Astonishing that Paxman is allowed to get away with his political comments, especially as he is one of the BBC’s most senior political interviewers….here he is not talking about a past election but the next one and is expressing what are self-evidently highly political views…
Paxman says that we “ignore the democratic process at our peril” and believes people should vote. However he is also damning about the opportunities on offer when the people of Britain go to the polls to chose the next government.
“At the next election we shall have a choice between the people who’ve given us five years of austerity, the people who left us this mess, and the people who signed public pledges that they wouldn’t raise student fees, and then did so – the most blatant lie in recent political history.
“It won’t be a bombshell if very large numbers of the electorate simply don’t bother to vote. People are sick of the tawdry pretences.”
Yet again he is wrong as he was with Cameron and the WWI commemoration….for which he owes a very public and big apology to Cameron:
Downing Street is demanding a ‘full and public apology’ from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman for calling the Prime Minister a ‘complete idiot’ over his plans for the First World War centenary.
Paxman claims it is ‘a choice between the people who’ve given us five years of austerity, the people who left us this mess‘
But it was being left in ‘this mess’ (nice to see he admits it was Labour wot done it) that made some form of ‘austerity’ inevitable.
It’s not a choice.
The very fact that Paxman agreed with Brand meant he couldn’t interview him properly…as shown in the actual ‘interview’ in which Paxman didn’t bother to challenge Brand in the slightest.
Rather than telling Paxman to pipe down the BBC are going to town on his comments:
Viewpoints: Do MPs agree with Brand and Paxman?
Jeremy Paxman: Like Russell Brand, I didn’t vote
It does seem they really have lost the plot and forgotten any idea of their public service remit…not to mention the legal requirement to report events impartially.
Daily Mail commenters overwhelmingly behind Paxman over WW1 “Celebration” comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2496352/Furious-No10-demands-apology-Jeremy-Paxman-calling-David-Cameron-complete-idiot-plans-World-War-One-centenary.html
You’re clearly a fan of the Mail, not only reading it but quoting it too.
you must be reading every 5th or 6th comment….
They clearly haven’t read the speech….which is why Paxman, and the BBC needs to sort this out and apologise…..clearly Paxman’s comments have influenced people to think the worst of Cameron based on what was an outright lie from Paxman.
From http://www.gov.uk:
Speech at Imperial War Museum on First World War centenary plans
“Our ambition is a truly national commemoration, worth of this historic centenary. I want a commemoration that captures our national spirit, in every corner of the country, from our schools to our workplaces, to our town halls and local communities. A commemoration that, like the Diamond Jubilee celebrated this year, says something about who we are as a people.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/speech-at-imperial-war-museum-on-first-world-war-centenary-plans
So exactly what has Paxman got wrong. To either “commemorate” or “celebrate” the start of a conflict which took so many lives was absurd when first raised in 2012 and remains absurd today. The time to remember the sacrifices made (in addition to our annual Remembrance Day) will be the Centenary of the end of the conflict.
Missing the point as per usual.
Paxman wasn’t complaining about the date…he was claiming Cameron was ‘celebrating’ a war that killed millions…he claimed Cameron wanted a ‘knees up’ like the Diamond Jubilee.
A complete misreading of what Cameron said…and it can only have been a deliberate misreading by such a distinguished and educated man…hence it was a lie by Paxman.
And I’d check your dictionary…presumably it’s printed in China, in Chinese. Commemoration and Celebration are not the same thing at all.
commemoration:
1. the act of commemorating.
2. a service, celebration, etc., in memory of some person or event.
3. a memorial.
4. (in many Christian churches) a special service or prayer for commemorating the lesser feast on days on which two feasts of unequal rank are celebrated.
My thesaurus also lists celebration as a synonym for commemoration.
Probably explains why commemorative items are often produced to mark a celebration such as the Jubilee which commemorated the Queens 60 years of service.
commemoration
kəmɛməˈreɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: commemoration
1.
the action or fact of commemorating a dead person or past event.
“local martyrs received public commemoration”
a ceremony or celebration in which a person or event is remembered.
plural noun: commemorations
“commemorations of wartime anniversaries”
Origin
More
late Middle English: from Latin commemoratio(n- ), from the verb commemorare ‘bring to remembrance’ (see commemorate).
Translate commemoration to
Use over time for: commemoration
Albaman = Slimeball
2. slimeball
Person of low moral character
Bill Clinton is such a slimeball
‘Thesaurus’?….that’s not a dictionary….as different as Commemoration is from Celebration.
Roget’s has ‘idiot’…and ‘person with a learning disability’. I’m certain you wouldn’t dream of suggesting the two are the same thing….which is what your ‘logic’ would actually imply.
And oh yes:
BBC Events
‘The BBC Events team will provide live coverage of the major national events in the UK and in Europe that commemorate this important anniversary.’
‘This important anniversary’….
Guess you didn’t get the memo….but of course you don’t work for the BBC.
Still waiting by the way for your evidence that I said you worked for the BBC based on your email address.
No doubt you will be apologising to me.
“‘Thesaurus’?….that’s not a dictionary….”
Wow, never, you really are so intelligent in knowing that!!
And yet it seems you didn’t know the difference.
Alan, go back and read the post. Why are you always so obtuse when someone deigns to disagree with your prejudiced opinions.
