Well done to the BBC


Status
Not open for further replies.
So are you suggesting the BBC comply with the corruption, and hide it?

So you actively want corruption then?

You should be a judge, you do live the difference between right and wrong.

Like a real life Judge John Deed you.

Maybe they should report it when they find it rather than wait just before the vote. But that wouldn't have got anywhere near as many viewers.
 
All that is required for Evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing, eh?;)

Well first of all this is a world cup bid, so lets not get too dramatic!

I think that is also assuming the BBC are "good men".... i suspect their motives were based on self-interest, not outing evil.

Thirdly their documentary has actually allowed evil to prevail, as FIFA remains corrupt, AND in fact the world cup has gone to the most corrupt nation competing for the bid.

In the world of own-goals, not matter what the objectives of the BBC, this is a big one.
 
I don't think for one minute that these crooks decided the outcome this week. However, Sepp Blatter allegedly 'reminded' the executive at a meeting this week about 'certain media organisations.' We wouldn't have finished last IMO without these hacks but then it doesn't matter where you finish if you don't win

Begs the question of whether it's right to participate in an organisation that has so much to hide that a country's investigative media is a voting bullet-point.
 
What does it need to do to be justified? Sackings, arrests, executions?

It had evidence of corruption (and it did, you can brush past that all you like, but it showed the delegates taking payments from ISL), and reported them.

The fact that Fifa chose not to act on it, and won't do anything about it other than 'take their ball home', is not the fault of the BBC (who were doing their job).

It is the fault of the corrupt bastards in Fifa.

FFS man, if a witness in a murder trial has his wife threatened by associates of the accused, is it the witnesses fault?

If there's evidence of corruption, which there isn't, it won't be for FIFA to decide whether or not to take action. It'll be a matter for criminal prosecution.

Thankfully the majority of developed countries only bring criminal charges against someone when there's some actual evedence that they've done something wrong. There isn't here, so they won't be. Unless of course the relevant prosecution service plan on drafting in Panorama to add devious backing music and careful editing to the trial. Witnesses could also sit at a table in a dark room under a table lamp, to give the impression that the hollow "evidence" they're giving is actually a lot more damning than it is.
 
Well first of all this is a world cup bid, so lets not get too dramatic!

I think that is also assuming the BBC are "good men".... i suspect their motives were based on self-interest, not outing evil.

Thirdly their documentary has actually allowed evil to prevail, as FIFA remains corrupt, AND in fact the world cup has gone to the most corrupt nation competing for the bid.

In the world of own-goals, not matter what the objectives of the BBC, this is a big one.


Small steps. At least the next time we're fucked over by them, people can say "we tried". You're saying it's ok to turn a blind eye when it's in our interests?
 
If there's evidence of corruption, which there isn't, it won't be for FIFA to decide whether or not to take action. It'll be a matter for criminal prosecution.

Thankfully the majority of developed countries only bring criminal charges against someone when there's some actual evedence that they've done something wrong. There isn't here, so they won't be. Unless of course the relevant prosecution service plan on drafting in Panorama to add devious backing music and careful editing to the trial. Witnesses could also sit at a table in a dark room under a table lamp, to give the impression that the hollow "evidence" they're giving is actually a lot more damning than it is.

:oops::oops::roll:
 
If there's evidence of corruption, which there isn't, it won't be for FIFA to decide whether or not to take action. It'll be a matter for criminal prosecution.

Thankfully the majority of developed countries only bring criminal charges against someone when there's some actual evedence that they've done something wrong. There isn't here, so they won't be. Unless of course the relevant prosecution service plan on drafting in Panorama to add devious backing music and careful editing to the trial. Witnesses could also sit at a table in a dark room under a table lamp, to give the impression that the hollow "evidence" they're giving is actually a lot more damning than it is.

I think Blatter reminding the voting delegates about media inference before voting would point a long way to corruption...
 
This place is unreal.

As I said before - if there's a witness in a murder trial, and his family is attacked by the accussed, is it then the witness fault?

I mean, he didn't turn a blind eye. He should have just let it happen, it's been absolutley no benefit to him at all this witness malarky. Better off keeping schtum and gladly accept the rewards.
 
and teh BBC are allowed to keep a free press. or are you suggesting the government wanted the documentary, and made the BBC report it?

I'm confused by what point you're trying to make with that one, to be honest. I'd go as far as say you're talking shit

The point I'm trying to make is that for some reason, we are still all legally required to fund the BBC. This means that we cannot choose whether or not we hand our money over to them, and on that basis they are not accountable to the people that fund them.

