chelstongull
TFF member
Posts: 6,759
Favourite Player: Jason Fowler
|
Post by chelstongull on Aug 16, 2011 18:04:32 GMT
They are all victims really.  |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Aug 16, 2011 18:23:35 GMT
They are all victims really. Hanging is too good for some of them! A slow and painfull death with their peers watching so lessons are learned and law is enforced! I`d start with pulling out toe and finger nails then smashing toes and fingers individually with a small hammer, shortly followed by snapping of limbs whilst slowly being roasted like a freakin` pig on a spit. Then the eyeballs pecked out by hungry ravens and the tongue sliced and smashed, after this the wild dogs can rip them to pieces for the final kill! Watch how many people want to follow in that persons footsteps! A tad harsh you might think but the stick is so bent in the other direction that this might just rebalance the scales of justice to the satisfaction of the public!  |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Aug 16, 2011 18:31:25 GMT
I don't think either side should be labelled as anything, to be honest. The news - specifically the BBC - should be impartial They are all victims really. They'll all lose out I might be being a bit thick here mate but what have the Beeb got to do with anything, partial or impartial it wouldn`t change anything and won`t bring back a dead girl! TV is a very important medium in shaping people's opinions these days. Most people will have learned about the riots by watching it on the news, and most of those via the BBC in particular - they are the most trusted media source in Britain They therefore has enormous power, so by putting particular slants on events (which they do - the editing, the selection of interviewees, the focus on particular individuals on both sides), they can influence a large proportion of the population's perception of the events. It's easy to take something unrepresentative of the riots, for instance, and turn it into what people would see as representative. e.g. the media were key early on in developing the perception that black people were largely responsible for the rioting, which was untrue It's things like that that make me cynical. The BBC are just as guilty as the rest of them as they are chasing viewers as much as The Sun are chasing readers. The vast majority of people in the country are socially conservative so inevitably they will pander to that to a certain extent |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Aug 16, 2011 18:45:25 GMT
I might be being a bit thick here mate but what have the Beeb got to do with anything, partial or impartial it wouldn`t change anything and won`t bring back a dead girl! TV is a very important medium in shaping people's opinions these days. Most people will have learned about the riots by watching it on the news, and most of those via the BBC in particular - they are the most trusted media source in Britain They therefore has enormous power, so by putting particular slants on events (which they do - the editing, the selection of interviewees, the focus on particular individuals on both sides), they can influence a large proportion of the population's perception of the events. It's easy to take something unrepresentative of the riots, for instance, and turn it into what people would see as representative. e.g. the media were key early on in developing the perception that black people were largely responsible for the rioting, which was untrue It's things like that that make me cynical. The BBC are just as guilty as the rest of them as they are chasing viewers as much as The Sun are chasing readers. The vast majority of people in the country are socially conservative so inevitably they will pander to that to a certain extent Yeah all good points and very valid. If a vast majority in this country are socially conservative and this is a democracy then shouldn`t the government be appeasing the people and doing what most are asking for? |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Aug 16, 2011 19:20:25 GMT
Well that's the big question. For me, the Tories are in government because they were the largest party in the Commons and Labour couldn't form a government with the Lib Dems, so they're there democratically. Obviously I'd like them to do something different but as they were voted there by the people (and it might surprise you that that included me last year - it's only since then that I've changed my views), they as a government are entitled to do what they want provided it's voted through by the Commons
However, I don't believe that means they should just do what the majority are asking them to do. The way I see it is they've been elected and thus they have a responsibility to do what they think is best for the country, not what everyone else says they should do. We've done our bit for the next few years
|
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Aug 16, 2011 19:37:36 GMT
However, I don't believe that means they should just do what the majority are asking them to do. It would help them if they want to get voted in again! |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Aug 16, 2011 21:55:28 GMT
