Author Topic: Afua Hirsch  (Read 7202 times)

Offline King Nuts

If one thinks, and a great many do, that it's right and proper that Tommy Robinson is denied a mainstream media platform for his race-baiting and generally tawdry views, how come Afua Hirsch is let loose on polite society?

Column after column is like this: External Link/Members Only. She looks for racism everywhere, and then when she can't find it, it's put down to systemic or institutional racism.
 
The headline of this piece is provocative enough. And if BAME people are dying in disproportionate numbers, it's going to take months if not years of research to truly understand why. She admits that 'the data isn't there', but still blames the figures on 'state negligence' and with the glorious self-regard commonly found in Guardian columnists, goes on to say that 'the Guardian's new analysis is crucial'.

The woman is a provocateur. And yet, she gets away with it. Surely, getting privately educated and getting a PPE degree at Oxford can't have anything to do with it?




Offline WASA38


 Surely, getting privately educated and getting a PPE degree at Oxford can't have anything to do with it?

Philosophy, Politics and Economics, not Personal Protective Equipment.

Offline Ali Katt

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,971
  • Likes: 33
  •  
  • Reviews: 28
If one thinks, and a great many do, that it's right and proper that Tommy Robinson is denied a mainstream media platform for his race-baiting and generally tawdry views, how come Afua Hirsch is let loose on polite society?

Column after column is like this: External Link/Members Only. She looks for racism everywhere, and then when she can't find it, it's put down to systemic or institutional racism.
 
The headline of this piece is provocative enough. And if BAME people are dying in disproportionate numbers, it's going to take months if not years of research to truly understand why. She admits that 'the data isn't there', but still blames the figures on 'state negligence' and with the glorious self-regard commonly found in Guardian columnists, goes on to say that 'the Guardian's new analysis is crucial'.

The woman is a provocateur. And yet, she gets away with it. Surely, getting privately educated and getting a PPE degree at Oxford can't have anything to do with it?
She plays to an audience. I've seen her on debate shows on YouTube where she is often woefully out of her depth as she often up against much more informed people. She is no doubt a smart woman and knows her audience.

With regards the topic maybe the fact people from black communities are often closer together - I don't hang out with my cousin for example or go to a church or have a large family. If we are to believe everything which is said about Covid 19 proximity must play a part. If we want to go down that route maybe someone should ask Afua why there are very few Black blood donors.

Offline Scotpunter

Use the picture of the sadly dead health workers that is in the report. The majority of them appear to be carrying a few extra lb's. Why doesn't she say being overweight gives you a higher than average chance of dying from the virus? After all this is a major factor in causing the underlying conditions she describes, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke & heart disease.
Banned reason: Cunt
Banned by: daviemac

Offline mh

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,989
  • Likes: 32
  •  
  • Reviews: 53
Can't stand her. She used to be on Sky News a lot but I've not seen her for a while. But they did always balance her dross with equal crap from Carole Malone, for example. Media and Press both just want people willing to spout left/right nonsense, they don't want considered opinion. In the press each paper typically (but not absolutely always) sticks to their "own side" whereas regulated Media show both for supposed balance.

Offline hornyguylondon

Can't stand her. She used to be on Sky News a lot but I've not seen her for a while. But they did always balance her dross with equal crap from Carole Malone, for example. Media and Press both just want people willing to spout left/right nonsense, they don't want considered opinion. In the press each paper typically (but not absolutely always) sticks to their "own side" whereas regulated Media show both for supposed balance.

Agreed, all media outlets do that - they think they're being inclusive when it's more important to have people who can offer constructive crtiicism rather than obvious bias !
I find Maajid Nawaz has a much more balanced view on most things and is not afraid to take on anyone with extreme views, regardless of what they are  :)

Offline King Nuts

Agreed, all media outlets do that - they think they're being inclusive when it's more important to have people who can offer constructive crtiicism rather than obvious bias !
I find Maajid Nawaz has a much more balanced view on most things and is not afraid to take on anyone with extreme views, regardless of what they are  :)

I think Mr Nawaz is very good on The Pledge on Sky. Seems v fair as well as the fact he seems to know what he's on about most of the time. Michelle Dewberry has a way about her but I struggle a bit with that 'ull accent. She always looks very saucy though.

Overall I'd say it's a well balanced show. Unlike the BBC's Question Time, sadly degenerated over the years.


Offline Chorley

I think Mr Nawaz is very good on The Pledge on Sky. Seems v fair as well as the fact he seems to know what he's on about most of the time. Michelle Dewberry has a way about her but I struggle a bit with that 'ull accent. She always looks very saucy though.

Overall I'd say it's a well balanced show. Unlike the BBC's Question Time, sadly degenerated over the years.

Yes, I wouldn't mind a thorough going over by Michelle. :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo: :D

Offline OakTree

Isn't she the idiot that wanted Nelsons column pulled down?

Offline hornyguylondon

I think Mr Nawaz is very good on The Pledge on Sky. Seems v fair as well as the fact he seems to know what he's on about most of the time. Michelle Dewberry has a way about her but I struggle a bit with that 'ull accent. She always looks very saucy though.

Overall I'd say it's a well balanced show. Unlike the BBC's Question Time, sadly degenerated over the years.

The Biased Broadcasting Corporation has decided to be the liberal voice of the UK. John Humphreys confirmed it when he left  :D


Offline winkywanky

The Biased Broadcasting Corporation has decided to be the liberal voice of the UK. John Humphreys confirmed it when he left  :D


Humphrys said a few things when he left the BBC, and they're in his (very good) book as well.

He said they had a liberal bias and were too preachy. I would agree with that analysis. Pretty sure he didn't call them biased as such, not in the political (party) sense anyway. So the Biased Broadcasting Corporation quote would be yours, not his.

Offline King Nuts

Isn't she the idiot that wanted Nelsons column pulled down?

I don't know. But I've got a column she could have a pull on.

Offline hornyguylondon


Humphrys said a few things when he left the BBC, and they're in his (very good) book as well.

He said they had a liberal bias and were too preachy. I would agree with that analysis. Pretty sure he didn't call them biased as such, not in the political (party) sense anyway. So the Biased Broadcasting Corporation quote would be yours, not his.

Not my quote, I'm basing it on the fact he said "there's institutional liberal bias at the BBC"

He also stated:
 "BBC bosses were devastated by the victory of the Leave campaign, and likened their expressions following the referendum to a football fan whose team has just missed a penalty. He said: “I’m not sure the BBC as a whole ever quite had a real grasp of what was going on in Europe, or of what people in this country thought about it.”

He said more but I don't think it's unreasonable to have an opinion that they were liberally biased.

He voted remain by the way 


Offline winkywanky

To the OP KN, I've never been aware of this woman before but she seems to have a somewhat reactionary agenda: ie, any disparity between 'indigenous whites' and BAME groups is either intentional on the part of racism within the White British establishment, or as a result of negligence on its part.

She seems sceptical of the growing suspicion amongst the global medical/scientific community that Covid-19 hits different genetic groups in different ways (ie nothing to do with socio-economic factors). And regarding socio-economic factors, she seems to regard any differences as necessarily being the result of racism, which is a very ignorant view on something which is very complex.

She makes no mention of the fact that a massive 10% of births in the Pakistani Muslim community result in birth defects and increased risk of still-birth because of the level of in-breeding (cousins marrying) which is a little-known national scandal. Perhaps she wants to blame the UK authorities for this too, rather than perverse cultural practices? There's also disproportionately high levels of diabetes in the Asian community, and also the Afro-Caribbean community.

But then she completely contradicts herself when she mentions that all the Consultants who have died of Covid-19 so far are BAME, where poverty would play no part at all. But...she then goes on to say that BAME doctors are less likely to complain of lack of PPE etc and suggests this as a causal factor. But thats bollocks because BAME doctors are everywhere in the NHS, and they work alongside white doctors. Perhaps she'd like to have a pop at Coronavirus for being racist, but then that would fit with her 'blame the white establishment for everything bad that happens to BAME' mantra.

She just seems intent on flinging a load of mud without good reason  :rolleyes:.

Offline winkywanky

Not my quote, I'm basing it on the fact he said "there's institutional liberal bias at the BBC"

He also stated:
 "BBC bosses were devastated by the victory of the Leave campaign, and likened their expressions following the referendum to a football fan whose team has just missed a penalty. He said: “I’m not sure the BBC as a whole ever quite had a real grasp of what was going on in Europe, or of what people in this country thought about it.”

He said more but I don't think it's unreasonable to have an opinion that they were liberally biased.

He voted remain by the way


You're misquoting my quoting.

I agreed with you that Humphrys said there was a liberal bias at the BBC.

But he didn't say the BBC was the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, that was your comment.

I also voted Remain by the way (but now we're leaving, let's just get on with it in a way that's most beneficial to the UK, but perhaps without ignoring offers from the EU to be part of PPE emergency supplies just to 'prove that we can cope on our own').

I actually though the BBC's coverage of Brexit was pretty well down the middle, and certainly not particuarly different from ITN's and Sky News's.

Offline Beamer


She just seems intent on flinging a load of mud without good reason  :rolleyes:.

She's a gobby bitch with chips on both shoulders. She won The Apprentice a few years back. Failed in both General and Brexit elections.

Offline hornyguylondon


You're misquoting my quoting.

I agreed with you that Humphrys said there was a liberal bias at the BBC.

But he didn't say the BBC was the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, that was your comment.

I also voted Remain by the way (but now we're leaving, let's just get on with it in a way that's most beneficial to the UK, but perhaps without ignoring offers from the EU to be part of PPE emergency supplies just to 'prove that we can cope on our own').

I actually though the BBC's coverage of Brexit was pretty well down the middle, and certainly not particuarly different from ITN's and Sky News's.

I guess we all see it differently - that's politics  ;)

I voted remain too (at the time) :lol:






Offline winkywanky

She's a gobby bitch with chips on both shoulders. She won The Apprentice a few years back. Failed in both General and Brexit elections.


Thanks for the insight Beamer  :hi:.

Offline hornyguylondon

She's a gobby bitch with chips on both shoulders. She won The Apprentice a few years back. Failed in both General and Brexit elections.

Thought she would be a much more balanced person with a chip on both shoulders   :crazy:

Offline winkywanky

I guess we all see it differently - that's politics  ;)

I voted remain too (at the time) :lol:


I would also personally agree that the BBC displays a liberal bias.

I don't see that as a political bias as such, in terms of political parties. But it does often define the way they cover things.

They do preach though, ever increasingly. Humphrys specifically mentioned this in his book, and I would agree with him on that.

Offline winkywanky

Thought she would be a much more balanced person with a chip on both shoulders   :crazy:


No, it just stops her falling over  :D

Offline Ali Katt

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,971
  • Likes: 33
  •  
  • Reviews: 28

I would also personally agree that the BBC displays a liberal bias.

I don't see that as a political bias as such, in terms of political parties. But it does often define the way they cover things.

They do preach though, ever increasingly. Humphrys specifically mentioned this in his book, and I would agree with him on that.
Not Classical Liberal bias though. The BBC like the NHS was once a sacred cow nobody could criticise. I don't watch question time or even watch any BBC anymore, if I'm interested in that stuff it's better to listen to a podcast.

Offline OakTree

I don't know. But I've got a column she could have a pull on.

She just hates this country and it's history.

External Link/Members Only

Offline ladiesman020

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 597
  • Likes: 0
  •  
  • Reviews: 4
TR is brilliant. He argues for very well against the ROP
Banned reason: Undesirable, covertly filming bookings
Banned by: daviemac

Offline winkywanky

Not Classical Liberal bias though.


What name would you give it?

Offline Ali Katt

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,971
  • Likes: 33
  •  
  • Reviews: 28

What name would you give it?
I would class the BBC as being conservative with a small c in terms of values, but left of centre politically. If the BBC is liberal why can't you buy Dennis Potter's Blackeyes on DVD? I don't think showing say a Muslim comedy season makes you any more liberal than say channel 4 that had a pot season as it is about intent. The BBC were criticised for being "too white" and we get crap programming nobody wants to watch. Scrapping the license would fix it.

Channel 4 is now constant gardening, baking and cooking shows might as well be BBC 2.

Offline King Nuts




I actually though the BBC's coverage of Brexit was pretty well down the middle, and certainly not particuarly different from ITN's and Sky News's.

I'd agree, right up to the point the result was announced. Dimbleby looked like he'd seen Banquo's ghost. The sense of utter dismay in the studio was palpable. True colours were revealed.

Offline King Nuts



She just seems intent on flinging a load of mud without good reason  :rolleyes:.

I'd agree with this but she'd say she does have good reason. Much as I think she's an over-promoted hypocrite and all round shit-stirrer, I wouldn't want her to be shut down.

But others with what could be said to have equally extreme views ARE shut down. The media's bias runs very deep.

Offline winkywanky

I would class the BBC as being conservative with a small c in terms of values, but left of centre politically. If the BBC is liberal why can't you buy Dennis Potter's Blackeyes on DVD? I don't think showing say a Muslim comedy season makes you any more liberal than say channel 4 that had a pot season as it is about intent. The BBC were criticised for being "too white" and we get crap programming nobody wants to watch. Scrapping the license would fix it.

Channel 4 is now constant gardening, baking and cooking shows might as well be BBC 2.


I would disagree with the 'conservative' thing. I think taking an 'average' of the UK population as a whole, the BBC makes and presents stuff which challenges that 'average' view, in other words it challenges the social status quo. This is infact what pisses off so many people (including me quite often, and 'the usual suspects' on here, very often), it preaches to viewers on how we should all be completely non-racist, completely non-sexist, completely liberal in every way, and how we are all lacking in some way in that regard. We must be ashamed of many aspects of our history, we should be ashamed of women not being represented the full 50% in every job or position of importance, and we should be happy to have it rammed down our throats with every Drama, Feature and Documentary they make.

While the sentiments they're making are in the main laudable, for the vast majority of people they're preaching to the converted (and therefore just pissing them off by making them feel inadequate/guilty) and probably missing their intended targets because they're either not watching in the first place, or if they are it just goes right over their thick heads.

I can vaguely remember Black Eyes and I do remember the social comment it made at the time. I do also remember it being quite controversial, but it was 'OK because it's Dennis Potter'. I have no idea whether the lack of a currently available DVD is because of that, or simply that it was never particularly popular at the time and in any case it was a long time ago, so why would it be available? Or perhaps it wouldn't be available now because it would be politically sensitive to do so?

Comparing the BBC directly with Channel 4 is never particularly valid, because although C4 is publicly-owned (which no-one ever seems to realise) you don't pay a licence fee to fund it. The BBC comes under far more scrutiny than any other channel, gets kicked around like a political football far more than any other channel, purely for the fact that everyone has an opinion about it because they have to pay for it, directly and in a directly-quantifiable way (£154 pa). That's normal, and I would say justified too, and for that reason the BBC spends far more time justifying what it does than any other broadcasting organisation. Of course we all pay for C4 and indeed every other commercial channel, every time we go shopping. But we pay for it 'invisibly' and in an unquantifiable way, so far fewer people have strong opinions on its output, because they can simply 'turn over and watch something else'.

Everyone who pays their licence fee wants to see stuff they want to see, and many are resentful that stuff gets shown which they disagree with. The more British society changes, and the more there are other channels to choose from, the more difficult it gets for the BBC to justify its privileged position. In a very diverse society, it gets harder and harder to please all the people for enough of the time.

I would argue that makes it ever more important, not less. And so long as it can to a large extent show its political impartiality (by comparison with other UK broadcasters), reflect society without the perception that its preaching to us, do that in a demonstrably and comparably thrifty way, and retain enough of those very diverse viewers to demonstrate value for money, then it has a chance of on-going survival.

That survival also depends of course, on the govt of the day (and govts of the day always dislike or are suspicious of the BBC) holding proper public consulttion before making radical changes to it.

Offline winkywanky

I'd agree, right up to the point the result was announced. Dimbleby looked like he'd seen Banquo's ghost. The sense of utter dismay in the studio was palpable. True colours were revealed.


Would you not agree that it was a big shock for the majority of the UK population?

I know that's an oxymoron because the majority voted for Brexit, but it was nevertheless a big shock.

So if Dimbleby was equally shocked, and even if he voted Remain (which neither you or I know), then so long as his presentation of the subject wasn't prejudiced by his voting preference, why does it matter? Should every political commentator on telly be a political eunuch? That's impossible. Being professional means you present the facts, present public opinion without giving away your own thoughts on the matter.

They're not all as good as Dimbleby at doing that.

Offline winkywanky

I'd agree with this but she'd say she does have good reason. Much as I think she's an over-promoted hypocrite and all round shit-stirrer, I wouldn't want her to be shut down.

But others with what could be said to have equally extreme views ARE shut down. The media's bias runs very deep.


That's probably true, but then we have social cohesion to think about, don't we?

Some views are liable to foment social unrest (Tommy Robinson for example) so the extremities at either end are never going to be fully represented.

That doesn't mean certain minority parts of society are 'always going to get away with it', it just means that the way some issues are presented is crucial.





« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 10:44:25 am by winkywanky »

Offline mh

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,989
  • Likes: 32
  •  
  • Reviews: 53
I don't know. But I've got a column she could have a pull on.

...are you sure? He's referring to Hirsch.  :blush:

Offline King Nuts

...are you sure? He's referring to Hirsch.  :blush:

I thought he meant Ms Dewberry. But then again, Hirsch..... she's got something of a way about her.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 12:47:15 pm by King Nuts »

Offline King Nuts


That's probably true, but then we have social cohesion to think about, don't we?

Some views are liable to foment social unrest (Tommy Robinson for example) so the extremities at either end are never going to be fully represented.

That doesn't mean certain minority parts of society are 'always going to get away with it', it just means that the way some issues are presented is crucial.

I'd say Ms Hirsch's views are as combative and disagreeable as anything Tommy Robinson has come out with. I think she could be argued to foment unrest to an equal degree.

I'm not taking sides either way. I'm just interested in how certain views are presented as acceptable these days, whereas previously they'd have been thought of as unacceptably radical.


Offline King Nuts


Would you not agree that it was a big shock for the majority of the UK population?

I know that's an oxymoron because the majority voted for Brexit, but it was nevertheless a big shock.

So if Dimbleby was equally shocked, and even if he voted Remain (which neither you or I know), then so long as his presentation of the subject wasn't prejudiced by his voting preference, why does it matter? Should every political commentator on telly be a political eunuch? That's impossible. Being professional means you present the facts, present public opinion without giving away your own thoughts on the matter.

They're not all as good as Dimbleby at doing that.

Actually, no. I wasn't shocked. Surprised and relieved and felt the same sort of joy as I did when the Sex Pistols' God Save The Queen got to number one, in spite of the BBC pretending the record didn't even exist.

As regards Mr Dimbleby, the man has always been smoothly professional. I think you could probably find the clip on youtube, but even his face fell a little when the announcement was made.

Should these people be political eunuchs? Yes, if they're paid out of the public purse. Is it difficut to do that? Yes, but they get paid enough.


Offline winkywanky

I'd say Ms Hirsch's views are as combative and disagreeable as anything Tommy Robinson has come out with. I think she could be argued to foment unrest to an equal degree.

I'm not taking sides either way. I'm just interested in how certain views are presented as acceptable these days, whereas previously they'd have been thought of as unacceptably radical.

In terms of a BAME perception (by a few, not all) that they're always hard done by and nothing they can do will ever change that - and therefore adopting a degree of fatalism - then yes, that is damaging.

Offline winkywanky

Actually, no. I wasn't shocked. Surprised and relieved and felt the same sort of joy as I did when the Sex Pistols' God Save The Queen got to number one, in spite of the BBC pretending the record didn't even exist.

As regards Mr Dimbleby, the man has always been smoothly professional. I think you could probably find the clip on youtube, but even his face fell a little when the announcement was made.

Should these people be political eunuchs? Yes, if they're paid out of the public purse. Is it difficut to do that? Yes, but they get paid enough.



When I say political eunuch, I mean someone who is politically a blank canvas, who has no personal political views and therefore can be seen to be completely politically-neutral when they present political debate.

Surely the best we can ever hope for is that despite a TV political commentator's personal views, their presentation of political debate is right down the middle and devoid of real bias. That's what we expect of our TV in the UK by the way, not of our newspaper media who are much more opinion-driven.


Offline winkywanky

Actually, no. I wasn't shocked. Surprised and relieved and felt the same sort of joy as I did when the Sex Pistols' God Save The Queen got to number one, in spite of the BBC pretending the record didn't even exist.

As regards Mr Dimbleby, the man has always been smoothly professional. I think you could probably find the clip on youtube, but even his face fell a little when the announcement was made.

Should these people be political eunuchs? Yes, if they're paid out of the public purse. Is it difficut to do that? Yes, but they get paid enough.


Comparing the BBC's reluctance to play The Sex Pistols in 1977 is a spurious point when talking about politics, that's to do with socially-expected norms of the time. We're talking politics here.

