Herb's An Old Crown Loyalist, One Turned...
Crosswords0 min ago
BBC pay EDL leaders airfare.
16 Answers
http://www.telegraph....leaders-air-fare.html
If the BBC wanted the leader of the BBC to leave a meeting of anti-Islamic groups in Aarhus, Denmark, so as to appear on one of their programmes, was it wrong for them to pay his airfare?
Interesting to note that although many similar European groups attended the Demo in Aarhus they didn't appear to cause any trouble.
On the other hand however Police arrested 82 Left-wing activists after they attempted to enter the square where the counter-jihad meeting was held, leaving four police officers with minor injuries.
If the BBC wanted the leader of the BBC to leave a meeting of anti-Islamic groups in Aarhus, Denmark, so as to appear on one of their programmes, was it wrong for them to pay his airfare?
Interesting to note that although many similar European groups attended the Demo in Aarhus they didn't appear to cause any trouble.
On the other hand however Police arrested 82 Left-wing activists after they attempted to enter the square where the counter-jihad meeting was held, leaving four police officers with minor injuries.
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I fail to see the point you are making AOG.
As pointed out, the BBC have not paid the air fare in question, and yes the production company's fee was paid by the BBC, but that is because the BBC has a legal requirement to outsource a percentage of its programming to independent proiduction companies, and has had for some years. If the BBC invstigated every single aspect of the costs of independently produced programming, they would have no moeny left to do anything, which would be a matter for a question for us to debate, as licence payers.
On this occasion, you deem it necessary to point out that the right-wing factions appear to have behaved, and the left wing appear not to have behaved.
Apart from the fact that both are acting against type, what is the point you are making?
As pointed out, the BBC have not paid the air fare in question, and yes the production company's fee was paid by the BBC, but that is because the BBC has a legal requirement to outsource a percentage of its programming to independent proiduction companies, and has had for some years. If the BBC invstigated every single aspect of the costs of independently produced programming, they would have no moeny left to do anything, which would be a matter for a question for us to debate, as licence payers.
On this occasion, you deem it necessary to point out that the right-wing factions appear to have behaved, and the left wing appear not to have behaved.
Apart from the fact that both are acting against type, what is the point you are making?
<<AOGs first point was simply to posted to prop up the 2nd one>>
<<Please to see you were able to work things out, when others failed to do so.>>
Perhaps people expect questions to be about what they say they are about
rather than a subterfuge, misrepresentation, silly game or some other form of dishonesty
<<Please to see you were able to work things out, when others failed to do so.>>
Perhaps people expect questions to be about what they say they are about
rather than a subterfuge, misrepresentation, silly game or some other form of dishonesty
naomi24
It's what you call a spin-off from the original question, recognised by the 'Interesting to note' prefix, all self explanatory if one had took the trouble to read the last two paragraphs in the news link.
I would have thought that would have been obvious, since it is a tactic widely used on this site, when all manner of things are posted which are totally irrelevant to the question set.
But in a way mine is less suspect, first there was the question, that being about the air-fare sponsor, which not many seem to have addressed, then there was the spin-off, recognised by the 'Interesting to note' prefix.
It's what you call a spin-off from the original question, recognised by the 'Interesting to note' prefix, all self explanatory if one had took the trouble to read the last two paragraphs in the news link.
I would have thought that would have been obvious, since it is a tactic widely used on this site, when all manner of things are posted which are totally irrelevant to the question set.
But in a way mine is less suspect, first there was the question, that being about the air-fare sponsor, which not many seem to have addressed, then there was the spin-off, recognised by the 'Interesting to note' prefix.
AOG - "I would have thought that would have been obvious, since it is a tactic widely used on this site, when all manner of things are posted which are totally irrelevant to the question set."
I suspect your approach is simply too subtle to be recogniseable by most - certainly myself included.
If you want to raise a point with the intention of leading on to a second point, why not try titling your question 'Sex@'
and then follow that up with 'Now that I've got your attention ...' I'm sure you'll have far more success that way.
I suspect your approach is simply too subtle to be recogniseable by most - certainly myself included.
If you want to raise a point with the intention of leading on to a second point, why not try titling your question 'Sex@'
and then follow that up with 'Now that I've got your attention ...' I'm sure you'll have far more success that way.
andy-hughes
/// AOG - i didn't suggest that you were. ///
It still appears that you are still concerned about the attention my entry appears to have had, may I therefore repeat that I am not.
/// Neither am I pre-empting the interests of the AB community - merely that a snappy one-word pointer will get far more attention than your more subtle entree appears to have garnered thus
far. ///
Regarding your one word pointer, if you were not pre-empting the interests of the AB community, why did you pick that one particular 'snappy one word pointer'?
/// AOG - i didn't suggest that you were. ///
It still appears that you are still concerned about the attention my entry appears to have had, may I therefore repeat that I am not.
/// Neither am I pre-empting the interests of the AB community - merely that a snappy one-word pointer will get far more attention than your more subtle entree appears to have garnered thus
far. ///
Regarding your one word pointer, if you were not pre-empting the interests of the AB community, why did you pick that one particular 'snappy one word pointer'?
1 to 16 of 16
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.