I hate it when the media pander to the victims and say "oh look, isn't this terrible? What??? Pander to victims?   It IS terrible. The fact that there are indeed victims means that this isn't just a middle-class pseudo-intellectual debate about the whys and wherefores. It is real people's lives getting wrecked - and we should always remember that. Most of the victims are WORKING class people, so that helps to shoot down the rubbish about it being a class war. |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Aug 16, 2011 22:11:38 GMT
I'm not saying it isn't terrible. But people should have to work that out for themselves instead of being told it. It raises all sorts of issues when supposedly objective news sources start bringing emotion into the news, because that is effectively telling people (very subtly) how to think and what opinions they should have, which when you're a public service broadcaster is dodgy ground. The BBC is supposed to be 100% impartial
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Aug 16, 2011 22:25:55 GMT
I'm not saying it isn't terrible. But people should have to work that out for themselves instead of being told it. It raises all sorts of issues when supposedly objective news sources start bringing emotion into the news, because that is effectively telling people (very subtly) how to think and what opinions they should have, which when you're a public service broadcaster is dodgy ground. The BBC is supposed to be 100% impartial Maybe you've spent more time watching the news than I have so you may have seen something I haven't. Showing people suffering isn't telling people how to think - it is allowing them to make up their own minds. If there is an inevitable conclusion, then that's because the conclusion is inevitable. NOT showing the suffering caused would be leading people to unfair conclusions, because they would be missing THE most important issue. Do you think that the BBC should not show pictures of famine in Africa for fear that it might be seen as telling people to feel sorry for the famine victims? |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Aug 16, 2011 22:48:41 GMT
It's not so much about showing or not showing the suffering of the victims. It's more the focus on the suffering of a particular group of people - while I'm aware that this wasn't the case for every rioter, have they, for instance, made any attempt to show the suffering that many of the inner city rioters have had to bear in recent times prior to last week, or pointed out the suffering many will face in jail and after?
It needs to be a two-sided balanced account, otherwise people will lack perspective in the same way that they would if none of it was shown at all. By showing footage of the riots and then (only) interviewing the people who have lost homes or businesses, it's reactionary, and it's only telling half the story
I get the impression that the media, amongst others, have been skirting around the issue of causes, by simply implying that it's all down to petty criminals taking advantage, which is the easy (and, to an extent, false) explanation. I'm not saying people should feel sorry for the rioters, but the BBC ought to make it clear that there's more than one story here - they often do it well but the reports I saw on the rioting seemed to be lacking that
|
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Aug 16, 2011 23:34:20 GMT
the BBC ought to make it clear that there's more than one story here - they often do it well but the reports I saw on the rioting seemed to be lacking that If you think the BBC have been or ever will be 'impartial', James, you've a lot to learn. Those on the 'right' are absolutely correct to say that the BBC has a 'leftie' bias. So long as by 'leftie' they mean 'pro-Keynsian, pro-EU, pro-liberal welfare state'. It's a mouth piece of the soft-left, just like the Guardian. The average BBC journalist knows absolutely nothing about life on the estates he or she walks past on their way to work. And it never even occurs to them that they should. |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Aug 17, 2011 9:57:36 GMT
It is real people's lives getting wrecked - and we should always remember that. It was real people doing the wrecking, Jon. Real people you have never met. We should remember that too. |
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Aug 17, 2011 11:50:43 GMT
It is real people's lives getting wrecked - and we should always remember that. It was real people doing the wrecking, Jon. Real people you have never met. We should remember that too. It depends on how you interpret 'real'. In my view 'real' people accept their personal and collective responsibilities within society and do not behave like that. Conclusion ... Jon was right |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Aug 17, 2011 12:19:58 GMT
Jon is obviously right to say that many of those affected were ordinary working people who have suffered and will suffer because of it. To expect people not to be angry about that - or to blame that on 'Tory cuts' - is ridiculous.
But Jon says class has nothing to do with it. From his vantage point in South Devon. He wasn't there, he doesn't know any of the people involved, yet considers himself qualified to comment.
He then accuses others of having irrelevant conversations about it!
|
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Aug 17, 2011 16:28:56 GMT
But we have seen and got to know who some of these people are because they have been named and shamed as they have been trawled through the courts so an opinion can be formed, even from not so sunny South Devon!
|
|