This lack of accountability is what has allowed them to air their unsubstantiated drivvel, effectively kick us all in the balls and still have our money land in their lap again next year.

Keep up at the back.
 
If there's evidence of corruption, which there isn't, it won't be for FIFA to decide whether or not to take action. It'll be a matter for criminal prosecution.

Thankfully the majority of developed countries only bring criminal charges against someone when there's some actual evedence that they've done something wrong. There isn't here, so they won't be. Unless of course the relevant prosecution service plan on drafting in Panorama to add devious backing music and careful editing to the trial. Witnesses could also sit at a table in a dark room under a table lamp, to give the impression that the hollow "evidence" they're giving is actually a lot more damning than it is.

What's the f***ing point man :lol::lol::lol:
 
So are you suggesting the BBC comply with the corruption, and hide it? No

So you actively want corruption then? No

You should be a judge, you do live the difference between right and wrong. Not so sure, depends how much i've had to drink

Like a real life Judge John Deed you. The ladies love him, so not too bothered about that one. plus he's minted..

see answers above!!!!

First 2 points........ they shouldn't comply nor actively want corruption.

If their motive was expose and also irradicate corruption in FIFA, then they have failed?
 
This place is unreal.

As I said before - if there's a witness in a murder trial, and his family is attacked by the accussed, is it then the witness fault?

I mean, he didn't turn a blind eye. He should have just let it happen, it's been absolutley no benefit to him at all this witness malarky. Better off keeping schtum and gladly accept the rewards.

Or perhaps do the decent thing and report what you see when you see it, rather than wait for a time when you'll make the most wedge out of it
 
This place is unreal.

As I said before - if there's a witness in a murder trial, and his family is attacked by the accussed, is it then the witness fault?

I mean, he didn't turn a blind eye. He should have just let it happen, it's been absolutley no benefit to him at all this witness malarky. Better off keeping schtum and gladly accept the rewards.

We have safe guards relating to admissability and best evidence, which would prevent that witness from sensationalising his "evidence" in the way the BBC did.
 
Where the fuck do people get the logic that FIFA corrupt behind closed doors would have given us a chance of winning??:roll:

There''s a clue in the word CORRUPT!! Whether the BBC had aired it's programme or not it certainly looks like some delegates had been bought already.

The only way to address corruption is to expose it. Let's face it we were screwed either way and never going to win the vote.
 
Where the fuck do people get the logic that FIFA corrupt behind closed doors would have given us a chance of winning??:roll:

There''s a clue in the word CORRUPT!! Whether the BBC had aired it's programme or not it certainly looks like some delegates had been bought already.

The only way to address corruption is to expose it. Let's face it we were screwed either way and never going to win the vote.


In a nutshell.
 
What's the f***ing point man :lol::lol::lol:

You and I seemingly just have different ideas as to what constitutes "evidence". I think of evidence as something that would stand up at trial. You seem to think of evidence as something which may suggest that something might have been done. What the BBC offered up was laughable; which is why you won't see any charges brought on the back of it.
 
Last edited:
Or perhaps do the decent thing and report what you see when you see it, rather than wait for a time when you'll make the most wedge out of it

They got the report in October, then they gave Fifa time to reply and also made the programme. I must have wrote that about a million f***ing times now.
 
Small steps. At least the next time we're fucked over by them, people can say "we tried". You're saying it's ok to turn a blind eye when it's in our interests?

I still go back to the question, what have we achieved by doing this, and is the world a better place?

I think it is important to realise the benefits of this exposure has been zero.

Therefore turning a blind eye would not have made the world any worse, or changed anything at all.
 
Where the fuck do people get the logic that FIFA corrupt behind closed doors would have given us a chance of winning??:roll:

There''s a clue in the word CORRUPT!! Whether the BBC had aired it's programme or not it certainly looks like some delegates had been bought already.

The only way to address corruption is to expose it. Let's face it we were screwed either way and never going to win the vote.

As has been said umpteen times, the BBC should have reported the corruption when they found evidence rather than wait until they were guaranteed to get the most viewers.

They wanted it to be as sensational as story as possible to get the most viewers possible, so delayed the broadcast to just before the vote. And didn't give a flying fuck what effect that would have on the outcome.

Fair play to them for outing the scandal. Shame on them for timing it the way they did.
 
I still go back to the question, what have we achieved by doing this, and is the world a better place?

I think it is important to realise the benefits of this exposure has been zero.

Therefore turning a blind eye would not have made the world any worse, or changed anything at all.

Aye, we still would have been shafted by Blatter. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top