Ah…reduced to bluff and bravado.
Facts, Albaman, where are your facts?
Bluster, bombast and bullshit is your stock in trade it seems.
“deigns to disagree”
—
Interesting use of the term.
It’s all you do.
Now, about the claims you made yesterday, got called out on, and suddenly discovered any other thread in a storm to be on rather than answer?
May one presume that by your silence the archives failed, reducing you further to digging semantic, pedantic, if not downright perversely daft, holes elsewhere?
Syllogism. A celebration is a commemoration, but a commemoration is not necessarily a celebration.
And the commemorative tat is not the celebration, it is a memento or a souvenir
“A complete misreading of what Cameron said…and it can only have been a deliberate misreading by such a distinguished and educated man…hence it was a lie by Paxman.”
Precisely.
I am no friend of Cameron but it is crystal clear that he was using”commemoration” in the sense intended. To commemorate.
That is not the same as celebrate.
Please don’t argue with pods.
Life is too short.
If you read Cameron’s speech he uses ‘commemorate’ or ‘commemoration’ countless times. He only uses ‘celebrate’ once i.e. when describing the Jubilee, which he was using as an example of an event that brings the nation together, which is what he wants to see with the WW1 centenary – he never suggested it should be celebrated.
As usual, the leftists exhibit a sad deficit in the verbal reasoning department (including Paxman – or was he just toeing the BBC anti-Cameron line?), as did Dez (I think it was) when this topic was first aired the other week.
a funeral is a celebration, its a celebration of the deceased’s life
so when one says we are to celebrate the start of the great war, it doesnt mean we act like the labour party and the rest of the left by having street parties like when Lady Thatcher died.
what it does mean is we remember the sacrfice made by those brave men
imagine if we held no event marking this historical occasion. it would be the biggest mark of disrespect i could think of
When people like Paxman start confusing lying with flip-flopping or changing according to reality, your public discourse is doomed. The LibDems certainly never intended or expected to raise tuition fees, did they? Did they know during the 2010 election campaign that they would end up in a coalition with the Conservatives and would definitely raise tuition fees because of it? Or were they actually forced to go along with it due to the messiness that is coalition government. How can Paxman call this a lie and get away with it? Call it a betrayal or caving or something else bad, sure, but it’s not a lie. Yet not a single Beeboid will say the US President lied about so many people losing their insurance policies, even though He and the Democrats knew the whole time it would happen. Presumably Paxman meant “in recent British political history…..” If not, then one despairs for his integrity, no matter how much he sneers or sighs or how many whispers there are about his being a secret hang-’em-and-flog-’em type.
This is the bias, this is double standard inherent at the BBC. And not a single defender of the indefensible or lurking or non-lurking journalist will dare touch it.
Good to see you back.
Seconded. I was worried you’d done a Martin on us. 🙂
And he will appear- welcome back
OK, how about this one? The LimpDims were the only party to commit to a referendum on the EU into their manifesto. When in power the proposition was debated and they furiously whipped against the possibility, both in the Commons and in the Lords. Total, complete liars.
Sure, that would be a lie, then. But that’s not the issue the vaunted Paxman was talking about. It’s shocking to me that perhaps the most-respected journalist of all on the BBC (not necessarily by people here, of course – that would be Andrew Neil – but by the general public and the chattering classes) either doesn’t know the difference between a lie and a misinformed or mistaken statement, or is simply too emotional to care and lets his personal politics color his judgment. And no defender of the indefensible will say a word in his defense.
Yesterday, Sunday the tenth, there was a Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph in commemoration of those in the Military who gave their lives for the Country.
I take it I am now, in the view of Paxman and Albaman, in complete disgrace for making the suggestion by the use of the word “commemoration” that those attending were there for jolly old knees up and grand old celebration to dance on the graves of the dead. Don’t the trendy, liberal left just love to twist the intentions behind the words of people who fail to comply with their aims and demands.
Of course, if anybody dare allow the centenary of the start of WW1 pass by without some form of act to mark it those very same people would be screaming the place down claiming it was a disgraceful and deliberate omission and an insult to those millions who suffered dreadful injury and death by allowing their suffering to go unnoticed.
To mark the event is to display pleasure for the start of a great disastrous war but not to mark it is a callous insult to those who suffered and died as a result of it. Marvellous how the left will demean such a solemn and important event by trying to turn it into a petty game of political point scoring. Such childish behaviour is despicable and they really should hang their heads in shame.
‘Albaman, Albaman, wherefore art thou Albaman?’
I would tend to agree that Paxman shouldn’t have made the comments about the next election.
However, when you say ‘Rather than telling Paxman to pipe down the BBC are going to town on his comments’, I think you need to make a disctinction between any censure by the BBC and the reporting of the comments by BBC News.
True but then as far as I know they haven’t censured him or made any moves to do so ! so until they do then they are just ‘going to town’ on the reporting of Poxmans bleating s and lies !
One is almost tempted to suspect that the BBC bosses agree with him on the politics, and so won’t be too interested in reprimanding him for it. Except for blaming Labour for the economic mess, of course. That little heresy must have caused a few furrowed brows around the office, I’m sure.
“I think you need to make a disctinction between any censure by the BBC and the reporting of the comments by BBC News.”
It’s a difficult distinction to make when you’re talking about an organisation with such a monopoly over broadcast news.