Nidhi Razdan being ripped apart by British MP Barry Gardiner

[saneindian]

LOL! When Biden recently visited India, he met Sushma Swaraj, BJP's leader in the Lok Sabha not Narendra Modi, their campaign chief, in official capacity. The stupidity that Modi bhakti can lead to is astounding. Official positions don't matter anymore. :hysterical:

Maybe BarryG knows something which you don't know but which is an open secret :P

[Crookbond]

Now BarryG has become a chewtiya because he invited Modi to House of Commons Yeah right, Modfans are abusive. BTW DM on the above 1 Calling Modi 'leader of the opposition party' is wrong? 2. Saying that there has been no boycott (note the word boycott in, and not protest as you are saying) of an Indian politician of any politicla party is factually incorrect? 3. Go through the interview again where Madam Razdan talks of the court cases and legal issues before BarryG brings in the SC. Note also how swiftly Madam Razdan moves to 'moral issues' from 'legal issues' and how abruptly she cuts the interview when she sees the tide turning against her. If ever there was a case of a TV anchor getting schooled on her own show, it was in those ending lines by BarryG. Note how Modi's letter to the PM opposing the food security bill was being flashed on one part of the screen while she was interviewing BarryG. Any connections between the two? Also, isn't it ironical for an anchor and a channel which regularly hides behind the alibi of "case is sub-judice, lets not talk about it" to be invoking us being a dmocracy and having a right to be critical of SC? The same channel where if a panelists tries to make an accusations against the Gandhis, he gets told by the anchor "We will not allow you platform of our channel to make wild allegations"! Democracy and all that jazz..

I have already answered all your points. The first instance of interruption comes by Gardiner bhaiiyya aroudn 1:03 when he cuts a question from Nidhi. In short, Gardiner was ill prepared for the interview and got his panties in the mouth when Razdan turned the screws on. On topic - you can not "rip apart" someone without knowing the facts.

[saneindian]

BTW this is what Modi's office said

"Modi is grateful for the invitations, but has no immediate plans to visit the UK," a spokesperson said.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-08-13/news/41375087_1_narendra-modi-james-bevan-gujarat-cm Madam razdan can claim victory. 4-0 now :)

[Clarke]

BTW this is what Modi's office said http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-08-13/news/41375087_1_narendra-modi-james-bevan-gujarat-cm Madam razdan can claim victory. 4-0 now :)

If there's one thing that this guy needs to do for the next coming months, it is to campaign hard besides running the state.

[saneindian]

I have already answered all your points. The first instance of interruption comes by Gardiner bhaiiyya aroudn 1:03 when he cuts a question from Nidhi. In short, Gardiner was ill prepared for the interview and got his panties in the mouth when Razdan turned the screws on. On topic - you can not "rip apart" someone without knowing the facts.

Nope you did not. But I will leave it at that.

[seedhi]

Errrr...because Modi is Indian.

Isn't that all the more reason not to use an elected Indian CM as an example ? Modi is not a criminal or a convict or a dictator. If you really want to expose British foreign policy, use a known criminal or a dictator.

Mudslinging on Modi? You need to check up on the definition of mudslinging. If anything is close to mudslinging in that interview it is Gardiner accusing Razdan of not having respect for her country's Supreme Court. She is not taking any allegations at face value, she is using them to question the reason behind UK's change of stance. She is not the one initiating any new set of allegations against Modi or Gardiner - that would have been mudslinging.

She is taking the allegations at face value when she says that "people who look at human rights feel that the blot of 2002 hasn't left him". By saying that the people against Modi are concerned about human rights she is granting their opposition a moral legitimacy. She could have simply named the people against Modi instead of saying that they are concerned about human rights.

Definitely. If UK has an unofficial boycott policy against some army General for human rights violations in Kashmir or the North East and the reverses its stance, it is a very pertinent journalistic question to ask them that what ground realities brought about the change.

Look at the interview again - she didn't directly ask this question. She implies that legitimate human rights related concerns exist about Mr Modi and that the British MP is ignoring those concerns. By no means is this line of questioning not agenda driven. She could have simply asked the MP that "what prompted a change in your govt's stance" instead of granting moral legitimacy to people opposed to Modi by saying that they are concerned about human rights.

If by "your lordship" you are a referring to me, then no I don't decide the crux of the thread. In most cases the OP does and in this case the OP made a claim that Razdan was ripped apart by Gardiner. How can any ripping apart take place based on lies and misrepresentation of facts?

Well in your previous post you just decided that wanted me to comment upon what you thought was the crux. This is between you and the OP so take it up with him/her.

