Something to chew on for our readers.
Sue and Craig who used to post here have set up their own site reporting on bias in the BBC….‘Is The BBC Biased?’
They say that the reason for doing so was that they were being stereotyped and labelled because of their views…and secondly that the comments below the posts were too aggressive and cliched.
Certainly there are attempts by some subversive ‘critics’ of this site to sabotage it and create the impression that everyone who reads it is some right wing BNP member….doing so by posting comments about Muslims or mentioning the ‘Final Solution’ whilst pretending to be right wing. They are trying their best to get this site labelled a ‘hate site’ ….they don’t like criticism of the BBC and seem to be keen to use any underhand method to stop it. They usually get deleted…as do racist, homophobic or otherwise unwelcome comments.
Having said that this is a pretty free and easy site for moderating comments….the occassional abuse and aggressiveness, which comes oddly mostly from our critics, serves only to discredit themselves…I remain entirely unbothered by it…they could learn something from Scott who, whilst I disagree with much of what he says, is reasoned and restrained in his comments…and by virtue of that would be all the more effective if only he was right.
The site does not block anyone for their politics or philosophy or their opinions or beliefs…..that is why we criticise the BBC for censoring the ‘voices’ of people they don’t want to hear, those who oppose the things that the BBC has decided it likes and supports.
The site is non-political…any mention of ideologies or policies is purely to provide context to illustrate why the BBC is biased and why that is the wrong approach with potentially damaging effects on society.
This site aims to stop the BBC declaring some subjects off limits or taboo…whether that is Islam, climate change or immigration or whatever. It is not for the BBC to decide what is fit and proper for discussion.
The closing down of debate and the lack of questioning of the ‘consensus’ which guides for example government policy, can lead to dangerous consequences…..we have an unusually cold winter right now…heating fuel grows ever more expensive and people are shutting off their heating….Age Concern tells us old people are dieing because of that…a result of the green energy policy implemented without any real debate or opposition…aided by the BBC….a rigorous debate on the science and solutions would have perhaps come up with a better, safer policy.
Some comments are aggressive, or rude, or extreme…but this is not a site that thinks you should all be enlightened, middle class, progressive libertarians…..as I said there are some limits but generally we prefer a wide spread of voices and opinions.
It seems to work though…and surprisingly perhaps, most comments are of a moderate nature….reasoned, intelligent, measured and bringing both a width of experience and knowledge to the blog that couldn’t come from the few regular posters such as myself….nor could we possibly do without the constant referrals to information that the readers provide…..the ‘Biased BBC Irregulars’.
All in all I think Sue and Craig are wrong about the comments on this site….they are a necessary part of it and bring life and an invaluable extra dimension to it…even if that extra dimension is sometimes ‘out there’.
This is Sue and Craig’s remarks on their blog:
‘Here on “IS” Craig frames his critiques in a conscientious and fair manner. Rational, and some may say, even-handed. Me – probably less so, but I try not to hurtle towards irrational or extreme language.
We hope someone somewhere will be persuaded by our brilliant reasoning and charming personalities.
The drawback is that the minute we express our views, we risk stereotyping ourselves and losing the very people we wouldst seduce. By continually hammering out complaints about the same old things we’re almost bound to be ‘stereotyped’ without really trying. But while the same old things are bothering us, what can else can we do? Give in?
When we wrote articles for the Biased BBC blog we had the same problem. Even when we set a measured tone, as reasonable and restrained as could be, the below the line commenters, in their enthusiasm, would frequently lapse into cliched memes and mantras. What more foolproof way to antagonise readers who didn’t see it their way.
A few years ago one or two spokespersons from the BBC dropped in to defend their employer, or to dispute some point or other with the B-BBC community. At best, a rally of claims and counter-claims might ensue, but the banter usually involved a lone BBC representative versus a gaggle of aggressive Biased-BBCers. You had to admire the pluck of the former. More often than not the BBC’s input would be in the form of a one-off snipe. Not much use to man or beast. Any replies and responses piled up unanswered, stranded; the best that could be hoped for was that the silent sniper had lurked, read and left.
In an act of principled self-destruction we decided to forgo a widely read platform and languish here on our own-io. To be hoist by our own supporters, or stand alone, fancy-free and self-determining in obscurity, that is the question.
I remember when Paul Reynolds, who was World Affairs correspondent for BBC online visited the Biased BBC Blogspot back in 2005. I engaged with him at the time to see how he would address several of what I considered the most glaring evidence of BBC bias, as did others theirs.
It was clear he could not justify properly these accusations, nor did we expect him to. He tried various tacks to dismiss them, but there’s no doubt he would have seen he was way out of his depth.
I recorded the exchange I had with him here. Why Craig or anyone should ‘lament’ his and others departure is beyond me. I don’t think we have to humour anybody from the BBC, especially considering the real damage they do to our society, and those of many others.
A spade is a spade!
Teddy Bear,
“I recorded the exchange I had with him here.”
No you didn’t. You recounted two lines of his first reply to you whilst failing to publish the rest.
Then you publish a further post from him:
“Now to ‘Teddy Bear’: You make so many points I have frankly lost count of which I have replied to and which I have not.”
What happened to those “other points”? What happened to the ones he replied to?
What’s clear is that you haven’t “recorded the exchange” at all; just “parts of it”.
That’s not exactly fair nor honest now Mr Bear is it?
Covering up for Jimmy Saville over decades.
Republishing images from Gaza that were known to be fake.
Broadcasting a Panorama with a fictional account of how clothing was produced for Primark.
Basing coverage of Climate Change on a secret conference attended by lobbyists and pretending they were scientists.
Spending vast sums preventing the release of a report into the corporation’s coverage of Israel/Palestine.
That’s not exactly fair nor honest now Dez, is it?
…What happened to those “other points”? What happened to the ones he replied to?
I know you would like very much to show that Reynolds dealt with the questions put to him in a comprehensive and satisfactory manner, but unfortunately – for everybody – he did not do this.
I have included EVERY exchange that was relevant to my questions. It was not my intention to include ALL those made by everybody else. At the time I posted this back in 2005, the BBBC Blog archive was available to be seen, and I linked to it at the time. SO THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL ANYTHING THAT WAS RELEVANT. What was there that was pertinent is what I posted, and if you think there should have been more from Reynolds related to my questions – fact is -so do I, which is my point precisely.
By the way, the fact that so many valuable comments and observations have been lost over the years due to the format of this kind of website here is precisely why I set up my site originally and offered it to Natalie Solent at the time.
So much of what was being raised was being buried inside a main thread, that nobody would trawl through to find again. I felt it was important to have an easily searchable record of ALL aspects of BBC for posterity. Unfortunately Natalie declined the offer saying she was too busy to take it on, so I carried it on.
Otherwise, there would be the historical record available to view today, but since this exchange has been on my website since 2005, when the original was still available for inspection, I don;t think your accusation that I have hidden anything holds water.
I notice you don’t address the poor way he tried to dismiss the genuine accusations levelled at the BBC,
Reason is – YOU CAN’T!
I see Dez has 12 likes currently, and you, 2 (see how that ‘evolves’).
That may be a triumph of democracy & free will, irony, or the power of anonymous social media power when swaying opinion with zero consequence. Who knows?
Even the DM is not immune. I’ve seen certain topics suddenly surge into the green, especially where the BBC is concerned, from comments one would not normally associate with ‘DM readers’. And concerned the BBC must be these days. With 20,000 (plus friends) at an intranet click away a potent bloc. Maybe the site owners may like to ponder this?
Certainly this thread is likely to be honey to the Flokker community. So probably best to take the advice I was given by RolandD & DD recently.
So long as Sue & Craig stick to the facts I wish them well & will happily add them to those I garner media information & insight from. Craig was a meticulous archiver and Sue had a most worthwhile insight into matters ME. It is to this site’s credit that their alternative is shared here so generously, as I note they do back.
I also see they have comment facilities and welcome them there too.
It will be interesting to see if those they garner are of the shared light variety or the mob-based denial of service ones that too often descend here.
For years the left have silenced any attempt to discuss:
Immigration and the baggage it brings by playing the racist card. So scared have people become of how the banshees of the left scream the ‘R’ word, that starting a sentence with “I am not a racist but” has become the de facto introduction to virtually every discussion on immigration in the UK.
