Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Read a bit more about this in TimeOut on the way home. They put a very positive spin on the whole thing, with the only shot in the programme having already been printed on the front page of a newspaper (which I don't recall causing the same outrage)


The thrust of the programme being that the photographers became the scapegoat at the time, supposedly interfering with the medics trying to attend - something I remember clearly at the time. So if this isn't true (and medics at the scene are interviewed saying that the photographers did NOT impede) then we have an interesting public-interest story - "Mass hysteria at time of death forces a scapegoat mentality which affects many living people's lives for a decade") The photos at the centre of the storm are used to support this argument and do not show any ghoulish images...


So I'm at a loss as to what the fuss is about - if I read what I wrote at the beginning of my first post above it's apparent I fell in line with the pervading mood about how wrong CH4 were. And I might now be falling in line with an article I read in a magazine.. But without watching it I'm not sure we can use the word "wrong" in the moral sense??

I did watch it and it was quite interesting in the way it went through the timeline in excrutiating detail. My two-penneth:


1. The photo was up for about 4 seconds, nothing could be seen and it added nothing to the programme. It could easily have been dropped.


2. Diana was mercilessly hounded by the paps but did use them quite a lot to publicise herself.


3. If they'd been wearing seatbelts we wouldn't be having this discussion

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • a) Because they published a leaflet in Urdu promising to give "Muslims a strong voice". This is reprehensible - just as a party that promised to give Protestants or Jews or Buddhists alone "a strong voice" would be acting in a sectarian manner. Parties - especially socialist ones like the English & Welsh Greens are now - should not be assymetrically promoting the interests of one religious group. b) Because they published a video in Urdu and Bangla criticising Kier Starmer for meeting Narendra Modi, when Modi has nothing to do with the issues discussed. Modi is a Hindu nationalist bigot - but in this context, the Greens are just shitstirring existing tensions between British Hindus and British Muslims for the purpose of trying to win Muslim votes - see the first point. FWIW I don't have any problem with parties communicating with the electorate in languages other than English (from Irish to Polish to Malayalam). What is very suspicious is when parties pump out sectarian messages only in one language... When Mamdani ran for Mayor of NYC (and won) he released plenty of campaign videos in multiple languages - but always with English subtitles too. There was never a suggestion he was sending different, sectarian messages to different groups.     https://uk.news.yahoo.com/why-greens-made-advert-urdu-164616073.html https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/uk-green-party-accused-of-sectarianism-after-releasing-videos-in-urdu-and-bangla-featuring-pm-modi-and-gaza/articleshow/128826689.cms  
    • @Sue the Green's campaign video showing Keir Starmer shaking hands with Modi and David Lammy shaking hands with Netanyahu is one such example.  As I say, I don't know the organisation, but I would expect election observers to only report after polls have closed. To do otherwise could be perceived as interfering in the election. They might need to check patterns across multiple polling stations. Any public criticism by an independent observer mid-poll could discourage participation and could be interpreted as campaigning. Much safer / more robust to check observations and release after the event.  Sorry - those posts merged. Not intended.   
    • Could you be more specific as to how "the Greens have practiced this on a far more significant scale in Gorton and Denton"? How exactly did they "try to exploit ethic tensions"?
    • I think the accusation derives from the Greens mobilising the Muslim vote, hence engaging in sectarian politics. But happy to be corrected    
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...