Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old January 4th, 2015 #81
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes View Post
I've been reading your past posts and you seem to be a ZOG puppet.

How much are they paying your ugly arse to come out with the shit you do ?
Another movement deviant this time a crude scat fixated imbecile onto the ignore list for you deviant wilkes
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old January 4th, 2015 #82
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post

No. An average of seven million HOUSEHOLDS watch every episode. The figures are calculated by such as power surges before and after the programme as people go to switch on the kettle/switch bathroom lights on etc.

Now, let's say - conservatively - that there are three viewers per household. That takes us to 21 million.

There may be more who don't use extra power before/after the programme yet who watch anyway so that makes the 21 million estimate even more conservative.



The system claims there are 63 million people in Britain. 21 is a third of 63. That's an estimated THIRD of people who watch.

The more likely guess is that there are 80 million people in Britain. That means more than a QUARTER of all people watch it.



We have no way of knowing.


A third or a quarter of the country registered to vote? Probably.


It's not just about voting. It's about changing social attitudes. I've related before, several times, how the bosses were tasked with making HIV seem more approachable. They did it.

Plenty more examples but that's the most obvious and was the most effective.



How many people now no longer regard HIV as an "untouchable" and "shameful" disease?



It hasn't. I don't fall for (or discount the power of) brainwashing and being guided towards the "correct" attude by anyone other than myself and my own morals.
I would have thought as an advocate for the three yids in a basement and TV influence you would have at least carried out a google search.

Obviously in the Advertising World it is the bottom line that counts and contrary to your childish claims this is how they get UK Viewing figures:

http://www.barb.co.uk/resources/barb...hat-we-do?_s=4

Since 1981, we at the Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB) have been delivering the official viewing figures for UK television audiences. We commission research companies Ipsos MORI, Kantar Media and RSMB to collect data that represent the viewing behaviour of the UK’s 26 million TV households.

BARB viewing data offer clients, such as broadcasters and advertisers, a minute by minute breakdown of viewing at regional and national levels. This information is vital for assessing how programmes, channels or advertising campaigns have performed and provides the basis for airtime advertising trading.

In order to estimate viewing patterns across all TV households, a carefully selected panel of private homes is recruited. The Establishment Survey is carried out continuously by Ipsos MORI in order to track changes in UK household characteristics. From this we can ascertain the types of households we need on our panel to make sure it is representative of the whole of the UK. We then recruit households to be on the panel that suit the necessary demographics, TV platforms and geography, as well as other variables. The BARB panel consists of 5100 households, which each represent about 5000 other households across the UK.
Once a household has been recruited to the BARB panel, Kantar Media fits every TV set in the home with a meter. Software meters are also installed on laptop and desktop computers, and tablets. In order for the meter to know who is watching, each member of the household over the age of four is assigned a button on a special remote control. If they enter a room while the television is on they must press their designated button to register their presence and press it again when they leave to show they are no longer watching.
We know what panel members are watching through an audio matching process. The meters take an audio sample of the programme, which is then turned into a digital fingerprint and matched to a reference library of programmes. It takes 15 seconds for the audio to be recognised and therefore matched but we report viewing on a minute-by-minute basis.

When two channels are playing the same content, for example one in standard and one in high definition, the broadcaster applies an audio watermark. This is inaudible to the human ear but can be picked up by the meter, allowing it to allocate the data correctly.

We have an additional technique for homes that use Sky, which involves accessing service information codes from the set-top box. We have also started working with metadata tags, which are embedded by broadcasters into online television content.

The data from the panel are sent back to Kantar Media at 2am before being processed and weighted to be representative of the whole of the UK. They are then released to the industry at 9.30am each day. These figures are called ‘overnights’ and show all of the previous day’s TV viewing.

These figures not only include those who watched the programme at the time it was broadcast but also those who recorded it and watched it back the same day. This is referred to as ‘viewing on the same day as live’ or VOSDAL.

Overnights however are not the viewing figures that appear on our website. These are consolidated ratings and include catch-up, or time-shifted, viewing that happened up to seven days after the original broadcast. The consolidated ratings are the BARB gold standard on which the UK broadcasting and advertising industries rely for all reporting and trading.

