Any Romanians in tonight?

Back to the Romanians

Anyone on this forum old enough to have been in the UK when the Hungarian uprising started?For those that were not the UK decided to invite in all the hungarians who managed to cross the border/escape before the Soviets closed it .Lots of them ended up living near me at an old RAF base(Hednesford).Now as they were not prisoners they were allowed to roam about and given money for spends etc.,
All very good but lots of them were thieves and crooks who got out and they continued were they had left off back home Anything that was not nailed down was taken including washing from clothes lines and people started locking and bolting thier doors.This is just an example you understand ,I am not implying all Romanians are the same but wait and see!!!

Semantics, semantics, same old antics.

The standard cop out……:rolleyes:

You may believe you understand what you thought I said,
but have you ever realised that what I said was not
what you thought?

Around and around and around we go 🙂

Semantics, semantics, same old antics.

Yes. Do you? Whatever the perception, as you perceive it to be, matters not a jot. Your statement was simply wrong.

Charlie,

Do you really accurately read other comments ?

Grey Area

Conscience doesn’t have an ‘eye colour’ or a ‘shoe size’. It is an abstract concept that lives in people who form organisations – like the BBC.

That’s the perception, whether you like it or not.

Moggy C

Tired? Have a lie down. Take an aspirin.

Re 70

Charlie

The BBC is inextricably linked with the British Govt. eg. the State.

How can you write such arrant nonsense, John?:eek::(

Organisations are people or, are for the most part put in place by people.

Each of those unique individuals does indeed have a conscience but the organisation itself does not, any more than it has an eye colour or a shoe size.

The BBC is inextricably linked with the British Govt. eg. the State.

*Yawn*

Re 70

Charlie

The BBC is inextricably linked with the British Govt. eg. the State. It is not a question of legality or anything else other than public perception or perhaps even international public perception.

Grey Area

Organisations are people or, are for the most part put in place by people.

I did write that in the matter of ‘truth’ there can be mitigating factors.

If you’ve been brought up to believe that ‘white lies’ are acceptable then telling them won’t trouble you. If the opposite is true then it will.

Firstly the BBC is not run by the state.

I’ve always been under the impression that the BBC is involved with the state. Until the debacle over the Dr Kelly episode, I, like many others, had great respect for the organizasion, but not any more. As has been shown during the last few years, there have been many individuals pursuing their own agendas within the organisation, and some of those agendas are questionable, as are some of the ‘trustees’ running it.

IMO, present day BBC News is no different to the likes of Sky News, CNN, Al Jazeera, RT etc. The BBC can be every bit as selective about the news it transmits, as can those news agencies I have listed above. I’m not sure that its right to bestow some kind of sainthood on the BBC, any more than it is right to do so for any other similar news media. There’s nothing wrong with having a healthy skepticism of any agency, that insists that it is telling the whole truth, and nothing but, because guess what, sometimes, they’re not.

Is this the same Broken Biscuits Company that I knew & loved as a child ??

Re 66

The BBC is the State broadcaster. That is how it is perceived internationally. Its image is interwoven with the image of Britain.

.

Those are three separate and only subjectively connected statements. The BBC is NOT a state broadcaster. It is a public broadcaster and is accountable through the Trust to the public, not the state.

The truth is objective; there are no gradations of truth. The truth is that, which when spoken, written, recorded or witnessed, objectively and accurately, raises no disturbance to the conscience.

But surely that’s a subjective definition? That which troubles the conscience of one person may leave another quite undisturbed.

Since organisations are not sentient entities, they cannot have a conscience in their own right.

Re 66

Charliehunt

Yes Charlie, the BBC as a worldwide, truly global organisation that once had an unrivalled and enviable reputation for integrity, honesty and impartial reporting is now no better than other, inferior broadcasters.

Now, because it has broadcast lies concerning climate change and global warming, its reputation has suffered.

The BBC is the State broadcaster. That is how it is perceived internationally. Its image is interwoven with the image of Britain.

You ask what is the truth? Not easy but, not difficult.

The truth is objective; there are no gradations of truth. The truth is that, which when spoken, written, recorded or witnessed, objectively and accurately, raises no disturbance to the conscience.

Re 64

Grey Area

This may come as a surprise. I do have respect for your opinions. Your contributions are almost always thoughtful and put with moderation.

Enough compliments!

I am therefore surprised that you ask the question. Yes, organisations and individuals have a duty always to tell the truth ESPECIALLY if they are in the public eye.

If they do not tell the truth and they are uncovered, they will never again be trusted. It is natural and to be expected that those who have witnessed a breach of trust for whatever reason, will query what they are now being told is the truth and they will continue to query until, if ever, trust is re-established.

An example of breach of trust could relate to a partnership, either business or marriage. A condition of trust exists in the partnership until one day, horror of horrors, for whatever reason, one of the partners tells a lie. That’s it. Trust is out of the window, never to return.

I am aware that in the matter of truth, there can be mitigating factors but, in the case of the BBC, I can see none.

All state run news agencies are ‘obliged to tell the truth’

Firstly the BBC is not run by the state. Secondly there is no obligation on the BBC to tell the truth. There is an obligation on the BBC to be wholly non-partisan and objective. Thirdly what is the truth?

The problem with the BBC is that is has assumed the aura of objective invincibility as far as global recognition is concerned but the reality is that it is no more objective than any other broadcasting organisation and so its utterances should hold no more validity than any other.