too difficult for you?

>>>> The *real* scandal here is the original abuse itself, the failure to
>>>> tackle it in official circles in Afghanistan, and the fact that
>>>> bigots here can be so indifferent to it as to use it as just another
>>>> pathetic excuse to knock the BBC.
>>>
>>> The UK, let alone the BBC, is not the world's policeman.
>>
>> The BBC is, among other things, an international news gathering
>> operation, and they were just doing their job.
>
> The UK, let alone the BBC, is not the world's policeman.

Straw man and irrelevant, police can only be involved when a crime is
exposed. BBC News is an international news gathering organisation, and
was just doing business as usual, which may or may not involve exposing
a crime.

> That's a job for the UN or something of that stature.

Nonsense, investigative reporting is the job of a news gathering
organisation such as BBC News.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:54:25 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 08/06/2021 12:46, JNugent wrote:
>> The UK, let alone the BBC, is not the world's policeman.
>
>Straw man

Says the man who can't walk past a farm without all the scarecrows legging it
into the nearest barn and barricading the doors.

On 08/06/2021 13:53, MrSpook_3rilA15w@27fc.org wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:54:25 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Straw man
>
> Says the man who can't walk past a farm without all the scarecrows legging it
> into the nearest barn and barricading the doors.

Says the idiot schoolboy from hell.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 08/06/2021 12:54 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 08/06/2021 12:46, JNugent wrote:
>> On 08/06/2021 12:05 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 08/06/2021 11:32, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2021 12:15 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 05/06/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/06/2021 08:49 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>>>>>>> My initial reaction was "why on earth is the BBC doing this?" and
>>>>>>> the second "who is paying for it?"
>
>>>>>>> Any answers?
>
>>>>>> A. Because the BBC fully believes in and supports the extremist
>>>>>> liberal / left agenda. It cannot conceive of anyone - not even an
>>>>>> ultra-orthodox adherent of Islam in a Muslim country - not
>>>>>> agreeing with it (or even having the right not to agree with it).
>
>>>>> Do I take it then that you approve of the violent abuse and
>>>>> subjugation of 50% of the world's population?
>
>>>> No, and that's a stupid thing to ask, even by your standards.
>
>>> Then you can have no objection to the BBC doing its job, which for a
>>> news organisation is investigative reporting.
>
>> The UK, let alone the BBC, is not the world's policeman.
>
> Straw man and irrelevant, police can only be involved when a crime is
> exposed.  BBC News is an international news gathering organisation, and
> was just doing business as usual, which may or may not involve exposing
> a crime.

The BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, paid for by British citizens and
residents, has no business investigating alleged crime on the other side
of the world. The local forced of law and order should be doing that.
perhaps even the local broadcasters. It's THEIR business, you see - and
none of ours.

>>>>>> B. We pay for it.
>
>>>>> See my other reply, you don't know whether the investigation cost
>>>>> anything over and above the BBC's normal ongoing foreign news
>>>>> budget, and if so whether they funded the extra themselves alone.
>
>>>> We pay for it.
>
>>> But you don't know whether any extra costs were incurred.
>
>> Which part of "We pay for it" is too difficult for you?
>
> You pay for the whole thing like you pay taxes, and, like taxes, you
> don't get to say what the money is used for.  What part of paying taxes
> is too difficult for you?

That's a really stupid thing to say, even by your abysmal standards.
>
>>>>> The *real* scandal here is the original abuse itself, the failure
>>>>> to tackle it in official circles in Afghanistan, and the fact that
>>>>> bigots here can be so indifferent to it as to use it as just
>>>>> another pathetic excuse to knock the BBC.
>>>>
>>>> The UK, let alone the BBC, is not the world's policeman.
>>>
>>> The BBC is, among other things, an international news gathering
>>> operation, and they were just doing their job.
>>
>> The UK, let alone the BBC, is not the world's policeman.
>
> Straw man and irrelevant, police can only be involved when a crime is
> exposed.  BBC News is an international news gathering organisation, and
> was just doing business as usual, which may or may not involve exposing
> a crime.
>
>> That's a job for the UN or something of that stature.
>
> Nonsense, investigative reporting is the job of a news gathering
> organisation such as BBC News.

The country concerned has security forces, a system of justice and its
own broadcasters. And its own taxpayers.

They are the ones who should be doing whatever is required there.

On 09/06/2021 17:17, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 08/06/2021 12:54 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Straw man and irrelevant, police can only be involved when a crime is
>> exposed.  BBC News is an international news gathering organisation,
>> and was just doing business as usual, which may or may not involve
>> exposing a crime.
>
> The BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, paid for by British citizens and
> residents, has no business investigating alleged crime on the other side
> of the world. The local forced of law and order should be doing that.
> perhaps even the local broadcasters. It's THEIR business, you see - and
> none of ours.

Just what is about the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation being an
INTERNATIONAL news gathering organisation that you find so hard to
understand?

