Thanks. That article suggests to me that the mosque can't get it's story straight. For example, they said that they thought that it was immigration that was to be discussed, yet the BBC say that they were fully informed of all the actual subjects up for discussion and promotions were run advertising the intended content of the programme.
Then, an alleged threat was made. It would be interesting to see if this was verified, or just someone at the mosque saying they had received a threatening 'phone call as an excuse to stop the broadcast.
If a threat was actually made, they have effectively given in to terrorism and the terrorists achieved their aims- not a very good idea long term.
Pre-Birt, a programme such as this would have been make by the BBC, using BBC resources,
possibility a hired OB site and a contracted-for-the-series or staff programme editor.
That programme editor is responsible for the subjects discussed, the time allocated to each topic and
generally abiding by programme editorial guidelines that are appropriate to that style of broadcast.
The situation today is very different:
a commissioning editor, employed directly by the BBC, has sought a contractor
to fulfil a programme idea in accordance with the Channel Controller's wishes.
Mentorn won the contract for the production of this series of 'Free Speech' -
it has a legally binding contract with the BBC,
Mentorn has agreed to comply with many obligations, including abiding by the
editorial guidelines issued by the BBC.
Mentorn is free, in turn, to contract as it sees fit production staff, technical
facilities and staff and location of origin for the live outside broadcast;
one of those hired staff will have programme editorial responsibility for
the transmission and, no doubt, liaises closely with the commissioning editor.
Your suggestion is that, in this case, Mentorn has struck a contract with whichever body
deems it their role to hire out a car park of a mosque on which a further contractor erects
a temporary structure that enables Mentorn to fulfill its contract with the BBC
and that, in so doing, Mentorn has passed some or all of the programme's editorial control to the 'mosque'.
What reason have you for saying this?
"In theory", if the mosque asked the programme to leave on editorial grounds and there
had been no show then Mentorn would have been in breach of its contract with the BBC.
The 'Today' item yesterday did suggest there was weakness in Mentorn on such matters -
was the pre-Birt BBC more robust? I think so!
So do I. Constantly sub contracting out to private companies, who in turn pass the job onto someone else, each trying to do it cheaper and cheaper to make more profit is bound to affect standards, quality and control.
It's on News Watch now. The BBC were concerned about threats to the Mosque and the community, that is why it was pulled. What is this country coming too. The police should investigate and prosecute
I agree, there should be a full investigation, including of the various people at the mosque who are giving different accounts of what happened.
Succuming to threats is a very bad move in the long run, for very obvious reasons.
When programmes were all made in-house, BBC staff have in the past ignored threats to silence them and refused to stop broadcasting, for which they have my total respect.
Thanks. That article suggests to me that the mosque can't get it's story straight. For example, they said that they thought that it was immigration that was to be discussed, yet the BBC say that they were fully informed of all the actual subjects up for discussion and promotions were run advertising the intended content of the programme.
Then, an alleged threat was made. It would be interesting to see if this was verified, or just someone at the mosque saying they had received a threatening 'phone call as an excuse to stop the broadcast.
If a threat was actually made, they have effectively given in to terrorism and the terrorists achieved their aims- not a very good idea long term.
So do I. Constantly sub contracting out to private companies, who in turn pass the job onto someone else, each trying to do it cheaper and cheaper to make more profit is bound to affect standards, quality and control.
I agree, there should be a full investigation, including of the various people at the mosque who are giving different accounts of what happened.
Succuming to threats is a very bad move in the long run, for very obvious reasons.
When programmes were all made in-house, BBC staff have in the past ignored threats to silence them and refused to stop broadcasting, for which they have my total respect.
You can't blame the BBC, all groups are running scared of these religious terrorists.
Really it's for government to stop letting religion dominate. But the Conservatives are very heavily influenced by Christianity at the moment.
It's amazing that in 2014 we have such a malign force as religion still around and powerful in the UK.
Pardon? It's the current government that has legalised homosexual marriage! Where is your evidence that the Conservatives are influenced by Christianity? I'd argue that the gay rights lobby has a far greater level of influence. There wasn't a single word about gay marriage in the 2010 Conservative manifesto.
There are far more practising Christians and Muslims in this country than there are homosexuals. We ought to remember that.
Pardon? It's the current government that has legalised homosexual marriage! Where is your evidence that the Conservatives are influenced by Christianity? I'd argue that the gay rights lobby has a far greater level of influence. There wasn't a single word about gay marriage in the 2010 Conservative manifesto.
There are far more practising Christians and Muslims in this country than there are homosexuals. We ought to remember that.
