BBC - terrorists on TV?
Discussion
Can we expect to see, in the next few years, convicted AQ terrorists, ex bombers ( should that be failed suicide bombers?), Taliban warlords et al on popular tv discussion/ politics programmes?
Not just featured, profiled or, even, interviewed, but as commentators, pundits and the like, and treated as if just another spokesperson or politician?
Anyone who watched tonight's Question Time might guess why I ask...
Not just featured, profiled or, even, interviewed, but as commentators, pundits and the like, and treated as if just another spokesperson or politician?
Anyone who watched tonight's Question Time might guess why I ask...
This brings up an interesting point.
Should the BBC, or indeed any national televisions service, censor views of others?
There is a peace process going on. Part of that process is that we put the past behind us. If we don't then what started over 40/150 years ago will continue forever. Is your resentment against those apologists for terrorism so great that you feel entitlted to limit the chances of an end to the violence?
What about other political beliefs? I am offended by party politics but I accept that those who owe their employment, and many their riches, to PP are allowed on TV.
Religions? Should the BBC cut out all mention of things mystical in the quite reaasonalbe grounds that they are all made up? Or the much more vital grounds that I think religions are a canker?
The PIRA were an organisation that purported to believe that violence, murder and intimidation were reasonable methods to impose their political beliefs on others. It was not, of course, but that is the theory of many. In its rampage it has killed heroes and those whose have contributed positively to society. It has used terror against all sides in NI and Eire. It is quite the most repugnant of organisations.
However, I think enough people have suffered in NI and here. We should give the peace process a chance and if this includes having deluded weirdos on Question Time, and having McGuinness and that Adams thing on TV then I for one am willing, with resentment, to put up with it.
Kenneth Howorth was killed by the PIRA. He was, in my estimation, one of the most heroic people I've ever met. There is no justice for the animals that perpetuated such atrocities. We have to move on and having that silly cow on TV is a small price to pay.
Should the BBC, or indeed any national televisions service, censor views of others?
There is a peace process going on. Part of that process is that we put the past behind us. If we don't then what started over 40/150 years ago will continue forever. Is your resentment against those apologists for terrorism so great that you feel entitlted to limit the chances of an end to the violence?
What about other political beliefs? I am offended by party politics but I accept that those who owe their employment, and many their riches, to PP are allowed on TV.
Religions? Should the BBC cut out all mention of things mystical in the quite reaasonalbe grounds that they are all made up? Or the much more vital grounds that I think religions are a canker?
The PIRA were an organisation that purported to believe that violence, murder and intimidation were reasonable methods to impose their political beliefs on others. It was not, of course, but that is the theory of many. In its rampage it has killed heroes and those whose have contributed positively to society. It has used terror against all sides in NI and Eire. It is quite the most repugnant of organisations.
However, I think enough people have suffered in NI and here. We should give the peace process a chance and if this includes having deluded weirdos on Question Time, and having McGuinness and that Adams thing on TV then I for one am willing, with resentment, to put up with it.
Kenneth Howorth was killed by the PIRA. He was, in my estimation, one of the most heroic people I've ever met. There is no justice for the animals that perpetuated such atrocities. We have to move on and having that silly cow on TV is a small price to pay.
Derek Smith said:
What about other political beliefs? I am offended by party politics but I accept that those who owe their employment, and many their riches, to PP are allowed on TV.
Religions? Should the BBC cut out all mention of things mystical in the quite reaasonalbe grounds that they are all made up? Or the much more vital grounds that I think religions are a canker?
With respect, that was hardly the point of the OP was it?Religions? Should the BBC cut out all mention of things mystical in the quite reaasonalbe grounds that they are all made up? Or the much more vital grounds that I think religions are a canker?
Bing o said:
greygoose said:
They are a legitimate part of the political scene now, why shouldn't they be part of Question Time, they did get a quarter of the vote in the Assembly. If you don't like it then don't watch.
Can't we just blow the murdering
s up?Eric Mc said:
I'm not at all.
But I do recognise that progress demands compromises - on all sides.
It's hard though. And the feeling that I can't escape is that most of the concessions are on our side. The innumerable Bloody Sunday enquiries when boasting multiple murderers have been released: I find that a test. Heaven knows how it must feel for relatives of the dead.But I do recognise that progress demands compromises - on all sides.
A good point about Mandella. He was a terrorist and would have been released from prison if he had promised not to return to bombing.
Whether one lot is conceding more than the other lot is often very much dependent on what side you view yourself to be on. There are lots of Republicans who also think that THEY have conceded too much.
None of that is really important. What is important is that the violence is a lot less than it was. I do recognise that it hasn't stopped completely and perhaps it never will. But the situation in 2011 is a lot different to 1971 or 1981.
None of that is really important. What is important is that the violence is a lot less than it was. I do recognise that it hasn't stopped completely and perhaps it never will. But the situation in 2011 is a lot different to 1971 or 1981.
Derek Smith said:
It's hard though. And the feeling that I can't escape is that most of the concessions are on our side. The innumerable Bloody Sunday enquiries when boasting multiple murderers have been released: I find that a test. Heaven knows how it must feel for relatives of the dead.
A good point about Mandella. He was a terrorist and would have been released from prison if he had promised not to return to bombing.
A good point about Mandella. He was a terrorist and would have been released from prison if he had promised not to return to bombing.
we already treat McGuinness and that other ugly terrorist fker like legitimate politicians and the SF bint on QT last night would appear to have the major qualification for same, namely avoiding giving a proper answer to the first question put to her, so the OP's future is already here.
ker like legitimate politicians and the SF bint on QT last night would appear to have the major qualification for same, namely avoiding giving a proper answer to the first question put to her, so the OP's future is already here. Derek Smith said:
Should the BBC, or indeed any national televisions service, censor views of others?
I don't think so, where possible. These people have a voice and there are other outlets anyway.The BBC is openly politically biased which is perilously close to censorship anyway. But remember every man and his dog clamoring for a chance to be part of the political debates before the last general election - where the SNP censored by being left out?
Pothole said:
we already treat McGuinness and that other ugly terrorist fker like legitimate politicians and the SF bint on QT last night would appear to have the major qualification for same, namely avoiding giving a proper answer to the first question put to her, so the OP's future is already here.
Sounds like a description of any politician to me.ker like legitimate politicians and the SF bint on QT last night would appear to have the major qualification for same, namely avoiding giving a proper answer to the first question put to her, so the OP's future is already here. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff