BBC expected to apologise for doctoring Trump videos

Has Trump ever been asked to apologise about any of the lies he tells on a daily basis?

25m ago 16.32 GMT- Committee questions Prescott on his own bias in leaked memo, noting that many of his concerns appear to come from a certain slant.

She points out some of the language he used are common phrases used in right-wing ideological circles, or that experts he references are “not completely neutral people”.

Prescott says that he didn’t have a “tick list”, and his memo just reflected reports “commissioned by the entire (standards) committee” for editorial adviser David Grossman to look into.

“We never knew what he would come back with. And if you take American presidential race, for example, it did come back saying, well, actually, it’s a little unbalanced.”

MP Huq says she watched the whole 70-minute Panorama documentary last night, and the 12-second edit does not change what the topic was about, which she says Trump would probably like because it includes many MAGA supporters.

Prescott is asked if he agrees with Trump that the BBC documentary constitutes defamation, given the US president has been indicted over the January 6 riots.

“I can’t think of anything I agree with Donald Trump on,” Prescott replies.

Standards Committee today re BBC. 'Not institutionally biased', says Prescott. The committee asks Prescott whether he thinks the BBC is institutionally biased?

“I don’t,” says Prescott. “Let’s be very clear. Tons of stuff the BBC does is world class factual programming… I think the standard of BBC Westminster is exemplary, and that’s why I keep saying these were incipient problems. We were finding the odd problem here and there.”

He says the crucial thing was that when problems were spotted, they appeared to have systemic causes that were not addressed.

He says “the root of his disagreement and slight concern even today” was that the BBC appeared to not be treating the problems as having systemic causes.

“There’s real work that needs to be done at the BBC.”

reported

IOMGran

eazybee

Tactical voting has resulted in a huge majority for Labour but orchestrated by people who do not support them or their policies.
The mantra was, 'anything to keep the Tories out, they cannot be any worse.'

We are seeing that 'they' can be.

I don't think they are worse, just not as good as I was hoping for. Can you picture Badenough as PM every day in the media? Nearly as bad a the gurning frog man.

Not as good as I expected due to MPs not supporting the policies, maybe there will be hope in the budget but I’m not holding my breath.

Elegran

Casdon

DaisyAnneReturns

eazybee

Tactical voting has resulted in a huge majority for Labour but orchestrated by people who do not support them or their policies.
The mantra was, 'anything to keep the Tories out, they cannot be any worse.'

We are seeing that 'they' can be.

Tactical voting is built into FPTP. PR doesn’t eliminate strategy entirely, but it vastly reduces the need for it by making representation more proportional.

True, but PR comes with a raft of other issues, and results in disempowered government at its worst. France and NI are both recent examples of that happening. I don’t think there is a perfect electoral system.

But FPTP has resulted in a disempowered government, just as much as PR would have. Starmer's intentions were well planned and were off to a good start, and he chose a team who had experience in the areas that he thought needed redesigning (some of them had experience outside politics but did it have outside parliament) He faced brick walls getting changes through the HoC and through some of his own party.

A lot of legislation has gone through in the last year though Elegran, I can’t imagine even the limited progress that has been made to improving workers rights for example, happening in a multi party coalition government. At least with a majority the party in government in a FPTP system has a fighting chance of making changes. I’m on the fence.

I've just seen a mistake in my last post up-page. "some of them had experience OUTSIDE politics but did it have outside parliament" should of course have been "some of them had experience IN politics but did it have outside parliament"

eazybee

Tactical voting has resulted in a huge majority for Labour but orchestrated by people who do not support them or their policies.
The mantra was, 'anything to keep the Tories out, they cannot be any worse.'

We are seeing that 'they' can be.

I don't think they are worse, just not as good as I was hoping for. Can you picture Badenough as PM every day in the media? Nearly as bad a the gurning frog man.

MayBee70

I will vote tactically for anyone that will stop Farage from becoming PM. Because, imo nothing could possibly be more damaging for this country and it’s people than that.

As will I.

I don’t know why DH and I go around muttering that it doesn’t matter what political party is in power because it feels as if it’s the bureaucracy behind government which is failing this country.
Yes there are most definitely brick walls in government but not too sure who supplies the bricks and mortar?

