Brown sticks his foot in his mouth

chucky

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Bluntly, I am more interested in how they will run the country than how they deal with 65 year old ladies.

This whole episode has allowed all three parties off the hook on explaining how they are going to deal with the country's problems over the next five years.

Dance to the tune, little voters... :whistle:

one day the penny will drop but until then it's another 15 pages of posting what constitutes a a bigot and what is and isn't racist...

Sky News and the rest of the media have a lot to answer for...

Exocet

chucky wrote: »

one day the penny will drop...

Ah, you mean concentrating on the economy and what the future cuts / taxes are going to be? Hmmm. The problem has been around for months, we have had the manifestos, endless speeches and spin (from all parties) and we still don't know. So tbh might as well focus on the old lady and the unguarded comment for now... no chance of learning anything this side of the election.

We all know the Tories will lean towards cuts, and Labour will lean towards taxes - not much more to it really. Oh and they all need to put VAT up. So place your tick next Thursday, and meanwhile enjoy or cringe at a real life story that even Mandelson can't quite find the right spin for.

However, if you really wish to discuss politics. What is the multi times disgraced ex MP Mandelson doing as a Lord, and what has a Lord got to do with the Labour party?

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am getting bored to tears with this now. I am bored with the Tories who still seem to expect to win by default because Brown is inept at PR. I am bored with the desperate spinning from both sides.
.

Hmm. I was speaking to the tory ofice locally this morning, and they do not seem as...secure...as you suggest they do. we have been Lib deb for years, but last time the vote narrowed, I hadn't realized how close it had become here: nevertheless ...while no one is going to admit defeat prematurely I certainly didn't think they sounded over confident.

JasonLVC

ninky wrote: »

• continuing to film or record when the subject of filming believes the camera/microphone is switched off or not going to be used for broadcast.

But that code of conduct refers specifically to secret filiming does it not?. That is, filming images secretly.

The event was not secretly filmed like a Roger Cook or expose show. I cannot see anywhere how this code of conduct relates specifically to recorded voices only as it doesn't say that nor meant in any other context other than secret filming.

If anything the code that closley fits is recorded telephone conversations. The code for telephone recording states it is acceptable to record conversations without letting the other person know if the content has a public interest angle.

Guidelines are always open to interpretation, hence why I see no breach of codes here, this wasn't a fly on the wall set up, this was a live broadcast, orchestrated by the Labour party who invited the worlds press to attend and record the event.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Thanks, I understand what you are saying, and agree to a degree but like the debate :D

By this token could we thus justify secret film ing the government if they were, say, suggesting another country had weapons that could kill us....wasn't that a dodgy precept?

absolutely although this would be a legal minefield as sensitive defence information has to be treated differently. there would be a great deal of pre discussion about it and editorial decisions about when and where the filming could happen and how the material could be used.

i read all the furore before i watched the clip. and when i saw it i couldn't believe how innocuous it was. i was really angered by the way they played it to the woman and then shoved a microphone in her face to get a reaction. completely disgusting nasty journalists - the sort i loathe. apparently the sun has interviewed the grandmother but isn't going to run it because she's too pro labour. and currently max clifford is struggling to get the woman herself to sell an anti gb story.

i'd really like to secret film the sky newsroom and powers that be - murdoch. now that would be interesting. and very much in the public interest.

ninky_2

JasonLVC wrote: »

But that code of conduct refers specifically to secret filiming does it not?. That is, filming images secretly.

The event was not secretly filmed like a Roger Cook or expose show. I cannot see anywhere how this code of conduct relates specifically to recorded voices only as it doesn't say that nor meant in any other context other than secret filming.

If anything the code that closley fits is recorded telephone conversations. The code for telephone recording states it is acceptable to record conversations without letting the other person know if the content has a public interest angle.

Guidelines are always open to interpretation, hence why I see no breach of codes here, this wasn't a fly on the wall set up, this was a live broadcast, orchestrated by the Labour party who invited the worlds press to attend and record the event.

no not at all. it refers to all filming. including the type i do. you have to make it very clear when you are recording. you certainly cannot use footage when a contributor could reasonably have expected they were no longer being recorded as with gb.

don't try to argue with me on this one. i know what i am talking about. i suggest anyone who is annoyed about this writes to ofcom citing their codes of conduct. they are then obliged to reply.

Exocet

ninky wrote: »

i suggest anyone who is annoyed about this writes to ofcom citing their codes of conduct. they are then obliged to reply.

Is there somewhere to write to if we are delighted by it?

ninky_2

Exocet wrote: »

Apparently Brown didn't understand what she was saying. That's great. Just who you need in complex fast moving international negotiations - someone who cannot keep up intellectually, or grasp simple concepts.

.

gordon brown is a very intelligent man. he'd beat cameron in an IQ test any day. he is also a decent man. unlike cameron who voted for clause 28, no doubt made lots of homophobic jibes in his youth and in private and then goes 'pick a principle' because he realizes it doesn't win votes.

frankly i find the witch hunt blood lust from the right wing media sickening.

ninky_2

Exocet wrote: »

Is there somewhere to write to if we are delighted by it?

any murdoch rag will do.

Exocet

ninky wrote: »

gordon brown is a very intelligent man. he'd beat cameron in an IQ test any day.

Yep. He apparently (his own words) did not understand what she said, and used the wrong words when in the car. He then took time off from governing the country and spent longer apologising to her, than he spent with Obama in the Whitehouse.

I hear what you are saying about Cameron, I don't like him either. But 13 years AND Brown AND Mandelson is enough for me. Time for a change.