>> You pay for the whole thing like you pay taxes, and, like taxes, you
>> don't get to say what the money is used for.  What part of paying
>> taxes is too difficult for you?
>
> That's a really stupid thing to say, even by your abysmal standards.

You haven't an answer, so you resort to abuse.

>> Nonsense, investigative reporting is the job of a news gathering
>> organisation such as BBC News.
>
> The country concerned has security forces, a system of justice and its
> own broadcasters. And its own taxpayers.
>
> They are the ones who should be doing whatever is required there.

The security forces were the abusers, and just what is about the BRITISH
Broadcasting Corporation being an INTERNATIONAL news gathering
organisation that you find so hard to understand?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/06/2021 11:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 09/06/2021 17:17, JNugent wrote:>>
>> On 08/06/2021 12:54 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Straw man and irrelevant, police can only be involved when a crime is
>>> exposed.  BBC News is an international news gathering organisation,
>>> and was just doing business as usual, which may or may not involve
>>> exposing a crime.
>>
>> The BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, paid for by British citizens and
>> residents, has no business investigating alleged crime on the other
>> side of the world. The local forced of law and order should be doing
>> that. perhaps even the local broadcasters. It's THEIR business, you
>> see - and none of ours.
>
> Just what is about the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation being an
> INTERNATIONAL news gathering organisation that you find so hard to
> understand?

"News gathering" is NOT the same thing as investigation.

>>> You pay for the whole thing like you pay taxes, and, like taxes, you
>>> don't get to say what the money is used for.  What part of paying
>>> taxes is too difficult for you?
>>
>> That's a really stupid thing to say, even by your abysmal standards.
>
> You haven't an answer, so you resort to abuse.

Equally stupid. Well down to your usual low standards.

>>> Nonsense, investigative reporting is the job of a news gathering
>>> organisation such as BBC News.
>
>> The country concerned has security forces, a system of justice and its
>> own broadcasters. And its own taxpayers.

>> They are the ones who should be doing whatever is required there.
>
> The security forces were the abusers, and just what is about the BRITISH
> Broadcasting Corporation being an INTERNATIONAL news gathering
> organisation that you find so hard to understand?

See above.

The business of other countries is their business and none of yours or mine.
>

On 09/06/2021 23:49, JNugent wrote:
> On 09/06/2021 11:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 09/06/2021 17:17, JNugent wrote:>>
>>> On 08/06/2021 12:54 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Straw man and irrelevant, police can only be involved when a crime
>>>> is exposed.  BBC News is an international news gathering
>>>> organisation, and was just doing business as usual, which may or may
>>>> not involve exposing a crime.
>>>
>>> The BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, paid for by British citizens
>>> and residents, has no business investigating alleged crime on the
>>> other side of the world. The local forced of law and order should be
>>> doing that. perhaps even the local broadcasters. It's THEIR business,
>>> you see - and none of ours.
>>
>> Just what is about the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation being an
>> INTERNATIONAL news gathering organisation that you find so hard to
>> understand?
>
> "News gathering" is NOT the same thing as investigation.

You cannot have the former unless someone is doing the latter.

>>>> You pay for the whole thing like you pay taxes, and, like taxes, you
>>>> don't get to say what the money is used for.  What part of paying
>>>> taxes is too difficult for you?
>>>
>>> That's a really stupid thing to say, even by your abysmal standards.
>>
>> You haven't an answer, so you resort to abuse.
>
> Equally stupid. Well down to your usual low standards.

Again, you have no rational answer, so resort to abuse.

>>>> Nonsense, investigative reporting is the job of a news gathering
>>>> organisation such as BBC News.
>>
>>> The country concerned has security forces, a system of justice and
>>> its own broadcasters. And its own taxpayers.
>
>>> They are the ones who should be doing whatever is required there.
>>
>> The security forces were the abusers, and just what is about the
>> BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation being an INTERNATIONAL news gathering
>> organisation that you find so hard to understand?
>
> See above.
>
> The business of other countries is their business and none of yours or
> mine.

That depends on whether we choose to make it our business. South Africa
would probably still be an apartheid regime if consumers around the
world had taken your attitude. Thankfully, they didn't: They read in
newspapers and watched on TV the violence of the repression, were
shocked, arranged economic, financial, commercial, and sporting
boycotts, and thereby eventually induced comparatively peaceful change.