And we ought to remember that a huge majority are in favour of gay marriage and it is only a minority who like to use religion as a front to their bigotry.
And we ought to remember that a huge majority are in favour of gay marriage and it is only a minority who like to use religion as a front to their bigotry.
More silly name calling, as always happens when anyone even hints at criticising homosexuality in any way on these forums.
If the government had any integrity it would have included this radical redefinition of an ancient and special institution in its manifesto and let the people of this country vote accordingly on it in a general election. Only then can you make claims about a 'huge majority' being in favour of it.
More silly name calling, as always happens when anyone even hints at criticising homosexuality in any way on these forums.
If the government had any integrity it would have included this radical redefinition of an ancient and special institution in its manifesto and let the people of this country vote accordingly on it in a general election. Only then can you make claims about a 'huge majority' being in favour of it.
Polls have shown that a huge majority are in favour of gay marriage so sorry to burst your bubble.
Regarding name calling I can't see how anyone other than someone who is ignorant or bigoted can have have a problem with homosexuality. It's as daft as being racist.
Polls have shown that a huge majority are in favour of gay marriage so sorry to burst your bubble.
Regarding name calling I can't see how anyone other than someone who is ignorant or bigoted can have have a problem with homosexuality. It's as daft as being racist.
its a very finely balanced subject, I think anyone needs to tread very carefully with it both one way and the other.
Polls have shown that a huge majority are in favour of gay marriage so sorry to burst your bubble.
Regarding name calling I can't see how anyone other than someone who is ignorant or bigoted can have have a problem with homosexuality. It's as daft as being racist.
You have a highly patronising way of debating. Opinion polls aren't always what they're cracked up to be. A lot depends on how you phrase the questions and where you do the poll. To put it crudely, you would get very different answers if you took a poll outside an Evangelical church in Kent than outside a gay nightclub in Brighton.
Your race and skin colour are accidents of birth. Many people believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I have known former homosexuals myself who have changed their ways through a combination of therapy and prayer, so yes, it IS possible.
Homosexuals are not a 'race' and your comparing those who believe that marriage is a life-long union between a man and a woman with racists is absurd and offensive.
You have a highly patronising way of debating. Opinion polls aren't always what they're cracked up to be. A lot depends on how you phrase the questions and where you do the poll. To put it crudely, you would get very different answers if you took a poll outside an Evangelical church in Kent than outside a gay nightclub in Brighton.
Which is why polls are balanced so they cover a representative cross-section of the population.
Your race and skin colour are accidents of birth. Many people believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
Such beliefs should not be taken seriously. Sexuality is not a choice.
If the government had any integrity it would have included this radical redefinition of an ancient and special institution in its manifesto and let the people of this country vote accordingly on it in a general election
I think you mean a referendum? If so, there is no justification for one, as we are a representative democracy and we elect MPs to make these decisions on our behalf.
...which in the medium to long term causes serious harm. Since homosexuality is a natural occurrence the only reason to "change ways" is because of outside pressure from other people which essentially amounts to a particularly cruel form of bullying. And this is a very polite way of putting it.
And we ought to remember that a huge majority are in favour of gay marriage and it is only a minority who like to use religion as a front to their bigotry.
How do you know that there is a huge majority in favour of homosexual 'marriages'? There has never been a vote on the subject. I suspect there is a majority who could not care less provided it does not affect them and then it is debatable whether the rest support it.
Why accuse people of bigotry just because they do not agree with you?
Which is why polls are balanced so they cover a representative cross-section of the population.
Such beliefs should not be taken seriously. Sexuality is not a choice.
Polls should be carefully balanced but not all are and people using polls to support a political point of view often only use figures that support their point of view and discount others. As has been suggested the question itself can be used to get a particular result.
Your race and skin colour are accidents of birth. Many people believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I have known former homosexuals myself who have changed their ways through a combination of therapy and prayer, so yes, it IS possible.
I utterly despise ignorance of this kind. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, no matter what you may have been brought up to think, whereas choosing to follow a religion is.
What you call "therapy and prayer" is nothing short of bullying and brainwashing. How would you feel if someone proposed using "therapy" to cure people of the error of their ways because they follow a religion? You'd presumably argue this was an infringement of their rights.
How do you know that there is a huge majority in favour of homosexual 'marriages'? There has never been a vote on the subject. I suspect there is a majority who could not care less provided it does not affect them and then it is debatable whether the rest support it.
Why accuse people of bigotry just because they do not agree with you?
Because there is no justifiable reason to be against gay marriage. If someone was against interracial marriage I would say the same thing. There is no difference.
Because we live in a Parliamentary democracy and our elected representatives have a duty to act according to the will of the people.