I as most people know am the product of Indian parents, yet I have been berated by white people for not supporting my people. I have been told by a prick in Leeds that I should support failed asylum seekers because of my skin colour, I have been referred to as a traitor by whites for defending the UK,US and Israel. The thing is why is it acceptable for one side of the political divide to throw abuse, state falsehoods and play the victim-card for imported practices which are actually forbidden in most modern countries. (Cue Lord Ahmed, Jenny Tong ,Galloway and of course the bBC)
Yet when anybody tries to discuss any of the above the ‘Racist canard is brought out, For example a lot of people are concerned about how Islam is promoted in the UK as a religion of peace, yet for all the many news items about how wonder Islam is, it is a barbaric backward faith which lets be honest has no place in this century never mind the UK. Yet by saying the above I am instantly castigated as a f-ing racist. Yet the very same people who are quick to berate me, have no problem attacking jews every chance they get, that people is acceptable. Try arguing with them and they claim that they are not picking on Jews but Zionism oh that’s ok. What a thinly veiled excuse and yet we meekly accept such drivel and continue to find ourselves ostracised for daring to discuss the finer merits of a religion where hundreds are killed for allah on a daily basis.
By playing the racist card every chance they get, these idiots actually stifle free discourse on the subject at hand and actually contribute to a gravitation to the right.
You only have to look at that Norwegian prick who killed so many the other year. That is what happens when you silence free discussion on pertinent matters.
Lets be bloody honest here, The meek will not inherit the earth.
“For years the left have silenced any attempt to discuss immigration and the baggage it brings by playing the racist card.”
That’s such bullshit. Immigration has been a topic of political debate for as long as I can remember.
And every once in a while someone will say; “you’re not allowed to to talk about immigration” – before going on to talk at great length about immigration…
Blimey Pounce, do you ever think there will come a time when you stop feeling sorry for yourself?
“Blimey Pounce, do you ever think there will come a time when you stop feeling sorry for yourself?”
You are just proving his point.
I remember the election when BLiar came to power and the Tories telling the truth about the plans Liebour had for immigration. The howls of protest about Racism and ‘Playing the race card’ silenced debate for decades.
Discussing immigration in anything other than a positive way can see you lose your career, particularly if you work in the public sector.
If you vote UKIP ypu can also lose your foster children!
UKIP and Fostering – I did read somewhere, didn’t keep the link – that this story stank more thean a barrel of rotting fish – that there was a racket among the brothers up North that, unbenownst to the media, turned fostering Roma kids into a major heavy industry – masses of money to be made – and that the UKippers in question were Czechs – didn’t follow it all but it had very little to do with UKIP. Delighted to have the story put right.
So whenever has a BBC interviewer asked a question from a right-wing point of view about immigration or multiculturalism, let alone done a whole programme in similar vein – from a guest presenter like Sir Andrew Green, for example.
Audio/video links or transcripts please, Dez.
Can Dez explain why Gordon Brown was particularly embarrassed when caught on open mike talking about that “bigoted woman” when she asked him about immigration from Eastern Europe. Can Dez also explain why anyone criticising Obama’s policies and his flawed character is called a “racist”?
There are examples too numerous to mention where anyone criticising the problems caused by mass migration has been immediately vilified by the Left as racist. I’m sure Dez being the pedantic researcher he is would be able to find all these examples on the internet.
Dez, you are either a liar or in serious denial.
there certainly are some trolls here – or Dez has found the ‘like’ button and is clicking away! There is no doubt that Labour stopped criticism of immigration policy by using the racist card – it was obvious at the time and has been admitted since. And there has NEVER been an open, honest discussion of immigration on the BBC, especially not during Question Time!
“Pounce says:
February 25, 2013 at 6:33 pm
Tiger wrote:
” take it scotty got you riled.”
Nah, I’m just pissed off he didn’t bend over and take it like a man from me, when he is so willing for everybody else. I suppose I’ll have to go for a wank then.
its called been able to laugh at yourself and when you can do that, nothing else really matters. Now get back in yer box yer jellyfish.”
That kinda precludes you from being self righteous, pounce. I would imagine. Probably not here, though.
That’s very interesting.
How did you find this quote? Did you originally see it, remember and return to it? Did you originally see it and put it to one side JiC? Did you search the blog for it, page by page like a dutiful blood hound sniffing for the truth?
How long have you been waiting to post it?
And why?
Must be held on a database somewhere. Perhaps a FOI might shed some light on it. Hang on – no, can’t think of who to send it to…
Funny, though, an oft-repeated view of mine on gay rights vs Catholic adoption agencies was regurgitated yesterday by a brand new poster on this site (take a bow, Scott M).
Coincidence or magic? You decide.
An organisation with an annual guaranteed income of more than £3 bilion, can afford a team of researchers to log, analyse and regurgitate whatever gets posted.
Alan,
“Certainly there are attempts by some subversive ‘critics’ of this site to sabotage it and create the impression that everyone who reads it is some right wing BNP member….doing so by posting comments about Muslims or mentioning the ‘Final Solution’ whilst pretending to be right wing.”
What complete and utter rubbish.
I did a word count: Over just the last ten days you “Alan” and “David Preiser”, in your blog posts have mentioned “Muslims” or “Islam” over fifty times.
50 times in 10 days.
It it pretty clear that Alan is not saying that to use the word Muslim in any sense other than a positive one you have to be a member of the BNP. Yet again you prove the point you are supposed to be refuting.
Only fifty times suggests a modicum of restraint when one considers the appalling threat Islam poses to the 21st century West.
I wonder how often the words “Nazi Party” and “Adolf Hitler” were bandied about in the 1920s and 30s?
And with good reason. Large, well organised and well funded groups of people with leaders revered as prophets; a stated goal of violent global supremacy; a mono-cultural and supremacist ideology; a hatred of Jews, women, homosexuals, non-believers (untermensch/infidel) and democracy etc etc should be talked about a great deal if we want peace to continue in Britain/Europe.
Would you not agree Dez?
I think Dez is taking some time to extricate his size 9.
Dez??
A word count is not a sufficient form of analysis. You have to make a qualitative assessment. For example around 10 years ago the Fawcett Society did an analysis of the Party Conferences speaches of Blair, and the Conservative and LibDems, and came to the conclusion that they were all misogynistic as they referred to men more times than women. The report then made it into the Quisling (which used to be published in Manchester), and then onto its media arm. However, when you read Blair’s speech for example most of the men mentioned were negative examples (Hitler, Stalin, Mandelson …) so such an analysis is meaningless as it was not ‘pro-male’.
So if one of the posts was about a Quisling Corporation programme mocking Christianity then it is legitimate to ask does the Quisling Corporation do programmes mocking the Religion of Peas? To dispute this smacks of little more than closing down the debate through smearing.
Wait, simply writing the word “Muslims” is bad now? Dez, this is the lowest you have ever sunk.
David, that’s not what he meant.
In his view (and mine), Islam and Muslims are mentioned too much in a site that is supposed to be about BBC bias. That’s what he was referring to.
And it so happens Islam is one topic where BBC bias is most prevalent, so that’s to be expected.
Or were you still stuck in your ‘Islam is beyond criticism’ mindset when you posted that comment?
I have no such ‘Islam is beyond criticism’ mindset. I just happen to think that Islam is mentioned and criticised too often (particularly in threads which had no relevance to it, e.g. Alan’s ‘Does being a Muslim mess you up’), which reflects the anti-Islam views of many on here more than being an accurate barometer of BBC bias.
My own position is that there are some aspects to Islam which can and must be criticised, more than they currently are (and the BBC is to some extent guilty of this lack of criticism).
The problem I see here is that, given the blanket opposition of many posters to Islam, anything the BBC broadcasts which does not include a condemnation of it is interpreted as pro-Islamic propaganda.
Alan wrote: A Lancet report suggests that troops coming back from the frontline are more likely to be violent. Nicky Campbell is running a phone-in asking: ‘Does the Army mess you up?’ When we have Muslim suicide bombers telling us they are acting in the name of Islam does the BBC ask: ‘Does being a Muslim mess you up?’ No…it says they are madmen or criminals perverting that glorious religion. …
Seems like a fair comparison, and the very fact that they don’t ask similar questions related to a topic that IS FAR AWAY MORE SINISTER THAN THE ARMY REPRESENTS shows their bias.
Because Islam and Muslims are treated with kid gloves by the anxiously appeasing BBC, leading them to constantly misrepresent what is going on inside that mindset, the very hardline hypocrisy they show towards the far less insidious elements of our society will always cause that comparison to be made – and rightfully so.
Makes it easy to judge by anybody’s standards.
The BBC asked the question about ex-serviceman because a report had just been published about it. The report had no relevance to Islam, so in the discussion about the army there was no place for it.
Also, as Bob pointed out at the end of that thread, the debate was not trying to denigrate the army, rather to raise awareness of problems that some former soldiers experience, and how we can help them.
I have said a few times on here that I agree to an extent regarding cultural problems with Islam that must be discussed publicly. But that thread was not the place for it, as the subject matter should have been the army.
Hell will freeze over before The Quisling Broadcasting Corporation ever does a piece on how groups brimful of ethnic ad/or religious identity are more prone to violence than those of us with insufficient identity. Moreover, studies have revealed that this is a product of socialisation practices within these groups.
If you stick doggedly to The Quisling Broadcasting Corporations agenda they’ll know they’ve captured you, and at best you may get a pat on the head. But they will never take you seriously.
There are several ways to look at this.
If we go with the Lancet report examining statistics related to potential damage done to soldiers returning from service, then there are several options available to bring it to the public, depending on the motive or agenda of the body doing it.
1. To try and turn these statistics into a forum that might find a more positive outcome in the future.
2. Use the figures to highlight an area in order to serve a particular agenda. So for example, that troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are more likely to be filled with remorse for their actions that they descend into violence.
3. To understand the causes that give rise to these statistics. e.g. The stress and tension felt in trying to fight and defend oneself from an enemy that is almost impossible to recognise from ‘normal’ civilians.
My perspective suggests that 1 and 3 of the possibilities above would serve as the most positive way of presenting a programme intended to get feedback, and possible ‘way forward’.
But what does the BBC do?
It slants the programme negatively right from the get go, with the question ‘Does the Army mess you up’?
Considering that the statistics actually show that returning soldiers are less likely to commit criminal acts than the general population, why phrase a phone-in show in that way, except to invite comments with a pre determined outcome.
So why should the BBC bring the soldiers that serve and protect our society into this particular stream? It doesn’t serve our troops, and not our society. But they are a safe target, and the BBC doesn’t fear them – not yet anyway.
If they did, we can be sure the BBC would have found another perspective to address this issue, or simply omitted it altogether.
Chris, you say ‘the BBC is to some extent guilty of this lack of criticism (of Islam)’. But I would go a big step further and say they positively promote it, make excuses for it and by omission e.g. they give us no feel whatsoever on Muslims’ views on gay marriage in this country, prevent possible negative impressions from being given.
It’s the lack of balance and the preferential treatment Islam is given by the BBC, which tees me off.
This is what I referred to earlier – anything the BBC broadcasts which does not include a condemnation of Islam is interpreted here as promotion of Islam. What do you mean by ‘promotion’? Do you mean advertising? Trying to convince people to become Muslims? Spinning for Islam? Perhaps the BBC are guilty of not confronting the worst aspects of Islam, but that is not in my view because they support them, more out of a fear of criticising a minority group (that is a big big problem with multiculturalism which must be addressed). Not condemning something is not the same as promoting it.
Many users on this site appear to take the position that you are either pro-Islam or anti-Islam, there being no middle ground. I am opposed to many cultural aspects of Islam, as I have said before, and wish the BBC would highlight them more. But I refuse to condemn Islam outright, nor do I view it as a threat to our nation.
This is what I referred to earlier – anything the BBC broadcasts which does not include a condemnation of Islam is interpreted here as promotion of Islam. What do you mean by ‘promotion’? Do you mean advertising? Trying to convince people to become Muslims? Spinning for Islam? Perhaps the BBC are guilty of not confronting the worst aspects of Islam, but that is not in my view because they support them, more out of a fear of criticising a minority group
If you report the news in such a way as to try and distort the facts in order to protect a particular group or mindset then you are in effect PROMOTING THAT GROUP. In the same way we highlight the fact that the BBC promotes Labour but vilifies Tories.
To imagine in the case of Muslims that their motive is to protect a minority is to delude yourself. It is more a fear of Muslims.
Easy example to prove it:
Here is an article on the BBC website from a month ago:
Rabbi Chaim Halpern arrested in sexual abuse probe
Four men have been arrested by police investigating sexual abuse allegations among the Orthodox Jewish community in north London.
It’s very clear who the alleged perpetrators are, and they are more of a minority than Muslims.
Now find ONE article that uses ‘Muslims’ or ‘Islam’ in the headline or opening passage, or for that matter ANYWHERE IN THE ARTICLE with ANY of the numerous PROVEN cases of sex gangs across the country.
Don’t include those articles where a judge has made remarks referring to this connection, but where the BBC did it of their own volition in the same way they did above for the Jews.
What does this tell you?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12791095
There you go (apologies, I don’t know how to do links). I think that headline makes it very clear that the perpetrator is Muslim.
“If you report the news in such a way as to try and distort the facts in order to protect a particular group or mindset then you are in effect PROMOTING THAT GROUP.”
Interesting that you have changed ‘does not condemn’ to ‘protect’. The latter verb implies that the group needs protection, maybe because it has done something wrong. In any case, I disagree that trying to ‘protect’ a group is the same as promoting it but I think here we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Well done Chris, you found an example.
But given all the instances where Muslim gangs have targeted young non-Muslim girls for use as sex-slaves or prostitution, wouldn’t you really expect the particular mindset doing this to be highlighted?
Doesn’t the avoidance to make the specific correlation seem a bit suspect to you?
I didn’t change ‘do not condemn’ to protect. ‘Do not condemn’ was your words. You seemed unclear as to what PROTECT means, so I gave you an example.
I highlighted the parts of your comment that I was replying to.
I don’t think it’s the job of the BBC to condemn, and I think most here would agree with me.
It is their job however to report ALL the facts related to allow the individual to form their own opinion FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF OUR VALUES AND SOCIETY.
Not to do this on a regular basis, in order to promote Labour, AGW, Muslims, EU, to name but a few, shows a clear bias and agenda.
‘There you go (apologies, I don’t know how to do links).
No apology necessary, as it seems to have worked.
You were challenged, and in response delivered, showing that the ‘shown me one..’ in face of a BBC estate so vast a million monkeys wold struggle not plagiarising each other, is a route to disappointment.
Thing is, this site already has a few with access to archives and a search function to address such loose, low fruit, so I sincerely hope that your contribution here will extend in future to more robust discussion fare than catching people out on an unwise generality.
The issue surely should be BBC reporting, not tangents on often subjective topics that are better addressed elsewhere.
Are you in doubt that the entire media of this country, and the BBC especially, seems to have at best a selective response to reporting on certain crimes, that usually go beyond facts into areas of self-censorship based on certain sensitivities?
If so, do you task the BBC as to why?
And if not, why devote yourself to this site in subjective debates on why it perhaps need not be held to account?
‘that’s not what he meant.’
Possibly.
But now you appear to be interpreting events for others too.
The BBC possibly mentions some things more than their relative heft warrants to some.
What’s interesting is why they can, then others pointing such out appear in turn to be required not to. When one is a public-funded service and others private outlets of free speech. That’s some interesting double standards right there.
Next there’ll be a quota system for what gets mentioned how often.
Overseen by whom I wonder, with who excluded?
I took it that Dez meant that any post about Muslims by either of us was by default wrong. He wrote that in the context of proving claims that this site is a BNP haven. I felt I raised a legitimate point about BBC bias in my recent post. I even admitted in the comments the irony of my doing so, and that I accepted charges of hypocrisy on it.
I say it’s impossible to claim that my post about Mehdi Hasan shining a spotlight on anti-Semitism in his own Mohammedan community is BNP-type stuff.
Dez decided to ignore the point and engage in character assassination instead. What he’s done now is dishonest and wrong.
Of course, the intrepid champion of all that is good in the world might be able to clarify his remarks for us. How about it, Dez?
According to the Religion of Peace website:
Weekly Jihad Report
Mar. 16 – Mar. 22
Jihad Attacks: 57
Allahu Akbars*: 6
Dead Bodies: 337
Critically Injured: 619
(*Suicide Attacks)
Now I wonder how many of these were covered by the BBC, and if so, in what way.
If we were so inclined we could investigate EVERY single incident and observe and comment on the disparity in the way the BBC covered or neglected to cover the story. It is enough that we focus on the more major ones and see the consistent bias involved.
In just 7 days we would have mentioned Muslims and Islam at least 63 times related to 63 separate incidents. Instead we see the problem as whole, and see the threat they pose to our society, and unlike you and the BBC don’t try to pretend it’s nothing to be concerned about, and raise the problem here.
50 in 10 days? Sounds like a bargain.
Don’t for a moment think we don’t recognise your agenda, and see clearly what you and your ilk represent.
Yes, and how often does INBBC euphemistically use the word ‘militant’ instead of ‘ jihadist’?