[saneindian]

If there's one thing that this guy needs to do for the next coming months' date=' it is to campaign hard besides running the state.[/quote'] Yep need to tour the hinterlands. Enough of the bhashans in urban centers. Move to the mofussil towns, the villages and engage with rural folks now. Maybe some sort of a nationwide yatra would be good which I am sure his team is working on Also, has to come out with an alternate roadmap. needs to run a positive campaign and not a dull and negative campaign like Advani did in 2009.

[seedhi]

Your "Why" has been answered enough on this thread. The journalist is asking for a reason for UK's change in stance towards Modi and Gardiner replies with faux pass and blatant lies.

She dosn't directly ask this question. She says that "people who look at human rights feel that the blot of 2002 hasn't left Modi". By doing this she grants a moral legitimacy to the opposition to Modi and implies that the MP is ignoring human rights concerns. This empty headed moron masquerading as journalist was rightfully slammed by the MP.

[Crookbond]

She dosn't directly ask this question. She says that "people who look at human rights feel that the blot of 2002 hasn't left Modi". By doing this she grants a moral legitimacy to the opposition to Modi and implies that the MP is ignoring human rights concerns. This empty headed moron masquerading as journalist was rightfully slammed by the MP.

And she's not wrong in what she says - at least one human rights group in the UK has mentioned exactly what Razdan is alluding to. Rather than reply to the question, Gardiner bhaiyya displays chewtiyagiri by making statements out of thin air. The only thing which Gardiner won was a screaming contest and that too after he had his panties in a twist.

[Crookbond]

Nope you did not. But I will leave it at that.

The length of the post makes replies difficult and turns into law of diminishing returns. So, lets take it point by point. I don't think Modi is the leader of the opposition party. It is Gardiner's perception that he is; but he is not which Gardiner claims to be. This is quite clearly mentioned umpteen times on this thread.

[seedhi]

And she's not wrong in what she says - at least one human rights group in the UK has mentioned exactly what Razdan is alluding to. Rather than reply to the question' date= Gardiner bhaiyya displays chewtiyagiri by making statements out of thin air. The only thing which Gardiner won was a screaming contest and that too after he had his panties in a twist.

Why didn't she mention the group by name ? Just because a group claim to be about human rights doesn't mean that everything or anything they do is driven by human rights. There is no reason to believe that people opposed to Modi are actually concerned about human rights so why grant them legitimacy by saying that they "look into human rights issues". Especially if the aspersions that they are casting is on an elected Indian CM. It is like calling Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists as freedom fighters just because HuM chooses to call itself a freedom fighter group. As I said this congressi mouthpiece and sham journalist cannot even pretend to hide her bias.

[The Outsider]

Maybe BarryG knows something which you don't know but which is an open secret :P

Maybe Biden was not aware of this open secret.

Isn't that all the more reason not to use an elected Indian CM as an example ? Modi is not a criminal or a convict or a dictator. If you really want to expose British foreign policy, use a known criminal or a dictator.

In the Indian context, Modi is most pertinent because UK had an unofficial boycott of him, not someone from another country.

She is taking the allegations at face value when she says that "people who look at human rights feel that the blot of 2002 hasn't left him". By saying that the people against Modi are concerned about human rights she is granting their opposition a moral legitimacy. She could have simply named the people against Modi instead of saying that they are concerned about human rights. Look at the interview again - she didn't directly ask this question. She implies that legitimate human rights related concerns exist about Mr Modi and that the British MP is ignoring those concerns. By no means is this line of questioning not agenda driven. She could have simply asked the MP that "what prompted a change in your govt's stance" instead of granting moral legitimacy to people opposed to Modi by saying that they are concerned about human rights.

How did you conclude she is taking the allegations at face value? She is repeating the same allegations which were the basis of UK's boycott earlier. That is not taking the allegations at face value. She is saying that these human rights concerns were enough for a boycott earlier, so what has changed?

[diga]

And she's not wrong in what she says - at least one human rights group in the UK has mentioned exactly what Razdan is alluding to. Rather than reply to the question' date= Gardiner bhaiyya displays chewtiyagiri by making statements out of thin air. The only thing which Gardiner won was a screaming contest and that too after he had his panties in a twist.

Can you name that group? Lets see if its not funded by Wahabi money

[The Outsider]

The seculars did their part in defending the workers of the secular party that wear the mask of the neutral media. They see nothing wrong in dragging foreign politicians into the domestic mudslinging but instead want to understand how all of sudden a section of the picture perfect British political system decided on inviting this despicable person' date=' current & three term CM to the House of Commons.[/quote'] Now the fundoo kacchadharis are doing their job by defending the lies of a foreign MP and in the same breath talking about "domestic mudslinging".

