Shows how untrustworthy the BBC are

[carmanmemoranda]

and then apologise for doing so.

They apologised for the edit.

As they should have done.

The rest of it stands

 

[Deleted member 325366]

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no ?

That’s low, really low.

That’s a rubbish example of a closed question!!

 

[Koolpc]

Wooooof!

 

[motorbiking]

They apologised for the edit.

As they should have done.

We all agree

The rest of it stands

So you disagree with the part that says "this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action."

We got there.

So we agree they should have apologised for the edit, but according to you, it made no difference to anything.

and the Beeb lawyers who no doubt reviewed the statement, were wrong to apologise for giving "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action." Because according to you he did

It's a good job you are not 1 of the beeb lawyers.

As you can see - its you they don't agree with.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

We all agree

So you disagree with the part that says "this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action."

We got there.

No. It's a separate issue. But you are getting there I think

So we agree they should have apologised for the edit, but according to you, it made no difference to anything.

and the Beeb lawyers who no doubt reviewed the statement, were wrong to apologise for giving "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action." Because according to you he did

Twisting the words again. Very good at this swerve lark aren't you. Go find where I said that.

As you can see - its you they don't agree with.

Unlike you they haven't done anything more than apologise for the edit in panorama program

 

[Koolpc]

Its not a separate issue! It cant be.

The bbc twisted the words of Trump to make him look bad. He didnt incite violence. People only believe that because of the left wing media's reporting!!!

 

[noseall]

Has anyone read Trumps' riot speech? He tells the people to fight - a lot. I think Trump was disappointed no congressmen/women were lynched. It was only the bravery of others that prevented more deaths.

Mislead my arse.

 

[pete01]

Fight doesn't always mean punch someone.

 

[pete01]

So to sum up......you cant trust them as far as you can throw them.

 

[noseall]

Fight doesn't always mean punch someone.

No. But that mob were angry and getting angrier with every 'stolen election' bollicks utterances, being vomited from the rapist.

Why do you think it took Trump so long to call off his riot? Whilst knowing full well what was going on inside the Capito building?

 

[pete01]

Why do you think it took Trump so long to call off his riot?

He was putting fake tan on?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Its not a separate issue! It cant be.

The bbc twisted the words of Trump to make him look bad. He didnt incite violence. People only believe that because of the left wing media's reporting!!!

In panorama yes.

Not in the news reports at the time. Check the world wide media from the same time.

2 different issues

 

[motorbiking]

No. It's a separate issue.

It really isn't

Twisting the words again. Very good at this swerve lark aren't you. Go find where I said that.

Unlike you they haven't done anything more than apologise for the edit in panorama program

you're just talking boll@x now.

If you agree they should have apologised.
and now you are saying you never said you disagree that it give "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.”
So one can only assume you agree that the edit gave "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.”

You seem to have no argument left to make.

 

[noseall]

He was putting fake tan on?

No. The coward was gleefully watching it (from a safe distance) unfold on TV.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It really isn't

you're just talking boll@x now.

You've been doing it for pages.

If you agree they should have apologised.
and now you are saying you never said you disagree that it give "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.”
So one can only assume you agree that the edit gave "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.”

I can only assume you deliberately want to misunderstand the case, and my view. It cannot be that you don't believe the gist of Trump's speech at the time

You seem to have no argument left to make.

There is no argument to make. It's simple. But you just want the beeb to be bashed.

They apologised for the mistake, and refused to pay compensation. I wonder why that was the case,