We are also now able to measure time-shifted viewing that happened up to 28 days later. All of our data is matched to the programme and advertising schedule to give viewing estimates for every programme and commercial that has been broadcast
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old January 4th, 2015 #83
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy View Post
........TV influence you would have at least carried out a google search.
No need. It's something I've been noseying into for quite some time.

Quote:
.......
Since 1981, we at the Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB) have been delivering the official viewing figures for UK television audiences.

Quote:
BARB has sent a warning to media agencies that it will be reissuing data from July through to September – a period which covers £840m of TV revenue – following an error in its audience viewing estimates.

The email sent from Spectra said: "We have been advised that due to an error in BARB's audience viewing estimates, they will be reissuing data from July through to September. We are currently in discussions with BARB regarding how best to process the data.
ht tp://w ww.thedrum.com/news/2014/11/19/barb-issues-warning-media-agencies-july-september-figures-are-wrong


OK - now onto the figures.




Quote:
This means that with a total UK population of 58,789,194, according to the 2001 census, each viewer with a BARB reporting box represents over 5,000 people.
Can you see the problem?


Something that may - if the number is included in their calculations - flaw their "data" even further is this:
Quote:
the UK’s 26 million TV households.
How did they come to the figure of 26 million? Wiki claims the sale of TV licences last year to be 25, 478 so I suspect that to be the source for that particular part of the equation.

So does less than a third of their 63m households have a TV? I find that hard to believe. Or are there unlicensed TVs? Either way, that particular part of the equation is likely wrong.

As 30 million viewers watched the Den and Angie Eastenders Christmas special, (now I remember why I posted that and the Royal Wedding figures. ) then clearly that figure was not gained from the BARB figures because they use a method that would not lead them to that conclusion. The only other method of gauging things like this is the "TV" pickup.

I've posted the "TV pickup" information here before and as soon as I find it I'll post it again. It's how they measure all kinds of things from, as I said, viewing figures to the number of people doing the Earth Hour thing, how many people are out watching solar eclipses and so on. Their figures are much more reliable because they are going by power surges.

Power surges are precisely measured (and, incidentally, anticipated and catered for by the grid at the time of such as weddings, World Cup finals etc) and so their information is likely to be much more reliable than an equation which relies on there first being a UK population of 58m and secondly, everyone with a TV having bought a licence AND, of course, one which sends out emails stating "oops, sorry. £840m mistake there."



Quote:
Will you be getting paid to watch the World Cup at work? Engineers in National Grid’s control room will be keeping a close eye on the big games to make sure the power system can cope with surges in demand caused by post-match cuppas and half-time loo breaks.

These surges – known as “TV pickups” – happen when a large number of people across Great Britain collectively switch on kettles and lights during a break in programming or after a major event, like a big cup final or the climax of a major soap storyline.

The pickup that followed the heart-breaking penalty shootout in 1990 against West Germany is the biggest that National Grid has ever had to manage. At 2,800MW it represented the equivalent of over 1.1million kettles being switched on
ht tp://ww w2.nationalgrid.com/mediacentral/uk-press-releases/2014/national-grid-up-for-the-world-cup/

In fact I believe they actually train people to predict/spot major TV drains on the power such as football matches, soap cliffhangers, explosive documentaries, Royal weddings and so on.

**(somewhat urelated to the actual viewing figures but from the BARB email:

Quote:
July through to September – a period which covers £840m of TV revenue
That's a lot of money to spend in a three month period on a country with only 26m of the total 58m households ( both numbers according to them) having a TV. Perhaps advertising DOES work, contrary to some people's claims......)
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old January 7th, 2015 #84
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesHarrison View Post
It must say something about the state of the UK that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened.

The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.

I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.

Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned
Now I admit I don't live in London so I can't say for sure what the average ethnic makeup of a typical "Square" is (additionally, the programme is, I believe, set in an outer part of London and not in the city itself) but the ethnic make-up of the programme is diverse (6 white households, 1 Asian household, one black household, one mixed race household and a mixed race single character) and as far as I know, it was diverse in 2008 when this was written.