“Certainly there are attempts by some subversive ‘critics’ of this site to sabotage it and create the impression that everyone who reads it is some right wing BNP member….doing so by posting comments about Muslims or mentioning the ‘Final Solution’ whilst pretending to be right wing. ”
Oh I see, it’s ‘subversive critics’ who say all the nasty anti-Muslim stuff is it?
“In Britain today there are over two million National Socialists living mainly in large enclaves separate from the rest of British society.” That was you, Alan, in a post tastefully entitled National Socialism, The Ideology of Peace.
I have yet to see a constructive post from Capital Idea defending the BBC.
Does he believe the BBC promotes a worldview and everybody should be forced to pay for it because he agrees with that worldview, or does he think that everybody should be forced to pay for the BBC because it is politically neutral and encourages a hundred flowers bloom?
Why should somebody on the Left (and as far as I can see all the defenders of the BBC on here seem to self-identify as such) want to support the BBC? Is it because of the historic link between the Left and loving open mindedness?
This does seem a rather defensive post. Maybe Biased BBC has received criticism lately, and Alan wants to project a “not us, Guvnor” image?
Good luck with that. Biased BBC commenters regularly fling abusive insults at those they disagree with, but clutch yet handbags shrieking “ad hominem” if anybody stands up to them. And it’s not just the below-the-line commenters: disagree with David Vance, and he’ll demand you publish your home address (still waiting for an apology for that one). Pull David Preiser up on one of his frequent misstatements, and he’ll try and make it your fault for not understanding that he really meant something completely different (apparently he doesn’t tell lies, he just states non-facts).
Some of Biased BBC’s most prolific commenters have flung abuse at me and others which, if it had occurred in the opposite direction, would have been rightly stamped on immediately. Instead, a blind eye is turned.
If Biased BBC is seen as a hotbed of intolerant losers who can’t cope with honest debate, don’t blame anybody else but yourselves.
“If Biased BBC is seen as a hotbed of intolerant losers who can’t cope with honest debate, don’t blame anybody else but yourselves.”
Is your intention to write a parody of one of your usual posts?
‘If Biased BBC is seen as a hotbed of intolerant losers who can’t cope with honest debate, don’t blame anybody else but yourselves.’
So you cannot post yourself without flinging in your sly dig.
From my reading of The Quisling (formerly published in Manchester) newspaper it is full of reports which are biased, full of misstatements, and personal attacks. And I’m not even referring to any commentators below the line. Do you think the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation will be banning The Quisling newspaper hacks until they clean up their act.
Also can you help on this one as I did not see the programme but have read comments on it both on this site and on others – though I can trace no reference in the Quisling newspaper. On Question Time a few weeks ago a Quisling Party stooge was given free reign to call the UKIP member ‘disgusting’ (either as a person or for being a member of the party). Why was the filming not stopped and the stooge immediately escorted from the auditorium?
So, not only can Scott just not help himself from posting on here despite it being one big tilting at windmills, tinfoil hat wearing, of no consequence echo chamber for bigots, racists and homophobes, but now he wants a medal for it.
But has he got the chest?
You would think from the sudden re-kindling of interest in this site from the likes of Dez and new man Scott that some kind of co-ordinated campaign had been planned: there’s the sudden 5-fold hike in ‘likes’ for their posts; the handy back-references as if gleaned from an indexed database of quotes.
On the other hand these guys could just be 110% genuinely supportive of everything the BBC does.
My mind remains open.
Now you’re just telling fibs about me, Scott. The couple of times you’ve actually provided evidence that I made an error, I admitted it. You couldn’t even accept that gracefully, either. Making an error based on wrong or misunderstood information isn’t a lie: it’s a mistake. Lying – as you well know – is when one says someone deliberately says something one knows to be untrue.
You have no right to claim “frequent” misstatements, because you refused to take up my challenge and show what percentage of my posts and comments are false. Maybe in your own imagination you’ve got evidence, but you’ll need to do better than one out of a hundred for anyone in real life to agree with you.
It’s a joke for you to claim the moral high ground about flinging abuse here when you mostly engage in personal attacks with me rather than reasoned debate or sober explanations of where I got something wrong. Even one time when I admitted I misread something, you couldn’t resist piling on the personal insults. As always, I’m flattered that you hold a nobody like me to a higher standard than you do the BBC, but it’s not really much of a defense of the BBC, and it doesn’t make you look good. You have no right to claim any moral high ground or superiority. Honest debate? You wouldn’t know it if it bit you in the ass. Intolerant losers? You’re as intolerant as they come.
What’s worse, you spend nearly all your time biting ankles, going after the tiniest, lowest-hanging fruit, plus the personal insults, which allows you to avoid the main points being made and the big issues of BBC bias. Your total silence on the major stories like Will Self/Radio 4, 28-Gate, the Fogel family, anti-Semitism, falsehoods about Israel, all the stuff about the Tea Party movement, the Tweets in direct violation of BBC policy, and the Occupy movement – to name just a few issues – speaks volumes about what you’re really up to, and what you really do here.
Scott, have you read the comments section of the Guardian’s “Comment Is Free”? They make the comments on this site look like a church parish magazine.
But then again, I suppose people with agendas like yours excuse the virulent hatred by the left of anyone with opinions not condoned by the Marxist orthodoxy. From the posts on left wing blogs I’ve read no one does hatred like the Left.
Socialism – responsible for 150,000,000 human deaths around the world since the beginning of the 20th Century and still counting.
‘No-one does hatred like the left’
Have you read any of Pounce’s posts?
Pounce is an individual. I’m fairly certain he does it as provocation.
Leftist abuse is an orchestrated campaign and it is quite clear which side the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation is on.
So Chris according to you I am a hate Monger. What I love about hypocrites like you is when the left opine about the day Maggie dies that is acceptable, attacking the Jews, why thats acceptable, calling Tory MPs cunts why that’s acceptable
Get my drift, but when somebody speaks out for commonsence then it’s a hate crime. As I keep saying when plonkers like you protest against the ugliness within your own ranks than I may give you the time of day. People like you are the reason for people like me speaking out. Now get back in your box.
I have done none of those things. Those who talk about dancing on Thatcher’s grave are disgusting, those who attack the Jews are disgusting, and those who call Tory MPs c***s are disgusting. I don’t even know if I would call myself a lefty – I spend time on this site because I’m interested to hear criticism of the BBC, and comment every now and then if someone has posted something I disagree with.
My post was a reply to Andy S. I was not trying to deny that there is hatred amongst those on the left, but to say that such hatred is also present on the right. There’s no way I can judge which side has more hatred, but from my limited experience of different sites and blogs, you Pounce express your hatred more viscerally than anyone else. However, I’m not saying you shouldn’t, as I believe in free speech and would never attempt to silence anybody, however much I may disagree with them.
Does that mean I am still a hypocrite?
‘I spend time on this site because I’m interested to hear criticism of the BBC, and comment every now and then if someone has posted something I disagree with’
As one who has done no more than have an opinion, and shared it sincerely and with courtesy (best I can recall – there have been a few Chris’, and of course the names can appear to be ported around), more power to you.
It is for you to feel the urge to post when you will, and choose what you want to post about.
And as Pounce is one of the more ‘robust’ posters and I can see how he may inspire the desire to counter. Maybe some others with ‘passionate’ input may yet attract yours in return?
However, if the the only motivation is to lurk and counter what does not suit, on a site that is here to discuss failings of the BBC, if you restrict yourself to acting solely in the role of tripwire or nag, you surely can see how that may see you placed with those whose apparent aim is purely to disrupt alone.
DavidP has raised the odd notion of a blockade fleet that is harboured within BBBC for just this purpose; tolerated in existing but not immune to counter (if often to many an ironic, hypocritical howl of protest).
I’m sure they exist, but I’d be hard pressed to think of any other blogs I frequent with a core of posters defending a singular entity with near zero allowance that it may have failings they can concede.
Right vs. left hatred is, to me, nothing to do with anything, though I suppose the manifestations of these can leach into what can get deemed ‘bias’, and hence this site’s remit.
But you pointing out Pounce is as nasty to some as Graun CiFers (as I recall the only ones to be modded are those not towing the Graun’s odd line on what ‘free’ comment is) are to others seems… unidirectional, at best.
I do hope that can be deemed a counter view to your question, and maybe motivations, but not an ‘attack’ on you personally.
Thanks for that reply.
