In article ,
wrote:
Brian, you're commenting on an ages old post by that well known racist
Bill Wright.
And do you never watch the news? That story was heavily covered in it.

A serious question, if I may.

If a genuinely non-racist person believed that the BBC were biased
over such a story, how could they raise the matter in such a way as to
avoid any accusation of racism?

It would be obvious by previous posts.

--
*When cheese gets it's picture taken, what does it say?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:46:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
Brian, you're commenting on an ages old post by that well known racist
Bill Wright.
And do you never watch the news? That story was heavily covered in it.

A serious question, if I may.

If a genuinely non-racist person believed that the BBC were biased
over such a story, how could they raise the matter in such a way as to
avoid any accusation of racism?

It would be obvious by previous posts.

Isn't that sort of judgement known as prejudice?

Let's start again.

If a genuinely non-racist person
*who you had never heard from before*
believed that the BBC were biased
over such a story, how could they raise the matter in such a way as to
avoid any accusation of racism?

In article ,
wrote:
If a genuinely non-racist person believed that the BBC were biased
over such a story, how could they raise the matter in such a way as to
avoid any accusation of racism?

It would be obvious by previous posts.

Isn't that sort of judgement known as prejudice?

Let's start again.

If a genuinely non-racist person
*who you had never heard from before*
believed that the BBC were biased
over such a story, how could they raise the matter in such a way as to
avoid any accusation of racism?

But the BBC hasn't at this point in time covered the story. To therefore
accuse it of bias is begging the question.

Bill brought up more or less the same thing recently. Complained there was
no coverage of it on the BBC - yet I had heard of the impending trial, and
the BBC is my only source of news. The trial itself was fully covered and
discussed on progs like Newsnight and Question Time.

--
*Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:40:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
If a genuinely non-racist person believed that the BBC were biased
over such a story, how could they raise the matter in such a way as to
avoid any accusation of racism?

It would be obvious by previous posts.

Isn't that sort of judgement known as prejudice?

Let's start again.

If a genuinely non-racist person
*who you had never heard from before*
believed that the BBC were biased
over such a story, how could they raise the matter in such a way as to
avoid any accusation of racism?

But the BBC hasn't at this point in time covered the story.
To therefore accuse it of bias is begging the question.

Wasn't that exactly Bill's point, that they hadn't covered it and
should have?

Bill brought up more or less the same thing recently. Complained there was
no coverage of it on the BBC - yet I had heard of the impending trial, and
the BBC is my only source of news. The trial itself was fully covered and
discussed on progs like Newsnight and Question Time.

But you *still* haven't answered my question, repeated above.