I'm not defending the programme; I'm pointing out that whoever wrote that doesn't appear to have watched it. Here's the rest of the quote from whoever wrote that. I think he or she might have an agenda.
Quote:


What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.

Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.

I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?

Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.

Avoid it like the plague.
Your source:

htt p://ww w.imdb.com/title/tt0088512/reviews

Yes, it's a depressing programme but when the makers are pushed by the Government to tackle social subjects such as arranged marriage, historical and present-day child abuse, drug abuse, HIV, immigration marriages, rape, homosexual marriage and surrogate pregnancy along with every other issue they've tackled, then it's not going to be a happy programme.

The IMDB writer you quoted is correct about the depressing storylines but what he doesn't mention, for some reason, is the common factor in the storylines.

historic rape: white man and his white niece
grooming: white man and his white girlfriend's white daughter
pimping out to mates: white man and his white girlfriend
rape/pregnancy storyline - white man and white woman
underage pregnancies - both white girls
**cot death/baby snatch - white woman, white baby
drug abuse - white man and white woman
hiv - white man


homosexual partnership/wedding - white man called Christian and a muslim played by an Italian because they couldn't find a muslim to do the scenes - actually, forget this storyline. It had a happy ending so probably doesn't count. Not long after this they legalised gay marriage without too much objection.


Of course, other characters have had little bits of misery here and there but not repeatedly and on a grand scale like some families in the soap have.


In any case, whatever the ethnic make up and whatever the level of misery and depression amongst the characters in the programme, what's even more depressing is that it's openly admitted to taking part in an agenda to change social attitudes to at least one issue that we know of and so there's no reason to suspect that it's not doing the same thing with other topical issues and influencing or attempting to influence a large segment of the population into drawing, from each scenario, the conclusion that the BBC would like them to draw.


Now, I think many people must have forogtten about this thread http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t...=solution+read because there's been far, far more pressing matters such as thumbs to post about, but one particular segment of that document stated:

Quote:
(g)
The production of books, plays, newspapers reports, magazine articles, films and television programmes – promoting a climate of tolerance – will be encouraged and, where necessary, subsidized by the Government
.
Section
9
.
Mass Media
(a)
The Government shall ensure that public broadcasting (television and radio) stations will devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance , as per Section 8(f)

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy
Provide the link that shows Health professional in favour of HIV
You didn't rephrase this so I'm going to take a guess that you wanted me to expand on the statement I made about the soap being asked to tackle AIDS which subsequently changed the attitude of people towards the disease.



Quote:
Mark became the first mainstream soap character to be diagnosed as HIV-positive. The storyline came after a government request to "spread the word".[4] Mark's story also helped dispel the myth that HIV is an automatic death sentence.[citation needed] He lived with the condition for 13 years before dying of an AIDS related illness. The Terrence Higgins Trust worked with the production team for the duration of Mark's story.[5] Despite all the public health campaigns concerning HIV transmission, the biggest peak in requests for testing in Britain was seen in January 1991 when Mark Fowler was diagnosed HIV-positive.[6]
ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fowler

So here we can see that the Government asked Eastenders to tackle the issue and they responded by making a heartthrob heterosexual character contract the illness.

A reasonable conclusion can be drawn that this did affect a large number of people as the quote states it coincided with the peak of test requests.


**This actress was repeatedly attacked in the street for this storyline and left the show in protest until they agreed to bring it to a much earlier conclusion than originally planned.


I can't be bothered to keep arguing in circles about this. I remain convinced that they do have an agenda to push with certain social issues and I remain equally convinced that ordinary people are affected by it.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old January 7th, 2015 #85
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
Default

"...A reasonable conclusion can be drawn that this did affect a large number of people as the quote states it coincided with the peak of test requests..."

Codswallop there is nothing "reasonable" in regard to your blanket claim that people take important life and death decisions based on what they watch on the boob tube.