I do not intend to ‘disrupt’ this site. I agree (reluctantly, because I want to like the BBC) with much of what is said on here, but not all of it. I try to make my comments relevant about the BBC’s output, although I do concede that my original comment about Pounce wasn’t. It was, however, a reply to Andy S’s comment with which I disagreed, and I would point out that his comment had nothing to do with the BBC either. Perhaps I should have left it rather than continue on a tangent.
An easy like to give. Fair enough.
‘I do not intend to ‘disrupt’ this site.’
I shall take you at your word.
Having frequently visited this site over this past year or so I can see why people would want to disassociate themselves from it. I myself took a regular commenter to task for a blatantly racist comment and was rounded on. I have read numerous vile homophobic insults directed at Scott that go unchecked.
I feel no desire to engage with playground bullies who dismiss everyone with a dissenting voice as a ‘troll’. The BBC should be held accountable and perhaps Sue and Craig’s site will put forward some reasoned arguments and provide a forum for civilized debate. I wish them well.
I did not realise that in an open debate only views you approve of should be posted. Scott M only seems to post on homosexuality, and so it is hardly a surprise that his posts attract comments from people who share his obsession.
Scott is under the impression that people despise him for his sexuality, but I can assure him that in my case this is not the case. I despise him because the bigot at his window is his own reflection.
“I did not realise that in an open debate only views you approve of should be posted.”
I think you will find that my entire comment states the exact opposite.
“I think you will find that my entire comment states the exact opposite.”
Maybe you ought to read you post again.
You attack this site because it has “blatantly racist comments” and some people use “vile homophobic insults”.
I am guessing that is because some people are racists, and some people use homophobic insults.
What is your theory?
Maybe you ought to read Alan’s original post again. I was addressing why people are put off from engaging here. I at no point challenged anyone’s right to post whatever they want but merely pointed out that those views are crass and offensive to many.
No theories, Wild.
Fair enough. But I was simply pointing out that some people (Dez for example) will always be crass an offensive, and if you exclude them this site ceases to be a place where people can freely express their opinion – however unpalatable.
If you ceased to visit it and give your opinion Dez would be delighted. As I see it the (Leftist) intolerance of the BBC, and the destructive effect this (mostly tax funded) institution is having on our free society, is one of the key themes of this blog. The question seems to be is that view a fair criticism? I would say yes.
Cleo said;
I at no point challenged anyone’s right to post whatever they want but merely pointed out that those views are crass and offensive to many.
There you have identified what most here object to most and hold as a basic premise of “free speech”.
All the “isms” that have been created by the Left which are now creeping into our legal system and making people criminals.
This democracy was built on “freedom of speech”. Because someone doesn’t like or is offended by something I say or do is their problem. They can either debate it with me and try to change my mind or choose to walk away and ignore it. That’s exactly what I do.
Not the Left. If you can not change their minds then make a law that says if you do or say something offensive we will prosecute you.
Well said.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m under no such impression.
I do, however, believe that many Biased BBC commenters make things up about people they disagree with, because they find it easier than actually engaging with the truth. Your comments above just reinforce that impression.
So it is false to claim that you believe that people attack you in this forum because you are homosexual?
If that is not your view you do a very good impression of somebody who believes himself to be a victim of people who have different views than you about homosexuality.
Your views about homosexuality are clear. What that has to do with truth is less clear.
If anything I would say that your truth is extremely selective. You give the impression that views about homosexuality that are contrary to your own are ipso facto illegitimate.
I do get the impression that some people treat you as the “Meg” of Biased BBC, but given some of your comments (see above) that is not very surprising.
This post appears to indicate some degree of soul-searching, which I welcome. I would comment here more often were it not for the fact that anybody who dares to raise their head above the parapet tends to get it shot at by one of the regulars. When I presumed to engage a couple of weeks ago, on a subject I happen to know a bit about, I was mobbed by ‘regulars’ who seemed outraged that I should dare to dissent, albeit on a purely factual basis. One of them demanded I condemn BBC coverage, like a playground bully demanding I join in the mockery of their victim. I appreciate the function of this site – that is why I read it – but the strange reluctance of certain commenters to countenance debate, instead resorting to insult or floating insinuations about the motivations of those who fail to agree wholeheartedly with every word of every post, is a serious impediment to my taking a greater part here. Is there any point in a forum where people just scream ‘death to the BBC’, with no room for further discussion? I’m an awkward old sod and I don’t like party lines, so I’m not going to agree with every word. But it would be nice if visitors could be allowed to disagree occasionally without being attacked as if they were the devil incarnate, or George Entwistle under a pseudonym (I’m not, by the way).
Very well put, Dr.
“mobbed by one of the “regulars’”
I think Dr Foster that what you encountered was people having a different view from you and telling you that you are wrong – maybe as a GP is this an unfamiliar experience for you?
Speaking for myself I am not put off by your
de haut en bas manner, but if Alan is “soul searching” I am sure we can agree that he has no reason to apologise for having opinions and seeking to express them in a forum which invites free and generally unmoderated debate.
“When I presumed to engage a couple of weeks ago, on a subject I happen to know a bit about, I was mobbed by ‘regulars’ who seemed outraged that I should dare to dissent….”
I assume you refer to this thread? Without wishing to rehash earlier arguments, I would remind you that I had responded to a point you had made and you replied “What a feeble argument – intellectually bankrupt”. You might consider reactions to comments like that as “mobbed” but you could perhaps wonder if your tone contributes to the way your comments are received.
Matters were not helped by the fact that a comment had been made earlier by someone else purporting to be you which had set the tone for the exchange which followed.
But it’s an inevitable part of the internet that anyone posting contrary to the thrust of a site is going to be challenged by the regulars. Anyone doing so has to accept that, whether it’s here or on the Guardian or the BBC, the difference being that a site of this nature doesn’t have the finance to police it in the same way and wouldn’t wish to as it takes a different view on the meaning of free speech. I always try (not always successfully, I’m sure) to be polite in my responses, but if I perceive a comment to be sneering or rude I am likely to respond in kind.
I’m not going to defend some of the comments that are seen here from regulars sometimes, which I’ve criticised before. But if you maintain politeness in your responses then these comments will be seen for what they are by people that matter.
Calling an *argument* ‘intellectually bankrupt’ is hardly an ad hominem attack, is it? Ridiculing your argument – and not the person making it – is surely the essence of robust debate. And of course there are plenty of reasonable, courteous comments made. But the thread is about what’s wrong with the tone here, and on that I thought it worth commenting.
Calling an argument “intellectually bankrupt” without giving the reasons for that view is,in my opinion an Ad Hominem.
In my view just sneering at an argument without giving the reasons for the sneer is just as “intellectually bankrupt”.
You never know, the force of a well thought out and articulately constructed opinion may cause other contributors to think again about the position they’ve taken. I’m sure most of the contributors to this site are not as narrow minded as you and other critics maintain.
A good post, Dr. Foster.
Although, many of the regulars (me included) welcome those ‘awkward old sods’ who come at things from a different perspective, or who don’t always agree with a particular take on an issue of bias. As you say, it’s only certain commenters that are less than willing to engage in reasonable discussion.
Perhaps all those who have been reluctant in the past will give it another go. Hopefully some of the more entrenched blog-warriors will give those new voices a more considered hearing in the future.
Not sure which is funnier the chorus line of high minded self appointed liberal guardians liking each others posts and high fiving the air at every cutting non bleat from coldbutz or Scrotty or the the fact that anyone thinks that opening up another site will stop this endless ‘my propaganda is better then yours ‘ bull *8888* !
That’s me done I just cannot be bothered with this gaggle of jackassery to come back on this thread bye girls!
I liked Craig and Sue, I learned a lot from both-and wish them well.
The more sites than this one to join us, the merrier!
In my naivety, I thought that “Just Saying” was a thread to be given over to the Radio 4 hatchet job on Boris Johnson this morning around 8.15 or so.
I have NEVER heard the BBC just replay a section of a TV programme “that made the headlines in the broadsheets” without some kind of critique.
They just played it with no comment whatsoever…as if that was all that we`d be needing to know about Boris. No further questions.
Outrageous-hope Boris will take action against them…to attack a man about a programme that the BBC had seen, but the victim had not surely breaks a few laws, rules, guidelines and regulations…and hope he gets a twenty minute right to reply, a la Leveson!
And the fact that Humph and Naughtie just repeated it without any context or defender of Boris was despicable.
I know it`s a free trailer for their show later-and I know that Milibands office etc will have been happy for them to do this assassination at one remove…but this is NOT Pyongyang or Brezhnevs USSR…well, not yet.
Anybody from the trolling community above able to explain why this clip was played or radio 4 this morning with no comment-and when this has ever happened before with the Today Show?
