Freedom of speech?

[BADDOG]

It's quite understandable why the ethnic majority see themselves as out numbered and a little scared of what the future may bring, this is all the more reason to have a free and fair debate about what's going on in the world, and not stifle it as those cowards at the BBC have done!

Communist? It failed miserably because it made no allowance for human greed or corruption, besides as with the idiots who use the koran for their own evil ends, communism was warped by evil despots for their own ends.

Regards

[Aseroth]

Personally I didn't watch Kilroy, prefer Trisha. But I don't think the way to cure one extreme element is to vote in another. Why is it that BNP supporters always mention race but never what their plans are for schools, the NHS, armed forces, crime or transport?????

[SilentTrigger]

Originally posted by Pro Bmxer
VOTE BNP ( British National Party ) then this shi*t wouldnt happen.

Razist??

[BADDOG]

This is the kind of reaction I fear from certain parts of British society. With the dismissal of Robert Kilroy-Silk the BBC has played into the hands of the more extreme elements in our society by denying the right of an individual the expression of free speech.

We may all pay a very high price for this act of moral cowardice on the part of the BBC.


Regards

[SilentTrigger]

What? :/

[BADDOG]

I see the BBC has been proven wrong in the case of the late David Kelly, the weapons expert who recently comitted suicide. As with Robert Kilroy-Silk this arrogant organisation accussed the government of things it did not do or say, yet another reason to abolish the licence fee altogether and consign this hive of snobbish, middle class fools to the dustbin of history where they so richly belong!

Regards

[SilentTrigger]

Does this have anything to do with what i said? Just wundering heh

[BADDOG]

Simply put voting for the BNP or any extreme party of the right or left will only make things worse. History teaches us that when any nation lurches to the right or left, society polarises into opposing factions, left, right and in this case black,white that is no answer at all!

At the core of this debate is the simple fact we should all be free, within reason, to express a point of view providing it is in no way rascist, sexist or causes anyone to fear that they are under attack.

In the case of Kilroy-Silk, he only said out loud what many people do think but dare not say for fear of being labelled a rascist. We need to find a balance where we can tell the truth no matter what that truth is without some idiot at the BBC, in government, or any other institution stopping open and free debate.

If we elect a right wing or left wing government, we may not be able to get rid of them once they get their hands on political power, we are a democracy and as such all debate should be allowed and the people who try to make every thing politically correct are playing into the hands of the extremists in our midst.

I hope that gives you a clearer picture of what I'm trying to say, you don't have to agree with my point of view, nor does anyone else but that's the whole point, it is my point of view and like Kilroy-Silk, I should and you should be able to express it.

Regards

[Aseroth]

Well said and well put BADDOG, you managed to make your point and remain unbiased towards other comments that were made. I have so say I agree with you totally on this one, even tho Trisha is better

[MikeWar*us9]

Forgive me, if I seem a little off the subject, or if I might have read something wrong...But I noticed there is an implication over a private company namely the "BBC" restricting freedom of speech by advocating it's own agenda or favoring a certain group...

I firmly believe in freedom of speech, but when it comes to private companies, they have a right to run their business as they like, in this case the "BBC" even though we may disagree in what they want to promote...Generally people don't think of the media as a private business, but more like the government...

If the government came in and told a business what to promote that would be restricting freedom of speech. But if a private business such as the BBC doesn't want a particular view being broadcast, air time in which is paid for, they have every right to remove that person and put someone in there that advocates in what they want to promote...

I worked in public access tv, and I could say anything I wanted, nobody to answer to, as long as I didn't promote anything law breakin...If a person gets removed from a major channel, he can still say what he wants off the air, and if he has his own station he can express it then, get my drift? I know this might be hard to understand...I thought I would throw this in the mix...

[BADDOG]

The BBC isn't a private company as it is funded by a huge license fee levied on th general public and you are compelled to pay it even if you never watch the BBC, in fact if you don't pay it, it can result in you going to prison.

The BBC claims impartiality but in reality, it represents only the narrow interests of the middle classes here in Britain. It's viewing figures in no way justify the high cost of the license fee and over the years it has become a law unto itself.

Many people in Britain resent the way it dealt with Robert Kilroy-Silk as it is supposed to represent all points of view from all classes and backgrounds however, it simply does not as it is in the hands of a select few with their own agenda and in no way reflects the feelings or views of the vast majority of this nations people.

One day after Kilroy-Silks remarks appeared in the press, a BBC reporter expressed open support for suicide bombers in the West Bank of Israel, he was not censured for these remarks as a BBC spokesman said they were his persoanl views.

A case of double standards?

The BBC should have it's licence fee revoked, indeed there is talk now by the present government and the opposition of the cutting of the licence fee by up to 50% and I may add not before time!

Regards

[BADDOG]

Thank you very much for your kind words ASEROTH!

Regards