Your spurious claims that the entire planet is sitting enthralled by the inanities broadcast on the BBC is bogus. Are the viewers and I to presume that you alone are immune to this universal brainwashing that you claim is default ? If so, you can accede to my request and post the list of Health professionals that now regard it is acceptable to exchange bodily fluids and hug aids buggers ? Unless of course Health professionals like yourself are immune to the BBC brainwashing.
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old January 7th, 2015 #86
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy View Post
"...A reasonable conclusion can be drawn that this did affect a large number of people as the quote states it coincided with the peak of test requests..."
Quote:
Codswallop there is nothing "reasonable" in regard to your blanket claim that people take important life and death decisions based on what they watch on the boob tube.
Er, no. That quote is clear proof that people DO take decisions based upon what they see on the TV or in other media.



Quote:
Your spurious claims that the entire planet is sitting enthralled by the inanities broadcast on the BBC is bogus. Are the viewers and I to presume that you alone are immune to this universal brainwashing that you claim is default ?

I have never claimed that everyone and his mother are falling for every bit of marketing going. However, many people DO fall for it. We've had this over and over again. Advertising works. If the supermarket can persuade many people to buy one, get one free, then it's not unreasonable that the BBC can tell people that "straight people get AIDS too" and send some off to get tested.


Advertising works. If it didn't, then they wouldn't spend billions on monitoring shopping habits, adverts and all the rest of it. Why you continue to deny that adverts work on people is beyond me.


Quote:
If so, you can accede to my request and post the list of Health professionals that now regard it is acceptable to exchange bodily fluids and hug aids buggers ? Unless of course Health professionals like yourself are immune to the BBC brainwashing.

I didn't say that, either.

AIDS was thought of as an exclusively homosexual disease and many people didn't know it could be passed to straight people. Many people thought you could get it by using the same glass that a sufferer had used the day before or being on the same bus as them and all sorts of silly things like that.

The BBC gave it to a straight character and as I've said before, the resident "hard man" pub landlord played by Ross Kemp was very out of character and very sympathetic to Mark when he cut himself in the pub. He even said something like "I know I can't catch it just from being near your blood". So this got the message out that it wasn't quite as easily transmissible as the public thought it was.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old January 9th, 2015 #87
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Well, no explanation as to why someone thought it appropriate to plagiarise half of an ancient post from some anti-racist guy so I can only assume it was an attempt to divert. Back to the original reason I bumped the thread:



Quote:
In the near future, Police turn up at Kat’s door to tell her that Harry’s victims have come forward with new allegations.

Tonight, Kat will discover Uncle Harry - who abused Kat at the age of 13 - was a serial sex attacker.

In the following weeks the story will unfold, which will send Kat, into a world of hurt and remind her of Harry's abuse.
Quote:



Kat will be drawn into the new investigation, almost 10 years since the death of the man who abused her, after it is revealed that Harry left her money in his will.

There are claims that the plot will echo the Jimmy Savile scandal which gripped the news earlier this year but show bosses are adamant that the new shocking story hasn't been influenced by the revelations that rocked the beeb.
from the Mirror, so no link.

So what do we have? It's discovered that the abuser has a sizable estate.

Several women come forward to claim they've also been abused by the man.


Yet we're expected to believe this doesn't mirror the recent Savile caper?

This could go one of two ways:


a) The BBC is trying to atone for their alleged part in the cover-up by showing the devastation and upset caused - the "world of hurt".

b) Some sort of statement is being made by money coinciding with survivors popping up. Maybe the "world of hurt" apparently about to be depicted will make people think twice about speaking out.

In any case, it's been established that the BBC has been known to play to agendas, so we'll just have to wait and see which, if any, it is.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old January 25th, 2015 #88
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Danny Dyer's character's on-screen dad is dying and has asked Danny to help him.