Casdon

DaisyAnneReturns

eazybee

Tactical voting has resulted in a huge majority for Labour but orchestrated by people who do not support them or their policies.
The mantra was, 'anything to keep the Tories out, they cannot be any worse.'

We are seeing that 'they' can be.

Tactical voting is built into FPTP. PR doesn’t eliminate strategy entirely, but it vastly reduces the need for it by making representation more proportional.

True, but PR comes with a raft of other issues, and results in disempowered government at its worst. France and NI are both recent examples of that happening. I don’t think there is a perfect electoral system.

But FPTP has resulted in a disempowered government, just as much as PR would have. Starmer's intentions were well planned and were off to a good start, and he chose a team who had experience in the areas that he thought needed redesigning (some of them had experience outside politics but did it have outside parliament) He faced brick walls getting changes through the HoC and through some of his own party.

There isn't really a "perfect" anything. Just perfect for one person, for many or for most.

DaisyAnneReturns

eazybee

Tactical voting has resulted in a huge majority for Labour but orchestrated by people who do not support them or their policies.
The mantra was, 'anything to keep the Tories out, they cannot be any worse.'

We are seeing that 'they' can be.

Tactical voting is built into FPTP. PR doesn’t eliminate strategy entirely, but it vastly reduces the need for it by making representation more proportional.

True, but PR comes with a raft of other issues, and results in disempowered government at its worst. France and NI are both recent examples of that happening. I don’t think there is a perfect electoral system.

eazybee

Tactical voting has resulted in a huge majority for Labour but orchestrated by people who do not support them or their policies.
The mantra was, 'anything to keep the Tories out, they cannot be any worse.'

We are seeing that 'they' can be.

Tactical voting is built into FPTP. PR doesn’t eliminate strategy entirely, but it vastly reduces the need for it by making representation more proportional.

Johnson destroyed the Conservative Party.

I agree, they should but how many in positions of power (not the political arena, obviously) manage that?
Even sub-consciously, their bias may well come through. [*Allira*]

That's why having people from different backgrounds is important to provide a balance.

That should not be necessary. People should be employed (and paid) on the basis of their ability to do the specific job concerned and their ability to be appropriately impartial. Just as people offer extra value if they have government vetting, I would expect this assett to have a value to employers in the areas where it is deemed necessary.

Tactical voting has resulted in a huge majority for Labour but orchestrated by people who do not support them or their policies.
The mantra was, 'anything to keep the Tories out, they cannot be any worse.'

We are seeing that 'they' can be.

You are not alone in finding it hard which party to support. Our Labor party is dire but the Liberals are just as bad. I am looking at the Animal Justice Party just as a protest vote. If I was there ( I do actually have a vote though choose not to use it ) I would not vote Labour because I think they are harmful at the moment, clueless and floundering. I like Kemi Badenoch but not the rest of the Conservatives. Nigel Farage is a good speaker but I think it would be risky having him as the PM- unknown quantity.

Rosie51

Seriously MayBee70 you'd vote Conservative to keep Farage out? That would be some serious nose holding.....

Only if it was a tactical vote. And there was no chance of Labour or the LibDems winning the seat. I actually look back with nostalgia to the Conservative party pre Johnson. My constituency has only just become Labour again after years of having a Conservative MP.

Seriously MayBee70 you'd vote Conservative to keep Farage out? That would be some serious nose holding.....

I will vote tactically for anyone that will stop Farage from becoming PM. Because, imo nothing could possibly be more damaging for this country and it’s people than that.

Meanwhile, back to Trump.
News just in, via The Democratic Coalition online, is that CNN refused to settle his 475 million dollar lawsuit against the network. He objected to them using the term 'The Big Lie' when referencing his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
A federal appeals court rejected his attempt to revive the case.

GG in your case, if the Politician is good for your area and effective, then, if I was you, that's who I would go for.

I take virtually no notice whatsoever of any manifesto.
They are not worth the paper they are written on.

Well, actually, it's as well to note what is in manifestos because, if there is something particularly nasty or stupid in one and the party which wrote it gets into power, when it legislates to implement its policy the House of Lords would have no power to delay it because it is in the manifesto.

Whereas, if the proposed legislation has nothing to do with anything in the manifesto the Lords can delay it for up to a year. It's one of the, admittedly weak, safeguards we have in our constitution.

Yes I am another who is unable to say who I will vote for.

I know who I would not vote for.