Truly wicked!…in the wrong sense!
In introducing the replay John Humphries said that the interview had attracted a lot of attention.
But he blatantly failed to say that much of the attention was not on the assertions Eddie Mair made about Boris Johnson – it was on the fact that Mair gave Johnson no chance to deal with one assertion before launching into the next assertion – and above all, the disgraceful remark by Mair that Johnson is a “nasty piece of work”.
It is Mair who is a nasty piece of work in my book. But I don’t get the chance to have that broadcast on TV and then repeated without any challenge on the Today programme.
“I note that David Vance rarely posts under his own name despite…appalling slanders and libels on this site.”
Oh the irony.
Colditz, anyone can tell from the style of a post whether it’s Alan or David without looking at the name displayed. Suggesting they are one and the same is so patently absurd it removes credibility from the rest of your post.
So Nicked Emus/Colditz et al is accusing Alan of posting on this site under different names.
Again, the irony.
“Why doesn’t Alan use his real name? Frightened he’ll get his collar felt? ”
Ah, so Colditz is your real name then is it! Will that be “Miss Colditz”? Or is Colditz your first name?
Strange that Dez in an earlier post was trying to convince us that immigration has been openly discussed for decades without critics being labelled “Racists”.
Your post, Colditz, proves our point when Alan suggests Eddie Mair’s homosexuality is bound to colour some of his reports into gay matters and you immediately label him a “Homophobe”.
It’s classic Alinsky tactics – close down an argument by attacking the critic as a bigot.
You call them homophobic attacks. Others might call them points of view or opinions.
But it’s hardly a defence of your assertion that Alan and David are one and the same.
‘Homophobic’ = don’t have an answer so I’ll close down the debate by accusing him of a ‘hate crime’.
Nazis prison Guard wrote:
Why doesn’t Alan use his real name? Frightened he’ll get his collar felt?
Pot,kettle black,. How about you take the first step and come out for all to see. Maybe if you came out of the closet, others (including myself) may take off our masks.
Meanwhile in Hell, bBC weather reports a flying pig is dropping snow.
Can I just say that i wish Craig and Sue every best wish on their site. I am disappointed that they felt the need to leave here but there are no locks on the gate. Furthermore, I happen to believe our greatest strength is our readers and if they leave robust comments, that is FINE by me.
I think some of the problems encountered here are some genuinely and unnecessarily offensive remarks made by some posters. The blog is about BBC bias, and where it appertains to Islam, homosexuality etc. where the BBC is showing its bias then it is absolutely correct to raise the issue.
However, there are some on here who bring in Islam where the BBC aren’t involved (there are many other sites for that) and some who mention homosexuality in a pejorative way that is unnecessary. For once (twice now in fact) Colditz is making a fair point that some of the good points regarding BBC bias are lost in unhelpful bigotry – such as that thread about the appalling biased attack against Boris Johnston by Eddie Mair. It matters little whether Mair is gay or not, unless it is clear that it is colouring his personal attacks.
The fact that many, if not most, of the offensive remarks on here actually come out of the left-field BBC supporters (employees) – not so much Scottie but certainly including Dezi and Colditz – doesn’t mean that we should give them ammunition and a means to avoid answering the genuine points and facts about BBC bias.
We should stick to reporting and commenting on the clear BBC bias and see how they squirm in trying to defend their beloved propaganda organisation.
I think some of the problems encountered here are some genuinely and unnecessarily offensive remarks made by some posters.
Agreed. I can understand the urge to give abuse back if abuse is first given, but I don’t understand the urge to give abuse to someone who has made a reasonable point in a polite manner. Anyone who is in to that sort of thing should really go on Twitter. They’ll find an almost unlimited number of targets to abuse there.
It would also be nice if detractors could acknowledge that there are many commenters here who rarely, if ever, indulge in posts which might be considered abusive.
“…there are many commenters here who rarely, if ever, indulge in posts which might be considered abusive.”
You are of course correct. It is unfortunately easier to notice the negativity and overlook the genuine concerns about the BBC’s impropriety.
I am not really an online arguing type and although I find some of the discussions here interesting and informative, I feel unable to associate myself with a lot of the content. So I generally remain silent.
The dismissive cries of ‘Dhimmis’ ‘Trolls’ and ‘Flokkers’ in evidence on this thread do nothing to alter my opinion, I’m afraid.
‘The dismissive cries of ‘Dhimmis’ ‘Trolls’ and ‘Flokkers’
As the guilty originator to the last, I might point out that you’ll hear a lot worse from BBC interviewers than my generic shorthand for the cherry vulture flock who circle the skies seeking to swoop on often little to do with BBC accuracy of integrity, as evidenced by the feeding frenzy in this thread.
Some well armed from the archives. Fair do’s.
Cleo* says:
November 8, 2012 at 7:32 am
Absolutely my last post.
We can all change our minds.
Not so sure if this, no matter how provoked, is in keeping with the high ground narrative though, unless there are multiple standards in operation:
Cleo* says:
November 8, 2012 at 8:39 am
You horrible horrible little prick.
*(unless of course these were another Cleo, in which case I apologise, though again point out is a system flaw that makes things tricky to navigate sensibly. There are now so many false flags operating, and people responding to what they in fact may have created, it has become a dog’s breakfast if, on the part of some, probably with serious intention ).
A definition of the dhimmi term is perhaps needed here. It’s not universally popular on this blog, but hey ho, heres the reality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude
And when has the BBC ever attempted to enhance our understanding of this very fundamental and negative aspect of Islam?
Or, put another way, whenever have they even mentioned it? As ever, it’s what the BBC omits which is just as important as their overt bias.
Some of the most offensive posts on this site have come from left wing trolls trying to turn this blog into a hate site. You can always identify these posts because they are always written in a style lefties believe, in their immature minds, a rabid right winger would write. They are too thick and blinded by their hate of the right to realise that the posts are in fact crude caricatures and too extreme and offensive to be genuine.
Earl’s Court was the classic.
He’s not Left-wing. There have been actual Mobys from time to time, though. They usually vanish quickly after they’re called out.
I clicked like on that as I wholeheartedly agree with your first sentence I could have written it myself 😉
But, of course, it is not a joke as it is too true.
I too am sorry that Sue and Craig decided not to continue posting here – I do try to go to their new site but it doesn’t happen often.
The trolls certainly seem to be adding to the comments on this post but seem to be adding little to the debate. It would seem the majority of us who comment on this site are like minded to some degree (apart from the trolls and those who post that they will never return…and then do). Just now and again I do post things that are not directly BBC related but I will always (I hope) mark them as off-topic. I realise that some comments about Muslims are not shown as directly BBC related but can be made to be so by the honest remarks that the posters are reporting the things that the BBC never would etc.
‘The trolls certainly seem to be adding to the comments on this post but seem to be adding little to the debate.’
They’re doing it to exploit inherent decencies of most and weaknesses of some and, best I can judge, winning. I see people generically lumped in with the views of others through no more than failing to respond, or being targeted for merely exercising the right to have an opinion. And in such self-righteous ways it takes firm resolve to offer a counter. Especially when advised ignoring attacks is the preferred way to roll over and get it again. And when sheer weight of numbers backed by limitless resource get deployed strategically, it can have an impact. The volume of t….hose with only an interest in frustrating or closing down discussion here is astounding.
Where Craig and Sue went, so may others. Then it will be the preserve of those who impose and those who accommodate. Clever really.
Whether such a destructive victory of a critical mass will succeed, and be anything but Pyrrhic, or serve the cause of the BBC’s offering being professional and impartial ever again, only time will tell.
ps: ‘Troll’ is also to some not an allowed word, apparently. Unless used by some posters about others. Such double standards are uniques the BBC promotes a lot itself, and appears to be a prevailing view. One is sure Leveson and the Royal Charter will ensure acceptability and penalties are accorded appropriately very soon if deploying anything from the wrong side of a now rather devious line.
“Especially when advised ignoring attacks is the preferred way to roll over and get it again.”
Ouch! Actually, what I was advising on the Friday Open Thread was regarding a comment that Sky was just as biased. It added nothing, and in my view was best ignored and left as a standalone comment instead of creating a whole raft of posts. Of course you were free to ignore my view, as many have done in the past.
Inaccuracies, insults and attempts to shut down debate under the guise of an “ism” are an altogether different matter and frequently need to be responded to. I would never countenance rolling over, but sometimes a reaction was just what was wanted by the original poster. It’s a difficult balancing act but I do feel the bait is taken too easily by some.