Assisted dying bill going through the Lords.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old January 25th, 2015 #89
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
Default

I am watching shoah first era on the boob tube does this mean my fellow viewers will be herding the jews onto the trains in the morning ?
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old January 25th, 2015 #90
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

It's amazing how they use the media to create sympathy, awareness and understanding of a given situation, often treating the viewers like children and pushing many of them into making the "right" opinion on a social issue. If someone used the same amount of manipulation and emotional blackmail in a relationship, they'd likely be labelled a passive-aggressive abuser or the like by one of these psychobabblers.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old January 25th, 2015 #91
Crusader777
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 538
Default

I saw a scene in it last week surfing the channels, a Muslim woman with a hijab was in the Queen Vic with a load of cackling white women......it should be called Jackanory.

Wheres the Mosque ? Why only a couple of Muslims when the majority of the East End is Muslim ?

Why don't they want people to know ?


The real modern East end, Whitechapel market next to Vallance road, where the Krays and Barbara Windsor etc were from. These days its more like Kabul.

The video cant do justice to the over powering smell.

Watch at 2 mins the way the Muslim guy looks intimidatingly at the white woman walking, attempts to follow her, then bumps into a friend, this is normal behaviour for these people.

The only effective action we can take is never eat in their dirty restaurants, never trade with them, advise friends and family to do the same. Their biggest supporters are yuppies, hipsters and arty types. These are the only whites left in the East end.



Last edited by Crusader777; January 26th, 2015 at 04:15 AM.
 
Old January 25th, 2015 #92
Crusader777
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 538
Default

The East End in the 1960s, nearly totally White.

Ethnic cleansing on a mass scale.



Last edited by Crusader777; January 26th, 2015 at 04:02 AM.
 
Old January 26th, 2015 #93
Rachal Hatred
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusader777 View Post
I saw a scene in it last week surfing the channels, a Muslim woman with a hijab was in the Queen Vic with a load of cackling white women......it should be called Jackanory.

Wheres the Mosque ? Why only a couple of Muslims when the majority of the East End is Muslim ?

Why don't they want people to know ?


The real modern East end, Whitechapel market next to Vallance road, where the Krays and Barbara Windsor etc were from. These days its more like Kabul.

The video cant do justice to the over powering smell.

Watch at 2 mins the way the Muslim guy looks intimidatingly at the white woman walking, attempts to follow her, then bumps into a friend, this is normal behaviour for these people.

The only effective action we can take is never eat in their dirty restaurants, never trade with them, advise friends and family to do the same. Their biggest supporters are yuppies, hipsters and arty types. These are the only whites left in the East end.


Walking along Whitechapel Road Street Market, London, UK; Tuesday 21st August 2012 - YouTube
You mention the Krays and Barbara Windsor? They all had Jew blood. Guessing who you are, that is OK with you though isn't it?
 
Old January 26th, 2015 #94
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusader777 View Post
I saw a scene in it last week surfing the channels, a Muslim woman with a hijab was in the Queen Vic with a load of cackling white women......it should be called Jackanory.

Wheres the Mosque ? Why only a couple of Muslims when the majority of the East End is Muslim ?

Why don't they want people to know ?
The mosque is a couple of streets away - it's never actually seen, as far as I know, but it is referenced and there are more than two muslims in the show. Some regular and some occasional relatives/friends pop in (uncluding the happily married homosexual brother and his white husband Christian and the brother's baby who is being brought up by them.)

When you take into account the number of families on the street and then look at the number of ethnic minorities, then I think it's about right, pound for pound. I think it reckons up to about 40% non-white. BUT what the BBC shows - all living together as one happy, multicultural and fully integrated community doesn't quite match up with the tales other, actual Eastenders tell of the majority of ethnicities living and sticking together and creating little insular communities.

The programme gives the impression that all get along just fine and even the woman in the hijab that you reference has now gotten over the obsession with strict islam that a recent extended stay in Pakistan created - she's now stopped making mild anti-white jabs at other characters and is beginning to integrate fully, even to the extent of going to the pub. All she needed to do was get talking to other characters of her own age and she then fit in perfectly.

A subtle hint there to indigenous and non-indigenous alike - get chatting, get down the pub and all will be well. The reality, of course, which the Beeb appears to have missed, is that there are/were "sharia patrols" who would be a tad miffed at seeing one of their own young women going in and out of a pub with Western young men and women.

