Tate Brothers - Round 2

C Kent said:
I think if the prosecution is giving out 'evidence' for the BBC to openly report on then why not the original English versions rather than a bunch of transcribed docs that can be open to interpretation :confused:
Click to expand...

Every thing that Tate does, you try and see the positive spin. Based on what he HAS said in English, the odds he has been mis-interpreted are basically zero. If he has been then I will hold my hands up - I am sure you won't - but until then I think your spinning for him is pretty pathetic.

I await your usual laughter response.
 
Dialup said:
Every thing that Tate does, you try and see the positive spin. Based on what he HAS said in English, the odds he has been mis-interpreted are basically zero. If he has been then I will hold my hands up - I am sure you won't - but until then I think your spinning for him is pretty pathetic.

I await your usual laughter response.
Click to expand...
Chin up buttercup, your strawman's have no power here :D
 
Dialup said:
But is she wrong? What has she got wrong?
Click to expand...
Possibly nothing. But it's clear from the interview that she intensely dislikes him (and some would say quite rightly so). It leads me to wonder if she has reported the latest article impartially. Did she leave important facts out if they don't agree with her view? Did she let her view affect the tone of the article? We simply don't know but the previous lack of impartiality is enough to question her impartiality here.

I remember the Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard trial. Obviously they are completely different accusations and severity. But at the time most media outlets were very biased against Depp because of the accusations against him. Yet the trial showed that almost all of the accusations were false and in fact he had been the victim on several occasions. I'm not suggesting in any way that the Tate's are victims. But what I'm saying is that just because someone is accused of something it doesn't mean they did it. Reporters should try to be impartial on how they report matters and given the history of this reporter I have to question whether she is. It devalues the article's validity in my mind.

** Once again I'm not defending Tate, I'm just trying to be objective.
 
Hades said:
Possibly nothing. But it's clear from the interview that she intensely dislikes him (and some would say quite rightly so). It leads me to wonder if she has reported the latest article impartially. Did she leave important facts out if they don't agree with her view? Did she let her view affect the tone of the article? We simply don't know but the previous lack of impartiality is enough to question her impartiality here.

I remember the Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard trial. Obviously they are completely different accusations and severity. But at the time most media outlets were very biased against Depp because of the accusations against him. Yet the trial showed that almost all of the accusations were false and in fact he had been the victim on several occasions. I'm not suggesting in any way that the Tate's are victims. But what I'm saying is that just because someone is accused of something it doesn't mean they did it. Reporters should try to be impartial on how they report matters and given the history of this reporter I have to question whether she is. It devalues the article's validity in my mind.

** Once again I'm not defending Tate, I'm just trying to be objective.
Click to expand...

Good post and well argued. I agree with you.

You are one of the few people here actually trying to have a debate which I appreciate.
 
Chris Wilson said:
Be grateful for small mercies :)

I'm sure he's a well meant chap, but so possibly is Welsby and both would be dangerous given more leverage.
Click to expand...

If you told me it was raining I would go outside and check.

Because you can't debate anything I have to say, you just going on a wind up. Which is fine but I am less likely to give anything you say in future any serious thought.
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
Be grateful for small mercies :)

I'm sure he's a well meant chap, but so possibly is Welsby and both would be dangerous given more leverage.
Click to expand...

What have you got against rugby (Welsby)?

Its really just a shame we cannot make the same comments about Farage. Hes got far too much leverage and is plenty dangerous. Hes not a well meant chap either ;)

Anyway I did have a good laugh at the google translate backwards and forwards thing.
I wonder how many times you would need to do it to get a consistent position.
Sounds a bit like that game where someone would start a whisper and it would be passed down the line. The person at the end would say it out loud.
About as useful in judging a translation as google translate.

Thanks whoever it was that did it for a great laugh though :)
 
Ayahuasca said:
So why are you posting links on social media (forums) linking to media articles about him?

For reference, I don't have an issue with it. But it seems to be a bit contradictory of you.
Click to expand...

Because we're discussing the case, would you prefer we didn't?

I don't see how discussing something that is public knowledge at the moment makes my point that this stuff should be private any different.
 
Dialup said:
Because we're discussing the case, would you prefer we didn't?

I don't see how discussing something that is public knowledge at the moment makes my point that this stuff should be private any different.
Click to expand...

I made it clear in my post that I didn't have a problem with it personally.

I just find it odd that in another thread you wanted anonymity for those who have even been found guilty, yet you're quite happy to use media articles about people who have not yet been tried and draw conclusions about them. Do Tate's friends and family not matter?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here and challenging your position on anonymity, I personally don't think it should be granted to him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom