FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Naga Munchetty.. unfairly treated.

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Naga said what is a right thinking person would have said let alone any black person the BBC Complaints Commission,nay, the BBC itself is outdated and run by middle-aged white men.the Co-presenter Dan was holding a conversation with Nagar yet was not reprimanded. yes the complaint (one person oh come-on) was about Naga but Dan asked her questions to which she responded. at best she could have been quietly warned.I for one would rather see Naga as a leading politician then any of this current shower. the BBC is a dinosaur stuck in Alf Garnett land

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *elshyXOMan
over a year ago

Newcastle

Its an utter disgrace & just shows how unscrupulous the BBC is become.

Oneill is far from impartial & had too many close ties to The Spectator, regularly giving right wing media the easy ride

Laura Kuennsberg is basically a Tory mouthpiece & doxxed a labour activist

I dont see how those two people are protected by the BBC for what they say but Naga isnt, especially when Nags was talking from experience, without a predisposed agenda.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don’t agree with the BBC however the rules are clear. The reporters opinion isn’t what they are paid for, it’s simply to report.

Add the fact is the complaint was specifically about her, and therefore the BBC could only really investigate her (according the their rules)

What I think is a disgrace is that someone felt the need to complain about it in the first place. She made a valid point if you ask me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And to add, not only complained but complained repeatedly up to the highest levels

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Surely the biggest concern is there are still people who say go back home to someone who looks like her?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Surely the biggest concern is there are still people who say go back home to someone who looks like her?"
..

well yes.. a d*unken bigoted lout you could just about understand..but the Leader of the free world !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I don’t agree with the BBC however the rules are clear. The reporters opinion isn’t what they are paid for, it’s simply to report.

Add the fact is the complaint was specifically about her, and therefore the BBC could only really investigate her (according the their rules)

What I think is a disgrace is that someone felt the need to complain about it in the first place. She made a valid point if you ask me. "

Rules are rules I agree.. but when you look at the situation it usually not always as black and white as it seems

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's a fair ruling.

I want unbiased presenters.

Trump seems fair game to let loose on. We have to respect his position.

But one complaint? There should be a limit, say ten complaints then an investigation.

Also on subject, we can't say coloured but can say people of colour. That makes no sense to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I don’t agree with the BBC however the rules are clear. The reporters opinion isn’t what they are paid for, it’s simply to report.

Add the fact is the complaint was specifically about her, and therefore the BBC could only really investigate her (according the their rules)

What I think is a disgrace is that someone felt the need to complain about it in the first place. She made a valid point if you ask me.

Rules are rules I agree.. but when you look at the situation it usually not always as black and white as it seems "

I don’t disagree, but isn’t that why it’s investigated?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It's a fair ruling.

I want unbiased presenters.

Trump seems fair game to let loose on. We have to respect his position.

But one complaint? There should be a limit, say ten complaints then an investigation.

Also on subject, we can't say coloured but can say people of colour. That makes no sense to me.

"
.

as a child colored was the accepted word ..black was offensive we were taught..now its flipped..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hilloutMan
over a year ago

All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest

The BBC has become a very "woke" organisation of late and to see it embroiled in this mess after their constant virtue signalling is amusing to say the least. They've given ammo for liberals to be outraged because one of their own has broken the rules and is being punished for it. The irony is delicious.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erriAnneTV/TS
over a year ago

The shire

Just shows how out of date the BBC is and the licence fee should be scrapped.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Don't usually stand up for the BBC as an outdated corporation but I do think there right on this occasion

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Just shows how out of date the BBC is and the licence fee should be scrapped. "

yes indeedy,when did you last see bbc go from one programme straight to another...might as well be advertising

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

King's Crustacean


"Just shows how out of date the BBC is and the licence fee should be scrapped. "

Out of date in what way ?

You can't mean because they disagreed with one of their employees abusing their position .... which naga did.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

..

It’s a gross over reaction to the situation on my view. The BBC love to act on the rules ... but only when it suits.

She was asked a question and she responded. A word in her ear at that point would have been enough.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

King's Crustacean


"It’s a gross over reaction to the situation on my view. The BBC love to act on the rules ... but only when it suits.

She was asked a question and she responded. A word in her ear at that point would have been enough. "

I see they are now thinking that the colleague who asked her the Q's led her into it ...... so he may be answerable also.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

King's Crustacean

I have to say I find her objectionable in any case. I turn over if she's on. I really do like Charlie Stayt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

King's Crustacean

Louise is just a giggling idiot

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!


