TV Home Forum

Watchdog brings back Annie

Anne Robinson returns, soon to return live. (May 2009)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
BA
bilky asko
JAH posted:
The man made bogus claims about his rate of healing cancer without evidential proof.

No. He made claims and there was no evidence presented either way in the programme. That doesn't make them bogus or deny the existence of any evidence.

From the Cancer Act of 1939...
4 Prohibition of certain advertisements

(1)No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement—

(a)containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof;

I don't think he was advertising anything, and if he was it wasn't mentioned in the programme. The reputation of such healers are normally passed by word of mouth. It's a matter of personal choice whether people use alternative forms of treatment. I don't think it's for the BBC to make moral judgements by presenting such a biased point of view.

All religions also make unsubstatiated claims, but many people find comfort by believing them without the need for any evidence. I can't see Watchdog putting a picture of the Prophet Muhammad or Budda on their 'wall of shame', somehow.


Blanket statements, and misspellings like that, are representative of how useful your view is. Neither Muhammad, nor Gautama Buddha, told anyone to stop chemotherapy.
ST
Stuart
Blanket statements, and misspellings like that, are representative of how useful your view is. Neither Muhammad, nor Gautama Buddha, told anyone to stop chemotherapy.

The reference was to substantiated claims, not medical advice.
JA
jamesmd
JAH posted:
The man made bogus claims about his rate of healing cancer without evidential proof.

No. He made claims and there was no evidence presented either way in the programme. That doesn't make them bogus or deny the existence of any evidence.


You contradicted yourself in the second sentence. If you can't back something up, then I can't trust what you say. If I told you that I could cure cancer, with only the say of a few toothless wonders who turned up to spout off on camera, would you believe me?
ST
Stuart
JAH posted:
You contradicted yourself in the second sentence.

No I didn't. Read it again.
JA
jamesmd
I'm sorry. I'm too drunk to even care what you think any more.

See ya.
ST
Stuart
JAH posted:
I'm sorry.

Apology accepted.
JA
jamesmd
Sorry, that should have read:

"I'm sorry (on your behalf)"
ST
Stuart
JAH posted:
Sorry, that should have read:
"I'm sorry (on your behalf)"

You clearly have more than enough to be personally sorry about without making unnecessary apologies on behalf of others!
JA
jamesmd
Yes, but the advantage is I realise my faults, whilst you are oblivious to yours.

Oh - and what about the horse that didn't have a gammy leg? How come Mr Wonderful dreamt up the problem?
ST
Stuart
JAH posted:
Yes, but the advantage is I realise my faults, whilst you are oblivious to yours.

You accused me of contradicting myself. I didn't.

You're obviously not mature enough to withdraw your comment, so that is the end of the matter as far as I'm concerned.

Please don't try to drag the thread down to the level of some sort of immature bitch-fest. Save that for the other place!
JO
Joshua
The format seems very much up to the old standards tonight, really hard hitting report, not any daft rubbish like in the first week. Good interviews from Anne aswell.
:-(
A former member
The format seems very much up to the old standards tonight, really hard hitting report, not any daft rubbish like in the first week. Good interviews from Anne aswell.


Nice to see it getting better, that all we asked for really!

Newer posts