No-one at the time complained about the BBC covering the violent
repression is South Africa.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/06/2021 01:57 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 09/06/2021 23:49, JNugent wrote:
>> On 09/06/2021 11:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/06/2021 17:17, JNugent wrote:>>
>>>> On 08/06/2021 12:54 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Straw man and irrelevant, police can only be involved when a crime
>>>>> is exposed.  BBC News is an international news gathering
>>>>> organisation, and was just doing business as usual, which may or
>>>>> may not involve exposing a crime.
>>>>
>>>> The BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation, paid for by British citizens
>>>> and residents, has no business investigating alleged crime on the
>>>> other side of the world. The local forced of law and order should be
>>>> doing that. perhaps even the local broadcasters. It's THEIR
>>>> business, you see - and none of ours.
>>>
>>> Just what is about the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation being an
>>> INTERNATIONAL news gathering organisation that you find so hard to
>>> understand?
>>
>> "News gathering" is NOT the same thing as investigation.
>
> You cannot have the former unless someone is doing the latter.
>
>>>>> You pay for the whole thing like you pay taxes, and, like taxes,
>>>>> you don't get to say what the money is used for.  What part of
>>>>> paying taxes is too difficult for you?
>>>>
>>>> That's a really stupid thing to say, even by your abysmal standards.
>>>
>>> You haven't an answer, so you resort to abuse.
>>
>> Equally stupid. Well down to your usual low standards.
>
> Again, you have no rational answer, so resort to abuse.
>
>>>>> Nonsense, investigative reporting is the job of a news gathering
>>>>> organisation such as BBC News.
>>>
>>>> The country concerned has security forces, a system of justice and
>>>> its own broadcasters. And its own taxpayers.
>>
>>>> They are the ones who should be doing whatever is required there.
>>>
>>> The security forces were the abusers, and just what is about the
>>> BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation being an INTERNATIONAL news
>>> gathering organisation that you find so hard to understand?
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> The business of other countries is their business and none of yours or
>> mine.
>
> That depends on whether we choose to make it our business.  South Africa
> would probably still be an apartheid regime if consumers around the
> world had taken your attitude.  Thankfully, they didn't:  They read in
> newspapers and watched on TV the violence of the repression, were
> shocked, arranged economic, financial, commercial, and sporting
> boycotts, and thereby eventually induced comparatively peaceful change.
>
> No-one at the time complained about the BBC covering the violent
> repression is South Africa.

How long are you going to try to keep this up?

As you already know, no-one's interested in anything you have to say.

Have you got anything to say (or ask) about digital TV and its technology?

On 10/06/2021 15:40, JNugent wrote:
>
> How long are you going to try to keep this up?
>
> As you already know, no-one's interested in anything you have to say.
>
> Have you got anything to say (or ask) about digital TV and its technology?

In other words, as was obvious several exchanges ago, you have no real
arguments on your side, but won't admit that you're wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/06/2021 04:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 10/06/2021 15:40, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> How long are you going to try to keep this up?
>> As you already know, no-one's interested in anything you have to say.
>> Have you got anything to say (or ask) about digital TV and its
>> technology?
>
> In other words, as was obvious several exchanges ago, you have no real
> arguments on your side, but won't admit that you're wrong.

Have you anything sensible to add to that?

On 10/06/2021 20:39, JNugent wrote:
> On 10/06/2021 04:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2021 15:40, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> How long are you going to try to keep this up?
>>> As you already know, no-one's interested in anything you have to say.
>>> Have you got anything to say (or ask) about digital TV and its
>>> technology?
>>
>> In other words, as was obvious several exchanges ago, you have no real
>> arguments on your side, but won't admit that you're wrong.
>
> Have you anything sensible to add to that?

I have been sensible throughout, it's you that's been senseless in
trying to defend an irrational ideological complaint about the BBC.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/06/2021 09:30 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 10/06/2021 20:39, JNugent wrote:
>> On 10/06/2021 04:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/06/2021 15:40, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How long are you going to try to keep this up?
>>>> As you already know, no-one's interested in anything you have to say.
>>>> Have you got anything to say (or ask) about digital TV and its
>>>> technology?
>>>
>>> In other words, as was obvious several exchanges ago, you have no
>>> real arguments on your side, but won't admit that you're wrong.
>>
>> Have you anything sensible to add to that?
>
> I have been sensible throughout, it's you that's been senseless in
> trying to defend an irrational ideological complaint about the BBC.

So you haven't anything sensible to add.

Fair enough.

On 11/06/2021 01:13, JNugent wrote:
> On 10/06/2021 09:30 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 10/06/2021 20:39, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2021 04:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/06/2021 15:40, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How long are you going to try to keep this up?
>>>>> As you already know, no-one's interested in anything you have to say.
>>>>> Have you got anything to say (or ask) about digital TV and its
>>>>> technology?
>>>>
>>>> In other words, as was obvious several exchanges ago, you have no
>>>> real arguments on your side, but won't admit that you're wrong.
>>>
>>> Have you anything sensible to add to that?
>>
>> I have been sensible throughout, it's you that's been senseless in
>> trying to defend an irrational ideological complaint about the BBC.
>
> So you haven't anything sensible to add.
>
> Fair enough.

Yawn! Continue to call black 'white' and white 'black' if you like,
just don't expect anyone else to believe you, that's all.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <iiemi6FolonU2@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> As you already know, no-one's interested in anything you have to say.

False. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 05/06/2021 15:23, Bob Latham wrote:
> As we learnt again a couple of weeks back, it would be better if the
> BBC regularly investigated itself for the same issues, certainly more
> relevant.

The BBC has always done far more navel gazing than any other British
broadcaster.