You say Dimbleby was smoothly professional, presumably by that you mean he was professional enough to hide his own personal views before the result?

Offline lostandfound

Should these people be political eunuchs? Yes, if they're paid out of the public purse. Is it difficut to do that? Yes, but they get paid enough.

Idealistic bollocks. Only a childish mind would expect such a council of perfection.

Offline King Nuts

Idealistic bollocks. Only a childish mind would expect such a council of perfection.

OK, you disagree.

But 'childish'? Any danger of actually arguing the point without a low-grade insult?

Offline lostandfound

OK, you disagree.

But 'childish'? Any danger of actually arguing the point without a low-grade insult?

Come off it, didn't you start the thread arguing that only a childish mind is left leaning?

Offline King Nuts

Come off it, didn't you start the thread arguing that only a childish mind is left leaning?

I started the thread for reasons that I think are obvious, and that have been set out above.

I don't get upset or offended by low grade insults. Just bored.

If you can argue your point articulately, go ahead and do it. Otherwise, I have other distractions.

Offline lostandfound

I started the thread for reasons that I think are obvious, and that have been set out above.

I don't get upset or offended by low grade insults. Just bored.

If you can argue your point articulately, go ahead and do it. Otherwise, I have other distractions.

I have clearly articulated my point. As ever, when challenged, you deflect and dissimulate.

Offline King Nuts

I have clearly articulated my point. As ever, when challenged, you deflect and dissimulate.

What point? That it's 'childish' to assume political neutrality from political commentators?

I expect neutrality from the BBC news dept. These people are paid enough and need to do what it takes to tread the line down the middle.


Offline lostandfound

What point? That it's 'childish' to assume political neutrality from political commentators?

I expect neutrality from the BBC news dept. These people are paid enough and need to do what it takes to tread the line down the middle.

It's childish to expect that professional journalists are not also human with feelings like the rest of us, and at times of crisis those feelings may become apparent, if only for a moment or so.

Money has got fuck all to do with it.

Offline King Nuts

It's childish to expect that professional journalists are not also human with feelings like the rest of us, and at times of crisis those feelings may become apparent, if only for a moment or so.

Money has got fuck all to do with it.

OK. That's your opinion. Fair enough.

Mine is that I don't expect them NOT to have human feelings and opinions, but I do expect them when they're hired by a public service broadcaster to do a specific job, to do their best to conceal any views they have that might disrupt or distort their ability to report the news in a neutral manner.

Some do this well. Mr Dimbleby is a good example. Others not so well.

And yes, the money does have something to do with it. These people are paid pretty handsomely out of a budget that is met by every household in the land that owns a TV set.


Offline lostandfound

OK. That's your opinion. Fair enough.

Mine is that I don't expect them NOT to have human feelings and opinions, but I do expect them when they're hired by a public service broadcaster to do a specific job, to do their best to conceal any views they have that might disrupt or distort their ability to report the news in a neutral manner.

Some do this well. Mr Dimbleby is a good example. Others not so well.

And yes, the money does have something to do with it. These people are paid pretty handsomely out of a budget that is met by every household in the land that owns a TV set.

Not going to happen. Who wants a robot reporting the news?

A journalist's job is to report honestly; honesty is paramount, and if you believe your country just got fucked, show it, if just for a moment - it is an honest reaction.

Money again, is it your obsession?

Offline King Nuts

Not going to happen. Who wants a robot reporting the news?

A journalist's job is to report honestly; honesty is paramount, and if you believe your country just got fucked, show it, if just for a moment - it is an honest reaction.

Money again, is it your obsession?

From a newsreader, as well from a doctor, a teacher, a surgeon and all manner of other people, I am less interested in 'honesty' than I am in 'professionalism', if 'honesty' means their views impinge on their ability to do the specific job they're there to do.

And can you just cut out all the personal stuff? It's getting a bit tedious.








Offline lostandfound

From a newsreader, as well from a doctor, a teacher, a surgeon and all manner of other people, I am less interested in 'honesty' than I am in 'professionalism', if 'honesty' means their views impinge on their ability to do the specific job they're there to do.

Honesty, professionalism - the two cannot be separated - it's called integrity.


 

Offline King Nuts

Honesty, professionalism - the two cannot be separated - it's called integrity.

The two can be separated, and easily and frequently are.

But you just can't stop being patronising. So go ahead, you're welcome to the last word.