Anyway, I don't think the Beeb is playing down the numbers - it can't anyway, the media has gleefully trumpeted, more than once, that London is majority non-white. I think they're playing up the integration and the don't we all just get along just fine with no issues at all factor.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old January 26th, 2015 #95
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
The mosque is a couple of streets away - it's never actually seen, as far as I know, but it is referenced and there are more than two muslims in the show. Some regular and some occasional relatives/friends pop in (uncluding the happily married homosexual brother and his white husband Christian and the brother's baby who is being brought up by them.)

When you take into account the number of families on the street and then look at the number of ethnic minorities, then I think it's about right, pound for pound. I think it reckons up to about 40% non-white. BUT what the BBC shows - all living together as one happy, multicultural and fully integrated community doesn't quite match up with the tales other, actual Eastenders tell of the majority of ethnicities living and sticking together and creating little insular communities.

The programme gives the impression that all get along just fine and even the woman in the hijab that you reference has now gotten over the obsession with strict islam that a recent extended stay in Pakistan created - she's now stopped making mild anti-white jabs at other characters and is beginning to integrate fully, even to the extent of going to the pub. All she needed to do was get talking to other characters of her own age and she then fit in perfectly.

A subtle hint there to indigenous and non-indigenous alike - get chatting, get down the pub and all will be well. The reality, of course, which the Beeb appears to have missed, is that there are/were "sharia patrols" who would be a tad miffed at seeing one of their own young women going in and out of a pub with Western young men and women.

Anyway, I don't think the Beeb is playing down the numbers - it can't anyway, the media has gleefully trumpeted, more than once, that London is majority non-white. I think they're playing up the integration and the don't we all just get along just fine with no issues at all factor.
Right for the last time
You say the bbc are brainwashing people into diversity - integration - miscegenation - whatever. If you went to the eastend such as forest gate - stratford - Maryland you would discover joe only pubs - black only pubs and at least one white only pub. Granted as posted previously the original denizens of the eastend are mischlinge or jews or god knows what else but best friends of joes certainly not.

All over Essex there are slitty eyed and sallow skinned "whites" who have deliberately moved themselves and their families away from the eastend to escape the immigrant sunami and occupation. Now these former "eastenders" now denizens of Romford - Basildon - Billericay whatever are avid eastender fans they self evidently do not allow it's storylines to influence their everyday lives.
It could be that in the turnip wastelands such wonders of the idiot box carries more clout than it does in Essex but your antifaowens claim that whites are powerless and brainwashed by the boob tube is self evidently bogus.
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old January 26th, 2015 #96
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy View Post
Right for the last time

If only......


Quote:
You say the bbc are brainwashing people into diversity - integration - miscegenation - whatever. If you went to the eastend such as forest gate - stratford - Maryland you would discover joe only pubs - black only pubs and at least one white only pub. Granted as posted previously the original denizens of the eastend are mischlinge or jews or god knows what else but best friends of joes certainly not.

All over Essex there are slitty eyed and sallow skinned "whites" who have deliberately moved themselves and their families away from the eastend to escape the immigrant sunami and occupation. Now these former "eastenders" now denizens of Romford - Basildon - Billericay whatever are avid eastender fans they self evidently do not allow it's storylines to influence their everyday lives.
It could be that in the turnip wastelands such wonders of the idiot box carries more clout than it does in Essex but you antifaowens claim that whites are powerless and brainwashed by the boob tube is self evidently bogus.
So what you're saying is that the actual is different from the portrayed and the BBC are trying to con those of us not familiar with the East End that you all get along just fine and dandy?

I think that's been my point all along.

I don't know why you deny what they're ATTEMPTING to do. You were one of the loudest voices howling in outrage when they covered up the actual events of the riots so you can't tell me that you don't believe they're trying to mislead people.

Whether, of course, people who are stupid enough to swallow it and believe everything that comes down the line are even likely to begin to understand the basic advertising/brainwashing sping being put on is a different matter.


Do you really think it's just coincidence that we've now got a euthanasia storyline just as it's going through the HoL?