[diga]

not a single comment on Kishtawar/Omars independence speech & here people are going on about some faux-paus by a journo

[seedhi]

In the Indian context' date=' Modi is most pertinent because UK had an unofficial boycott of him, not someone from another country.[/quote']I don't agree with this at all. An elected Indian CM representing 6 crore people cannot be used as a football in a conversation about British foreign policy. By the way, there was no official boycott of Modi by the UK government so the example of Modi makes even less sense. She is because she calls the people who are opposed to Modi as "people looking into human rights". How did she come to this conclusion that the people opposed to Modi are actually concerned about human rights ? This implies that the MP is ignoring human rights by inviting Modi. As I said in an earlier reply, the Hizbul Mujahideen calls itself a freedom fighter group, but we don't refer to its terrorists as freedom fighters.

[randomGuy]

Now the fundoo kacchadharis are doing their job by defending the lies of a foreign MP and in the same breath talking about "domestic mudslinging".

People over here are honest enough to accept the inaccuracies of the foreign MP. Its you who is not accepting the main point of the video - the shameless act of dragging foreign political entities in domestic political mudslinging by biased media journos over an issue which should have been settled last year.

[Crookbond]

Why didn't she mention the group by name ? Just because a group claim to be about human rights doesn't mean that everything or anything they do is driven by human rights. There is no reason to believe that people opposed to Modi are actually concerned about human rights so why grant them legitimacy by saying that they "look into human rights issues". Especially if the aspersions that they are casting is on an elected Indian CM. It is like calling Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists as freedom fighters just because HuM chooses to call itself a freedom fighter group. As I said this congressi mouthpiece and sham journalist cannot even pretend to hide her bias.

I think you are well aware and smarter than throwing red herrings or parroting what a certain website writes. If the highlighted is true, there is no reason to believe Gardiner invitation is without personal interests as well. It is funny how your skepticism turns into optimism based on whom you want to support. Nidhi Razdan asks Gardiner how he will react to arguments from people who protest Modi's visit. Mr. Gardiner has no answer to it so he retorts to making claims from his butt. Gardiner was rightly laughed at (like you do for a troll) by Razdan at the end of the interview. The question is pertinent because UK denied visa to Modi in 2005 citing human rights. Gardiner is a 3rd grade chewtiyapankt House of Commons MP as he lacks courtesy of allowing an interviewer to complete her question before mumbling mumba-jumba. He also muddles facts and answers tangential to the question asked.

[seedhi]

I think you are well aware and smarter than throwing red herrings or parroting what a certain website writes.

I don't care what you think about how smart I am, and I don't know what website you are talking about.

If the highlighted is true, there is no reason to believe Gardiner invitation is without personal interests as well. It is funny how your skepticism turns into optimism based on whom you want to support.

But then she should have asked a direct question about the MP's personal interests. I don't understand the need to say that "people looking into human rights" are opposed to Modi, and thereby granting moral legitimacy to this opposition. She should have simply asked a direct question without casting aspersions on an Indian CM.

Nidhi Razdan asks Gardiner how he will react to arguments from people who protest Modi's visit. Mr. Gardiner has no answer to it so he retorts to making claims from his butt.

She calls them "people looking into human rights" ? How the hell does she know that these people are concerned about human rights ? And why not name these people/organizations directly instead of granting moral legitimacy to their opposition?

Gardiner was rightly laughed at (like you do for a troll) by Razdan at the end of the interview. He's a sham of the House of Commons MP as he lacks courtesy of allowing an interviewer to complete her question before mumbling mumba-jumba.

I don't understand why do you have to engage in personal attacks at members of this forum. I haven't referred to you pejoratively.

[adi B]

Now BarryG has become a chewtiya because he invited Modi to House of Commons Yeah right, Modfans are abusive. BTW DM on the above 1 Calling Modi 'leader of the opposition party' is wrong? 2. Saying that there has been no boycott (note the word boycott in, and not protest as you are saying) of an Indian politician of any politicla party is factually incorrect? 3. Go through the interview again where Madam Razdan talks of the court cases and legal issues before BarryG brings in the SC. Note also how swiftly Madam Razdan moves to 'moral issues' from 'legal issues' and how abruptly she cuts the interview when she sees the tide turning against her. If ever there was a case of a TV anchor getting schooled on her own show, it was in those ending lines by BarryG. Note how Modi's letter to the PM opposing the food security bill was being flashed on one part of the screen while she was interviewing BarryG. Any connections between the two? Also, isn't it ironical for an anchor and a channel which regularly hides behind the alibi of "case is sub-judice, lets not talk about it" to be invoking us being a dmocracy and having a right to be critical of SC? The same channel where if a panelists tries to make an accusations against the Gandhis, he gets told by the anchor "We will not allow you platform of our channel to make wild allegations"! Democracy and all that jazz..

this is precisely why i cant tolerate anchors like razdan,extremely convoluted,vexatious ..these anchors nowadays have an agenda, they are not pellucid rather follow an anomalous,uncouth approach while interviewing which annoys and disturbs the national/intl viewer