Sorry… [smiley face].
Some (OK, that would be me) are not to good at sussing out what’s genuine and what’s not anymore. Recently I was having a discussion with a name that may once have been a troll but now wasn’t… or something. And got scolded by a site author for a failure of the system.
The notion of not rising to bait is an interesting one and an ideal that I feel easier to advise than practice.
This site appears subject to a large amount of input currently that has swamped most examples of BBC inaccuracy, excess or lack of integrity with little other than interference techniques.
Ignoring them is an option, and I tried it for a while, but they seem designed to shut down or drive away rather than any sensible attempt at discussion, and by sheer volume are prevailing, here at least (with luck another Bulge that will see resources expended soon exhausted).
There are many here whose views I respect (even the odd, rare, coherent, sincere counter-arguer), but leave it to the denial of service tsunami and they’ll simply scour the beach empty.
Well said, GW. ‘Never smile at a crocodile’ as the old song went.
It would appear that a rather large group of Dhimmis is involved in debate here.
About an hour before you made you post I asked if you could provide the links as to where Edward Mair ‘roasts’ Quisling politicians, and in particular where he calls Kenneth Livingstone or Dianne Abbott ‘disgusting little hypocrites’. Though I’m quite happy if you cite any Quisling Party member or fellow travelers. If you want a debate then you must be prepared to answer questions posed at you.
Also, and I hope you can help, has Denis McShane ever been called a ‘disgusting …’ on the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation. After all he was sacked from the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation for putting in a fake phone call when working for them. Any difference between what McShane did 30 odd years ago, and Johnston did some 25 years ago?
So Dez feels that 2 people over a period of 10 days have mentioned the M word over 50 time makes them into racists. Here’s another way to write the above;
Every day for 10 days David and Allan each wrote Muslim 2.5 times.
How dare they?
Who knew it was Bring A Concern Troll To Work Day?
Hey, can we have some actual guidance here? Where exactly is the line between going too far and just being an Eddie Mair-style flinty speaker of truths?
As to whether or not B-BBC should tone it down, ease off and embrace happy-clappy luv power, I have two words: David Cameron. Here’s a guy who grabbed his ankles for the BBC years ago but he still gets the Two-Minutes Hate treatment every time he threatens to go off the reservation.
I post comments on this site regularly – and have done so for years. Over that time I have noticed the growing obsession in comments with everything “Islamic” (corresponding, oddly, with a sharp decline in the number of ardently pro Israel faction comments) and the growth of homophobia in the comments corresponding primarily to Scott’s relatively recent appearance; Scott generally responds or posts only on gay related issues. He receives quite a lot of abuse – not ‘debate’, no matter what commenters say. I know that he is being deliberately provocative but for goodness sake gay people as individuals have every right to express their opinions and advocate for their interests. However the BBC does NOT have this right and its blatant advocacy of a gay agenda (as in every other aspect of its advocacy of ‘minority’ issues) are legitimate areas for comment. We can achieve this without graphic reference to personal practices of “the five cities of the plain”.
One thing I think that is important is for this site to recognise that there is no ‘right wing consensus’ where everyone agrees. I can be a heterosexual atheist libertarian who thinks that gay people have the right to marry if they wish and post on this site when I perceive BBC bias and wish to share this. I can ignore the posts of those with whom I disagree. I do not expect to be hectored by people if I happen to type something they disagree with.
Dr Foster makes a strong point above: if this site is to achieve its purpose of holding the BBC to account and highlighting the outrageous institutionally leftist bias of the BBC to the public at large than it needs to encourage people to value the site and feel that they can post here without an avalanche of ‘debate’. The issue is that people will simply stop reading the blog and it will become an echo chamber of people violently agreeing with each other. Consequently, as I have posted before, I that I think that it is essential that Scott, Dez and others post here and are treated reasonably, or simply ignored, even if they are being deliberately provocative.
The BBC, its biased policies, its self reenforcing leftist groupthink and its and social engineering agenda, in my opinion, is truly wicked and needs to be held to account. I think that this is what the site is supposed to be about.
+1000
Do you all know what. I don’t give a fuck what you wankers think how I should discuss subjects you feel uncomfortable about. It is because of your do-gooding mindset that the right have been given a voice. Tell you what, when you pricks start to discuss the subjects which are causing concern in the UK, instead of trying to pain me as a bigot for doing so, then I may give you a minute of my time.
Language, Timothy.
“Yes, Mother”
appaling slanders and libels eh?
how about accusing someone of condoning the beheading off bbc employees mr colditz?
still talking bollocks I see
Very noticeable Dez and Colditz’s ‘likes’ have suddenly increased 5-fold over the last couple of days.
Wonder what’s going on?
It’s sure to be a change of inbbc attack mode. Their committee has hired an extra I.T. Fixer .
Its organised, its funded by licence payers to defend itself in any way possible, and us mugs are paying for it. Well some of us anyway.
I cant possibly imagine a scenario where the inbbc would NOT resort to such tactics.
And they choose Islam as the topic to rubbish, because it really is their achilles heel. An ideology/religion locked in the 7th century, which will inevitably come to the attention of even the most tolerant of the majority here for the barbarism that it leads to.
They must have quite a large team because they are able to supply Dezi with the ability to quote word counts by particular posters. To have that sort of software set up and the people to run it, along with indexing a list of posts going back some time that they can “miraculously” quote when they think appropriate suggests a team that only the BBC itself could finance. In other words we are paying for these people to spread their “happiness” in this blog.
They all then come on here to add their likes even though they only have a few who they feel capable of commenting. Sinister, very, very sinister.
Agreed. There’s something going on.
Here’s my twopenneth.
This site is capable of having a reasonable, polite debate. A few days ago I commented on the thread ‘Does Being a Muslim Mess you up?’, and the following exchanges between a few other commentators and myself contained no swearing, no ad hominems, and progressed very well. We still disagree, but that is the point of debate after all.
Both those who seek to defend the BBC (dez, Scott et al) and those who believe it to be biased have, on occasions, been guilty of needless ad homs. I say needless because, if you have a valid point, you should not need to ‘play the man’. It is usually after an ad hom or something similar (for example, I have no idea why Colditz believes that David Vance and Alan are the same person, and even if they are, I do not see how it is relevant to the debate) that the argument disintegrates, as the opponent can simply pick up on the personal attack rather than continue the debate.
Childish comments like ‘Jeez, you’re dumb’ do not help the debate at all, but instead serve to rile up the opponent. Those who swear I personally find a little distasteful, but I can understand it to an extent if you feel so passionate about something.
Those are just a few rambled thoughts.
‘…if you have a valid point, you should not need to ‘play the man’.
100% in agreement with that.
I am a relatively recent poster on this site, but I used to enjoy Craig’s incisive research and quantitative analysis of BBC bias.
What I like most about biased-BBC are the documented cases of how the BBC treats a news item differently from other media – including the difficult-to-spot instances where the BBC ignores an awkward story when it doesn’t fit their prejudices – and examples of the relentless brainwashing PC agenda which pervades almost every BBC programme.
What I don’t like about this site is that some posters appear to spend more time attacking the pro-BBC posters – even expressly posting to invite comments from them – instead of exposing the BBC bias. And some of the threads have little to do with the BBC and are just excuses for parading unrelated opinions.
But freedom of speech is paramount. If only our taxpayer-funded broadcaster felt the same.
Inviting the regular Beeboids to comment on actual, proved, unarguable bias is fair to me, as they generally steam in on minor points made and ignore the huge BBC whoppers reported here.
They claim that BBC bias is not proved but are always absent when clear examples are shown e.g. the McAlpine accusation disgrace. If they want to justify their beliefs that the BBC is impartial then they should comment on the most damning threads.
Failure to do so on their part proves that the BBC is biased, so asking them to disprove it is fair.
I would agree if we were dealing with official BBC spokesmen rather than posters of unknown background and status.
Well said. For me it’s not so much the fact Dez and co are 100% pro-BBC, it’s the way they – on most occasions – choose to express it, which is a deliberate wind-up style, devoid of constructive argument, and which most people on here find provocative and difficult to ignore.
Their inability to tackle clear and specific accusations of bias speak for themselves, though, and are a big point in the site’s favour if they really are the best defenders the pro-BBC lobby can offer.
The thing is, they’re not really here to defend the BBC at all. They’re here to fight with Right-wingers on political and ideological issues. Any defense of the BBC is purely coincidental. At best, we get the occasional useful behavior of pointing out where the BBC actually did cover something we say they didn’t, or pointing out a misquote. In general, though, they’re here to fight the good fight against the evil Right, and defending against specific charges of bias is a very distant afterthought.