Do you think the timing of the historic sex abuse storyline is coincidence? Even the redtop readers have gone "durrrr, 'ang on a minute" - whether they see through the expected attempt at rewriting history will be another matter of course.

Do you think the gay marriage storyline timing was coincidence?

Do you believe the heartthrob heterosexual character getting HIV and the corresponding rise in HIV tests amongst the public was pure coincidence?

I don't bet at all but I know I don't like your odds on the coincidence race.

Advertising - whether it's selling the public a buy one get one free or a social acceptance of something works on enough people to make it worthwhile. If it didn't they wouldn't do it.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old January 26th, 2015 #97
Rachal Hatred
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,102
Default

The story writer of 'Eastenders' changes fairly frequently, but one thing that stays more or less the same is the fact that for the most part they are Jews. Say no more.
 
Old January 26th, 2015 #98
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachal Hatred View Post
The story writer of 'Eastenders' changes fairly frequently, but one thing that stays more or less the same is the fact that for the most part they are Jews. Say no more.
For some reason I've never taken much notice of the writers, just the storylines which all fit in to the BBC multicultural brave new world agenda set by the BBC director Mr Cohen anyway.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old January 30th, 2015 #99
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
Default

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=237685 "Feminists stitching men up again" (rape guidelines being changed)

Quote:
HE'S been protesting his innocence ever since Christmas Day, but now Dean Wicks is finally being questioned over allegations that he raped Linda Carter.


The BBC have released new images from an upcoming episode of EastEnders which shows Dean (played by Matt Di Angelo) being questioned by police at Walford station.

Last night, fans of the show watched as police officers desccende on Albert Square and arrested Shirley's son outside the Queen Vic.

However, judging by these latest pictures, it looks as though Dean is still trying to convince everyone that he's innocent and that Linda consented to sex.

It is thought that there will be a dramatic resolution to the rape storyline, which has been going on for a few months now.

Dean continues to protest his innocence but viewers know that he committed the crime.








taken from the Express.
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
 
Old February 5th, 2015 #100
NewsFeed
News Bot
 
Post Complaint: British soap opera is 'too white'



DAILYKENN.com -- Non-whites are outraged that a popular British soap opera isn't reflecting the demographic changes in its casting.

Actress Michelle Gayle complained that the popular series, Eastenders, doesn't reflect the diverse population of London's East End.

“I’m doing a lot of behind the scenes stuff now and all I hear from programme makers now is the opposite, that they want more contemporary stories that reflect Britain,” she added.

Please report typos...

Former soap star Michelle Gayle has blasted EastEnders’ boss for refusing to change the show’s ethnic mix.

Dominic Treadwell-Collins caused anger when he said he would rather quit than “box-tick” characters according to ethnicity after the BBC trust said the show is “too white”.

But Michelle, who played the soap’s Hattie Tavernier for three years, has hit back at the executive producer.

She said: “I was pretty taken aback, I wasn’t expecting a programme maker to say something like that. EastEnders is one of the few contemporary dramas on primetime TV.

“When it first started, you felt it was a snapshot of the East End. It’s been on for 30 years, and obviously the East End has changed dramatically.”

She added: “It’s really disappointing to hear a programme maker say ‘reflecting Britain as it is would be a box-ticking exercise’. I would rather he said it was a great or a challenging opportunity.”

Source ►

Image credit: mirror.co.uk ####

DailyKenn.com is a family-friendly web site.

If you see advertisements that are inappropriate, please notify us via Facebook messaging here ►

Permission is granted to use the material in this article providing (1) the byline is included in an obvious manner crediting DailyKenn.com as the author, (2) a link to this page is included and (3) no changes are made either by deletion, addition or annotation. Original compositions at DailyKenn.com are sometimes seeded with decoy data, such as hidden acronyms, to detect unauthorized use and plagiarism.

Comments at DailyKenn.com are unmoderated. Comments containing obscenities, pejoratives, slurs, etc., do not constitute an endorsement of this site, its contributors or its advertisors. Offensive comments may be deleted without notice.

read full article at source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogs...ra-is-too.html
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 AM.
Page generated in 0.21108 seconds.