RuamRudy

OK so you have added the word "allowed" to your proposal. I think they are already allowed to wear badges etc, so your post was redundant. Unless, of course, "allowed" wasn't actually omitted by accident.

Then please explain the intent of your response to help someone as thick as me to understand.

I get that you are inferring that the idea came from me. But if you had taken a few extra moments to read the post to which I was replying, you would see that I was sardonically summarising the proposal from @Nick Carter icp To be clear, I am not the one calling for the public identification of those who think differently from myself. So please direct your outrage towards him.

Of course the article was written to damage the BBC. Why, otherwise, does it ignore every other media outlet and focus only on the BBC? Anywhere that has a branch of the NUJ could, potentially, be affected, even the very newspaper the article appears in.

I suggest that you read the article. It's not a BBC suggestion but comes from the TUC. A murdoch muck spreader has published a disingenuous article to whip up the perma angry into a rage against the BBC when the BBC is not a party in the story. As this thread makes clear, they are very effective at riling the willingly gullible.

Good lord, are you serious? Yes, I think you probably are.

Maybe make it simpler - why not just force everyone you don't like to wear an easily identifiable symbol on their sleeve?

1) yes, in a week when we are getting the lies of Allison Pearson thrust into our timelines, I think that the TUC should be free to propose whatever it wishes if it's within the law. 2) No, but then again that's already covered by their charter.

Imminent means about to happen. You don't know that is the case, even though you inserted an 'if' afterwards, unconcerned as you appear to be with consistency. To clarify for you: a third party group made a proposal; a sector of the BBC employees said "we don't like that idea". End of story. As for the BBC, they may or may not have responded but article doesn't make that clear because it isn't interested in accurately representing the BBC stance; it just wants to further the murdoch agenda and stir up more angry old men to rail against it.

The key word being 'if'. That's why it's desperate - the desperation being all the BBC haters hoping that this transitions from a nothing to something they can really froth about.

It is not a BBC proposal; the article makes clear that it came from the TUC. However, as the very mention of the BBC is catnip to the perma angry, it's guaranteed to get lots of incorrectly attributed bile here.

Read the article - the headline is misleading. The initiative is from the TUC and NUJ, not the BBC.

The UN is clearly not perfect, but its very basis as an intended means of countries collectively formulating a consensus means that it will inevitably be influenced by the prevailing attitudes of the majority of its constituent members and this leads it open to bias. I don't know the form that reform should take, but I believe that its better to talk than not. Of course, if the criticisms of Israel were baseless then there would definitely be cause of alarm, but if your defence is that the other bad guys get less grief than us bad guys, then its still not a great look.

OK, so you have nothing but slander to offer? I guessed as much. Have a good day.

There are undoubtedly member states of the UN which are anti Israeli; some of that enmity may be borne of anti Semitism, but history suggests that Islam and Judaism rubbed along together rather well until the mid 20th century, so does today's anti Israel sentiment come from innate anti semitism or from outrage at the behaviour of the state of Israel over the past decades?

Can you elaborate? Without facts to back up your claim, that is simply slander.

I read it, but that is not proof that the UN is 'anti Jewish'. So I will ask my question slightly differently: can you provide verifiable evidence that the UN is 'anti Jewish' rather than expect us to accept as fact a statement derived from your own inherent prejudice?

Can you provide verifiable evidence of this bold statement?

So Israel is beyond any criticism; any negative comment can only be borne of anti-semitism? Is that what you are saying?

The demonisation of any institution or individual who dares to criticise the state of Israel as anti Jewish or anti semitic has become as tiresome as it is predictable.

Oh, look at that - Shock Polemicist Hack in Lying for Clicks Scandal... Allison in Blunderland (again) "as the Eye has noted in recent years, Pearson has a tendency to rely on Trumpish "alternative facts" for her Telegraph columns, preferring anecdotal accounts from her correspondents and Twitter followers to anything scrupulously sourced."

Listen to myself? I was not the one trying to exploit this woman's horrific ordeal for cheap point scoring, albeit wholly incorrect in its attribution.

I am pretty sure that the orange rapist was in the hot seat in 2018 when this guy was first convicted for sex offences. Maybe he was inspired by Trump's reputation for sexually assaulting women with impunity.

What utter nonsense; of course you can. It's has been happening for centuries and is prefectly legal. People often stand outside courts during high profile cases and shout slogans, hold placards and generally try to get their message across to whomever will listen. That's called freedom of speech. You know, the very crux of this thread.

Are you suggesting that knowledge of the law should be restricted to specific individuals? I don't think they were trying to influence the judge, but I am intrigued that you think it's illegal for someone to define the law. Can you highlight what law makes it illegal to make it public knowledge that a point of law exists? That sounds very kafkaesque, like something from a Joseph Heller novel.