"Louise is just a giggling idiot "
true. Very unprofessional. Unlike Munchetty with whom I’d like to go to a munch with.

Munchetty over Minchin!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Surely the biggest concern is there are still people who say go back home to someone who looks like her?"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Naga Munchetty decision by bbc overturned...

..common sense prevails at last

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Don't usually stand up for the BBC as an outdated corporation but I do think there right on this occasion"

you thought wrong. They have sensibly just overturned the decision..which means even they realised they were wrong

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It’s a gross over reaction to the situation on my view. The BBC love to act on the rules ... but only when it suits.

She was asked a question and she responded. A word in her ear at that point would have been enough. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Don't usually stand up for the BBC as an outdated corporation but I do think there right on this occasion

you thought wrong. They have sensibly just overturned the decision..which means even they realised they were wrong"
no just theve caved in to the PC brigade how dare you treat us minority like you whites now retract you're decision BBC just gone down another step

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *loria JamesTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham


"Don't usually stand up for the BBC as an outdated corporation but I do think there right on this occasion"

Why?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Don't usually stand up for the BBC as an outdated corporation but I do think there right on this occasion

Why?"
Because she broke there rules he's should have never asked her if she wants to explain then let her come on as a guest not a presenter

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *W ChapMan
over a year ago

Swindon

Nevermind this bollocking for her, she is a bully, the way she treats other presenters/weather people is a disgrace.

She had 3 pops within an hour at various people including ageist comments. Don't like her at all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city

I prefer unbiased presenters on news. I am not fond of people peppering their opinion over reports, even if asked.

I think she should have been sacked.

If an Irish presenter peppered Boris with abuse over the border issue, it wouldnt go down well. I don't think this rude woman should be given any leeway at all just because the issue affects her.

Its a disgrace to the journalists who came before her, remained impartial when their country of origin, or ethnic people were being treated unfairly. Remained impartial and gave us the facts.

If the facts are picked to sway our opinion, that is not the presenters fault, but it is their fault to insult people or pepper reports with opinions.

Anyone who says "A go home" comment deserves to be called out with a harsh opinion, needs to tell me where it stops? when they report on a child sex ring can they insult everyone? Murder is pretty bad, worse than insutling people, can she call them scumbags?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Some very interesting comments in this thread!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm to interested in Carol kirkwood reading the weather to care, she's sexy as.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A big deal over not very much.

Bexit and the climate, important; this wasted energy over one complaint.

Ever watch Points of View?

What a bunch of idiots. Moan, moan moan.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssex_tomMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford

I watched the interview and struggled to find any bad conduct by her. Dan stitched her up by asking her opinion imo. But that aside. The BBC want political reporters to be impartial yet large eared sports commentators can say whatever they like..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ocbigMan
over a year ago

Birmingham


"Just shows how out of date the BBC is and the licence fee should be scrapped. "

I don't see the relevance of one to the other here?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ocbigMan
over a year ago

Birmingham


"Don't usually stand up for the BBC as an outdated corporation but I do think there right on this occasion

you thought wrong. They have sensibly just overturned the decision..which means even they realised they were wrongno just theve caved in to the PC brigade how dare you treat us minority like you whites now retract you're decision BBC just gone down another step "

wow.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ocbigMan
over a year ago

Birmingham


"I prefer unbiased presenters on news. I am not fond of people peppering their opinion over reports, even if asked.

I think she should have been sacked.

If an Irish presenter peppered Boris with abuse over the border issue, it wouldnt go down well. I don't think this rude woman should be given any leeway at all just because the issue affects her.

Its a disgrace to the journalists who came before her, remained impartial when their country of origin, or ethnic people were being treated unfairly. Remained impartial and gave us the facts.

If the facts are picked to sway our opinion, that is not the presenters fault, but it is their fault to insult people or pepper reports with opinions.

Anyone who says "A go home" comment deserves to be called out with a harsh opinion, needs to tell me where it stops? when they report on a child sex ring can they insult everyone? Murder is pretty bad, worse than insutling people, can she call them scumbags?"

A impartiality...try it sometime, it is difficult.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ocbigMan
over a year ago

Birmingham

supposed to read aaaah impartiality...ooops.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top