Media Bias

[BarnettNewman]

You are confused as usual. I didn’t say anything about Dem talking points.

The phrase 'Republican talking points' is a Dem talking point.

Right. Talking points is a Democratic hoax. Are you able to tie your running shoes or are they velcro?

[Cunt]

You are confused as usual. I didn’t say anything about Dem talking points.

The phrase 'Republican talking points' is a Dem talking point.

Right. Talking points is a Democratic hoax. Are you able to tie your running shoes or are they velcro?

Funny you should ask. I stand on one leg, pistol-squat to pick the shoe up, then close my eyes, stand, put the shoe on, tie it and put my foot down before opening my eyes.

I also know that if someone uses the phrase 'republican talking points', but can't name a few 'democrat talking points', there is an even chance they aren't going to say anything too interesting.

[Brian Peacock]

Why do you think releasing the document was initially promised so vigorously, then someone changed their mind?

No idea. Why do you think that happened?

If you were paying attention, I already said.

If you were paying attention though, you would likely have an opinion of your own to share on the matter.

I was more than happy to share my opinion - if you were paying attention that is. People of the persuasion of Tommy Robinson and Carl Benjamin etc are unduly fixated on brown sexual abuse and grooming because it helps them demonise and dehumanise brown people, which is necessary to their vision of a Britain First white ethno-state. There's an opinion for you, but when I said as much earlier you dodged it like a hot turd and decided to imply I was calling everyone who signed the petition a racists instead.

Here's an easy one for you: If a racist crosses the road does that mean that everyone who crosses the road is a racist?

So it seems that I'm quite happy to say what I think about Carl Benjamin promoting this petition. On the whole I'm not inclined to flap my gums and avoid saying anything of consequence about sexual exploitation and abuse, but I can understand why you might be.

[Cunt]

Why do you think releasing the document was initially promised so vigorously, then someone changed their mind?

No idea. Why do you think that happened?

If you were paying attention, I already said.

If you were paying attention though, you would likely have an opinion of your own to share on the matter.

I was more than happy to share my opinion - if you were paying attention that is. People of the persuasion of Tommy Robinson and Carl Benjamin etc are unduly fixated on brown sexual abuse and grooming because it helps them demonise and dehumanise brown people, which is necessary to their vision of a Britain First white ethno-state. There's an opinion for you, but when I said as much earlier you dodged it like a hot turd and decided to imply I was calling everyone who signed the petition a racists instead.

Here's an easy one for you: If a racist crosses the road does that mean that everyone who crosses the road is a racist?

So it seems that I'm quite happy to say what I think about Carl Benjamin promoting this petition. On the whole I'm not inclined to flap my gums and avoid saying anything of consequence about sexual exploitation and abuse, but I can understand why you might be.

So the investigator/government official who promised the report would be public...was he a racist?

Or was the decision to not make the report public more racist?

You keep avoiding that issue, with your obsession about Benjamin or Robinson. Almost looks like you are using personal attacks on them to avoid saying what you think about the report and the governments shifting position on it. They are only guilty of reporting/commentating on it. Really not the important part.

[Brian Peacock]

I didn't dodge that one either - I said I didn't know why it wasn't published and therefore can't say anything about the decision one way or the other. Carl and friends are happy to interpose their agenda onto it though, that's for sure.

[Cunt]

I didn't dodge that one either - I said I didn't know why it wasn't published and therefore can't say anything about the decision one way or the other. Carl and friends are happy to interpose their agenda onto it though, that's for sure.

The racists don't matter (except to those who wish to repeatedly signal how they hate racists, I guess)

Can you focus on the point of the petition? Or is that too embarrassing in subject matter?

Sajid Javid promised the review as Home Secretary in July 2018, pledging that there would be “no no-go areas of inquiry”.

“I will not let cultural or political sensitivities get in the way of understanding the problem and doing something about it,” he said at the time.

Since you aren't willing or able to discuss what this guy found, or why it is being denied to the people who paid for it (taxpayers), I guess I'm left listening to people who have the courage to discuss it openly.