Which is why polls are balanced so they cover a representative cross-section of the population.
Not necessarily. I have been involved with polling in the past and a lot of it depends on how you phrase a question and how you define a cross-section. Neither are as straightforward as you like to think.
No you don't and no it isn't. At best you know some very tormented individuals being pressured into lying to themselves and everyone else.
You have a nerve, frankly. People are quite within their rights to seek help and swap a homosexual lifestyle for one where they have a monogamous relationship with their wife, beautiful children, a steady job and a happy, stable life. They certainly don't deserve to be labelled as 'tormented' and 'pressurised' by you.
What you call "therapy and prayer" is nothing short of bullying and brainwashing. How would you feel if someone proposed using "therapy" to cure people of the error of their ways because they follow a religion?
Here we go again. Religion is also a lifestyle choice, one which people are free to join and leave as they choose.
There is very little point in trying to debate with some people, as certain posts on this thread prove. Say you have a moral objection to homosexual acts (NOT people), and you're called all sorts of names. Say you believe that a marriage should be a life-long union between a man and a woman, and you're called a 'homophobe', say you believe a child should have a male and a female parent, and you're called a 'bigot'.
I actually think some people get off on this sort of name-calling. They're poor debaters, and highly intolerant of those who don't subscribe to their Guardianista view of the world.
I think you mean a referendum? If so, there is no justification for one, as we are a representative democracy and we elect MPs to make these decisions on our behalf.
No I mean an election. Each party produces a manifesto, which the electorate can then read and vote upon accordingly. There was no mention of homosexual marriage in ANY of the three main parties' manifestos in 2010.
You have a nerve, frankly. People are quite within their rights to seek help and swap a homosexual lifestyle for one where they have a monogamous relationship with their wife, beautiful children, a steady job and a happy, stable life. They certainly don't deserve to be labelled as 'tormented' and 'pressurised' by you.
Here we go again. Religion is also a lifestyle choice, one which people are free to join and leave as they choose.
What makes you think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? The only gay people who "seek help" are those who are pressurised by others into thinking there's something wrong with them. Gay people are perfectly capable of having happy stable monogamous lives providing they're not being "tormented".
Many people will define you as a bigot, but only because of the views you've chosen to express. Don't feel embarrassed about it, you probably can't help it. I certainly wouldn't accuse you of making a lifestyle choice to be a bigot, it's more likely just the way you are.
No I mean an election. Each party produces a manifesto, which the electorate can then read and vote upon accordingly. There was no mention of homosexual marriage in ANY of the three main parties' manifestos in 2010.
Does it matter? The issue was decided democratically by our elected representatives. It was a free vote if I recall correctly.
Because we live in a Parliamentary democracy and our elected representatives have a duty to act according to the will of the people.
Not necessarily. They also have to protect the rights of minorities if they conflict with the majority view.
You have a nerve, frankly. People are quite within their rights to seek help and swap a homosexual lifestyle for one where they have a monogamous relationship with their wife, beautiful children, a steady job and a happy, stable life.
The sad thing is that some people feel the need to "change" their sexuality, as if there is something wrong with it. Why can't these people be gay and still have all the things you mention above?
They certainly don't deserve to be labelled as 'tormented' and 'pressurised' by you.
But they clearly are tormented and pressurised, otherwise why would they feel the need to change?
There is very little point in trying to debate with some people, as certain posts on this thread prove. Say you have a moral objection to homosexual acts (NOT people), and you're called all sorts of names. Say you believe that a marriage should be a life-long union between a man and a woman, and you're called a 'homophobe', say you believe a child should have a male and a female parent, and you're called a 'bigot'.
I actually think some people get off on this sort of name-calling. They're poor debaters, and highly intolerant of those who don't subscribe to their Guardianista view of the world.
In many cases it is not "name-calling", it is simply stating facts. If you disapprove of gay relationships, you are by definition a homophobe - there is no getting round it.
Comments
Thanks. That article suggests to me that the mosque can't get it's story straight. For example, they said that they thought that it was immigration that was to be discussed, yet the BBC say that they were fully informed of all the actual subjects up for discussion and promotions were run advertising the intended content of the programme.
Then, an alleged threat was made. It would be interesting to see if this was verified, or just someone at the mosque saying they had received a threatening 'phone call as an excuse to stop the broadcast.
If a threat was actually made, they have effectively given in to terrorism and the terrorists achieved their aims- not a very good idea long term.
So do I. Constantly sub contracting out to private companies, who in turn pass the job onto someone else, each trying to do it cheaper and cheaper to make more profit is bound to affect standards, quality and control.