You don’t see any of them doing what they do here on sites that claim the BBC is pro-Israel, or supports the Tories, or on Guido, or anything like that. This site draws their attention for reasons that have precious little to do with the BBC.
I am a big fan of this site and a regular poster. However, I do despair at some of the comments, which play into the hands of Guardian readers who want to stereotype us as EDF-supporting nutters.
For example, a contributor once complained that the BBC was ‘stuffed to the gills with homos’. Personally, I don’t care about the sexual orientation of BBC employees – only about their bias – and there is no need to use homophobic and inflammatory language. There have also been plenty of comments that could be interpreted as being insults directed at Muslims generally, rather than focusing on Muslim extremists or particular aspects of Islam that the poster disagrees with.
I also don’t like the petty and spiteful comments directed at people who question BBC bias. Why not focus on the arguments rather than the man? If someone wants to believe that the BBC isn’t biased, or that the earth is flat, then hey, fine, it’s a free country! 🙂
Oh, and while I’m offering feedback, I think there could be more open threads and a Facebook page.
*ducks for cover* 🙂
Jeff
EDF ? I support my energy provider!
If I remember rightly, the thing about Craig was that he had Turkish connections by marriage and also didn’t he go to live in an African country where many currently practice a diluted (transistory) Africanised kind of Islam (of a ‘you can have polygamy and keep the beer’ sort). This led to him making comments that involved things like saying the Ottomans weren’t as bad as they’re made out to be, the Armenian massacres were partly the fault of the Armenians, the Alevis and Sufi show that some forms of Islam are perfectly acceptable etc. These are all extremely contentious statements, to say the least, that several commentators here, could not let pass. I imagine it annoyed him to be contradicted on the issue all the time on this site, and his somewhat rose tinted attitude to the RoP ignored: perhaps he may have better luck on his new site.
I don’t think you’re being fair to Craig at all. And I believe it’s Grant who lives or has lived in Africa. Craig’s detailed analysis of biased coverage, weighted panels, and hostile interviews has been invaluable. He was no dhimmi.
Very sorry, must have got the two mixed up: is there a simple way of searching this site for past comments? -I’ve never worked it out.
I wish there was. The best solution would be to install a new fancy comments system, like Disqus or something, but that raises other problems. There are actually a couple of plugins I’ve been meaning to try, though. Just haven’t checked yet to see if that would break something else.
Dezi can manage it – see above where he is able to quote the amount of times you have mentioned the word “Muslim”. Or he has a team checking the posts for him.
Of course he has a team checking the posts for him.
Wake up bloggers and smell the coffee!
It does seem online, and especially social media, is the new covert warfare battleground:
http://order-order.com/2013/03/26/tory-brain-drain-as-labour-beef-up-attack/
‘…responsible for the digital rapid response unit that attacked … relentlessly, ensuring that any statement… was picked over and rebutted, often within minutes or hours’
Fail to recognise and compete on equal terms, and the consequences are inevitable.
Often hard when some are well funded, unaccountable, and allowed exclusion on activities (FoI, redactions) when nailed.
But often simply letting them expose themselves with their own words or deeds can be enough…
‘Yesterday, I blogged the genuine concerns of a B-BBC reader and license payer; here is what he received back this morning from the BBC: ‘We note you have chosen to make this private exchange public.’
As these pages make clear, what the BBC roots around to discover and feels should be ‘made public’ about other, nasty pieces of work, and what should not be about their little shop of driven-snow tinkers, seems to vary.
Often to a unique extent.
There are no slanders on this board, libels maybe, but no slanders.
Unless you are using software to speak each post of course …
As one of those ‘regulars’ I have to agree with some of the criticism here. Not all of those who post dissenting comments are ‘trolls’ or just provocateurs out to stir things up for the sake of it. Some do have genuine disagreements, who ought to be engaged with reasonable discussion rather than be rounded on and seen off. Those with genuine disagreements ought to be encouraged to post, not chased away. It’s far better to try to convince with polite reason than to dismiss with belligerence.
…and not that I would like to see this site moderated to death, but there’s a reason I don’t take part in certain posts or sections in the comments – particularly when the issue of homosexuality is mentioned. I don’t think this blog shows itself very well to non-regulars, with some of the language used, particularly when directed personally at a few of the more polite critics. I feel it’s unnecessary, and I’m surprised they bother to return. If they are genuine, they should be welcomed and not insulted. However, I’m not concerned about those who are clearly one line thread derailers. ANY blog can do without those.
I thoroughly enjoy this blog, but I think a regular reminder that it’s more than just a private club for the regulars might be in order. There are many who visit this site, but don’t post. It would be a shame if they didn’t bother because they saw evidence that they would not be particularly welcome. It’s easy to forget in the online world that there is an individual behind each comment (guilty, at times).
Cheers to the regulars and the hosts, though, who keep this resource running. It’s open to all, whether you’re a poster or just a reader.
(and regards to Craig & Sue)
I believe comments which threaten violence against BBC staff should be removed.
Examples include the commentator who hoped there’d be a jihadi attack on a BBC creche, or another who suggested running up to a comedian in the street and stabbing her with a pretend knife so he could watch excrement run down her leg.
Comments which threaten or advocate violence by anyone to anyone should be.
I speak only personally of course, and am unable to comment on how other media may or may not perform in this regard. Maybe some have examples of these and how concerns raised have been addressed, accepting there appear to be those who gain exemption even to freedom of information requests, in respect of information held for purposes such as those of journalism, art or literature.
why just BBC staff?
A slip of the mindset, possibly?
I was only just now looking at a BBC FaceBook page..
BBC World News
The chief minister of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu says she won’t allow forthcoming premier league cricket matches to be played there if they involve Sri Lankan players or officials.
In an open letter to India’s prime minister, Ms Jayalalitha said the people of Tamil Nadu had been “shocked and angered” by allegations of human rights abuses committed by the Sri Lankan government against the island’s Tamil population.
The move comes after weeks of protest in Tamil Nadu against the Sri Lankan authorities.
Indian state bars S Lanka cricketers
Quite even in tone. But one does wonder if some may feel the piece prompts comments that do drive passions in unfortunate directions…
Sayed Mohammad What srilankan army did to indian tamil nados was certainly right……they wanted take over this beautiful country….
Ban or allow? The free-speaking censors’ dilemma.
Now, should I wish to raise concerns with the BBC I wonder how I might do it at all, especially in a timely manner (I’ve noticed BBC staff seem prone to ‘post & forget’), much less what I might one day hear back?
As it stands I don’t hold the BBC responsible for what is written by one and all of course, but they do have an odd track record on what they are quick to remove and happy to leave up.
Which may explain why some not gifted with patience can feel seeing what results can be provoked elsewhere than a national broadcaster is more productive use of their resources, if sadly thereby leaving the BBC free to continue on regardless.
Hoping for something to happen isn’t a threat. Otherwise you’ll have to demand that Chris Addison be brought up on charges for wishing on air that a bomb was sent to George Bush, or condemn O’Farrell for wishing Margaret Thatcher had been killed by the IRA. Did you write to the BBC or the publishers about that? Or are we held to a higher standard for some reason?
And a practical joke with a plastic toy isn’t violence, even if it is unpleasant. Must try harder.
‘Or are we held to a higher standard for some reason?’
Or the BBC to a lower one?
Few (not all) who challenge BBBC on matters of detail or tone or policy seem to do so with any reason other than to curtail this forum’s role in trying to help the BBC to up its game.
I’d be hard pressed to recall (m)any critics here also embracing where the BBC has been found wanting, much less shared their experiences in taking their idol to task, lest the merest hint of disloyalty could see it fall.
That suggests a singular aim, if one backed by double standards.
FunkyBuddha – Whilst those comments are pretty unpleasant, I’d say they fall into the category of ‘deeply tasteless comment’ rather than ‘threat’. However, I think they should be removed, as they lower the tone of the forum (not to mention playing into the hands of its liberal critics)…
Jeff
Quite right, all threats of violence. That should be a given for the site really.
Right on but I’m still curious ,why not simply say that in the first place or ‘people that disagree with you’
why start with BBC staff
Just asking
If I may suggest, more… any ‘site’ perhaps?
Your focus still seems restricted.
If I may suggest, more…not just on websites, but in real life too.
But then we are talking about this site, on this site, in a post about the comments on the site.
Defending the comment as a ‘practical joke with a plastic toy’ is both inaccurate and pretty despicable. But there you go, you will do as you please.