It's a pretty hostile environment for you to do so, especially if you are under the same restrictive communication laws that Mr. Javid finds himself under. I understand if you can't or won't.

Media bias actually comes with jail terms, in some parts of the UK.

[Brian Peacock]

I think you're confusing courage with something else there. I'm happy to discuss sexual exploitation and abuse with you or anyone in terms of policy, policing, social attitudes, or whatever - I'm just not going to have those kinds of discussions with someone who thinks brown sexual abuse and exploitation should be prioritised.

If you want to cleave a boundary be between Carl Benjamin's politics and his encouragement of this petition feel free - but if you do then it's a bit rich to say I'm avoiding the issues isn't it?

[Cunt]

I think you're confusing courage with something else there. I'm happy to discuss sexual exploitation and abuse with you or anyone in terms of policy, policing, social attitudes, or whatever - I'm just not going to have those kinds of discussions with someone who thinks brown sexual abuse and exploitation should be prioritised.

If you want to cleave a boundary be between Carl Benjamin's politics and his encouragement of this petition feel free - but if you do then it's a bit rich to say I'm avoiding the issues isn't it?

Nah, I was curious about why the government had a change of heart about being open about their findings, but you keep focused on your media personalities. That's where the safe things are to say.

[Brian Peacock]

Lol. You brought Carl Benjamin to the discussion. You gotta kinda own that one really.

[Cunt]

Lol. You brought Carl Benjamin to the discussion. You gotta kinda own that one really.

Hilarious how attacking the racists is the only thing you can say about the matter.

It shines a light.

[Brian Peacock]

Exactly, pointing to a racist and calling them a racist is shining a light, on the racist - the racist you brought to the table btw. I don't know about you, but I think that one either fundamentally disagrees with racists or one doesn't. That you would label such a disagreement an attack also sheds a kind of light on the matter.

[Cunt]

Exactly, pointing to a racist and calling them a racist is shining a light, on the racist - the racist you brought to the table btw. I don't know about you, but I think that one either fundamentally disagrees with racists or one doesn't. That you would label such a disagreement an attack also sheds a kind of light on the matter.

I only mentioned that he had a biased opinion. Since I know his bias, I don't need to look further into his 'examination' of the matter.

The matter though, is an investigation the government promised to do openly, then hid.

So if all you can do is say 'racists are racists' well, good job. Everyone will know you think racists are racists.

But I also know what you have to say about the investigation he mentioned, or the governments change-of-heart about being open and honest about it.

So far, you have carefully avoided saying anything about it, favouring a focus on racists. Very illuminating. No-one else can speak to the facts of the matter too.

Do you wonder why this is in the 'media bias' thread?

Here is a clue, BP. - just like you likely find it awkward and possibly legally dangerous to talk about this government switcheroo, media companies are too. In fact, where you could only lose your liberty (or maybe life) they could lose licensing, their whole business and their right to publish, if they get it wrong.

The media bias here is fearfulness. I'm feeling it too. Probably why so many are mirroring your reflex, and attacking anyone they can while avoiding the issue addressed in the petition.

[Brian Peacock]

It's simple: I'm just not inclined to guess and gossip about the report.

[Cunt]

It's simple: I'm just not inclined to guess and gossip about the report.

Bravely put.

I wasn't asking about the report, but about the governments drastic pivot, but ya...most folks, when denied the facts, won't show your constraint.

It's likely to lead to guessing and gossip about the report.

[Brian Peacock]

It's simple: I'm just not inclined to guess and gossip about the report.

Bravely put.

I wasn't asking about the report, but about the governments drastic pivot, but ya...most folks, when denied the facts, won't show your constraint.

It's likely to lead to guessing and gossip about the report.

Pah. Doing the coward thing has really lost it's shine now I'm afraid. Why pretend you don't understand what I'm saying when I've been so clear? I'm just not buying into the racists ready explanation for why the report was withheld, nor the reasons why they say they want it published in the first place. I don't think disagreeing with racists can be labelled as attacking them (unless you think their ideas should be protected) or that racists are interested in things like truth or facts or have the best interests of society at heart, but I can understand why you might.