I agree, there should be a full investigation, including of the various people at the mosque who are giving different accounts of what happened.
Succuming to threats is a very bad move in the long run, for very obvious reasons.
When programmes were all made in-house, BBC staff have in the past ignored threats to silence them and refused to stop broadcasting, for which they have my total respect.
What about the Nick Griffin Question Time?
Pardon? It's the current government that has legalised homosexual marriage! Where is your evidence that the Conservatives are influenced by Christianity? I'd argue that the gay rights lobby has a far greater level of influence. There wasn't a single word about gay marriage in the 2010 Conservative manifesto.
There are far more practising Christians and Muslims in this country than there are homosexuals. We ought to remember that.
More silly name calling, as always happens when anyone even hints at criticising homosexuality in any way on these forums.
If the government had any integrity it would have included this radical redefinition of an ancient and special institution in its manifesto and let the people of this country vote accordingly on it in a general election. Only then can you make claims about a 'huge majority' being in favour of it.
It wasn't a live TV debate but Popetown was stopped from being broadcast on the BBC.
Catholics demanded the entire animated series be censored. Stopped it form being broadcast entirely.
Regarding name calling I can't see how anyone other than someone who is ignorant or bigoted can have have a problem with homosexuality. It's as daft as being racist.
its a very finely balanced subject, I think anyone needs to tread very carefully with it both one way and the other.
You have a highly patronising way of debating. Opinion polls aren't always what they're cracked up to be. A lot depends on how you phrase the questions and where you do the poll. To put it crudely, you would get very different answers if you took a poll outside an Evangelical church in Kent than outside a gay nightclub in Brighton.
Your race and skin colour are accidents of birth. Many people believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I have known former homosexuals myself who have changed their ways through a combination of therapy and prayer, so yes, it IS possible.
Homosexuals are not a 'race' and your comparing those who believe that marriage is a life-long union between a man and a woman with racists is absurd and offensive.
Why are these numbers significant?
Such beliefs should not be taken seriously. Sexuality is not a choice.
Why? Gays are either equal members of society or they're not. There's no need to tiptoe around the subject.
How do you know that there is a huge majority in favour of homosexual 'marriages'? There has never been a vote on the subject. I suspect there is a majority who could not care less provided it does not affect them and then it is debatable whether the rest support it.
Why accuse people of bigotry just because they do not agree with you?
Polls should be carefully balanced but not all are and people using polls to support a political point of view often only use figures that support their point of view and discount others. As has been suggested the question itself can be used to get a particular result.
What you call "therapy and prayer" is nothing short of bullying and brainwashing. How would you feel if someone proposed using "therapy" to cure people of the error of their ways because they follow a religion? You'd presumably argue this was an infringement of their rights.
Because we live in a Parliamentary democracy and our elected representatives have a duty to act according to the will of the people.
Not necessarily. I have been involved with polling in the past and a lot of it depends on how you phrase a question and how you define a cross-section. Neither are as straightforward as you like to think.
You have a nerve, frankly. People are quite within their rights to seek help and swap a homosexual lifestyle for one where they have a monogamous relationship with their wife, beautiful children, a steady job and a happy, stable life. They certainly don't deserve to be labelled as 'tormented' and 'pressurised' by you.
Here we go again. Religion is also a lifestyle choice, one which people are free to join and leave as they choose.
There is very little point in trying to debate with some people, as certain posts on this thread prove. Say you have a moral objection to homosexual acts (NOT people), and you're called all sorts of names. Say you believe that a marriage should be a life-long union between a man and a woman, and you're called a 'homophobe', say you believe a child should have a male and a female parent, and you're called a 'bigot'.
I actually think some people get off on this sort of name-calling. They're poor debaters, and highly intolerant of those who don't subscribe to their Guardianista view of the world.
No I mean an election. Each party produces a manifesto, which the electorate can then read and vote upon accordingly. There was no mention of homosexual marriage in ANY of the three main parties' manifestos in 2010.
Many people will define you as a bigot, but only because of the views you've chosen to express. Don't feel embarrassed about it, you probably can't help it. I certainly wouldn't accuse you of making a lifestyle choice to be a bigot, it's more likely just the way you are.
Does it matter? The issue was decided democratically by our elected representatives. It was a free vote if I recall correctly.
The sad thing is that some people feel the need to "change" their sexuality, as if there is something wrong with it. Why can't these people be gay and still have all the things you mention above?
But they clearly are tormented and pressurised, otherwise why would they feel the need to change?
In many cases it is not "name-calling", it is simply stating facts. If you disapprove of gay relationships, you are by definition a homophobe - there is no getting round it.