Right folks, time for a little clarification regarding my input, content and intent here on Biased BBC.
1. I was INVITED to write here. If any of you have an issue with what I write take it up with the site owner. I write it as I see it and could not care less if that offends some tender wallflowers out there. The BBC deserves MUCH harsher criticism than I provide!
2. The frequency of my posting here seems to concern some. If this was some gentle site where a few posts went up each week, then that’s not how I see it now going forward. There are loads of issues to take up with the BBC and frequent posts are a natural way for me to cover these. There are also other colleagues here who can publish posts whenever they want, and there is no grandstanding going on here on my part. It is extra work for me but I will provide stories whenever I want. So can others.
3. If BBC employees no longer come here to engage, that’s their problem, not mine. I suspect that some of the trolls that infest this site may be BBC employees, but either way, why should I concern myself about how the BBC feels? I have treated each of them as courteously as they have treated me, and I would be more than happy to talk to any of them. Another way of looking at it is that when their rancid bias is laid bare, they’re not so keen to make excuses.
4. I note the comments of my “tabloid” style. Thanks.
5. I see the BBC as a biased, often unprofessional, left of centre and a gross propagandiser for the State. It shows shocking moral relativism, comes across as wanting to be the friend of the terrorist, and appears to delight in undermining all things British. It is shot through with political bias. I WILL hold it to account in my way and if some readers feel unhappy about that, don’t blame me, blame the BBC!
6. Providing content here is done in my spare time when I am not writing on my own blog. It’s a labour of passion. I get a bit despondent when I hear some of the whingeing from certain readers as if I were somehow being recompensed for doing a job that’s not quite up to their high standards.
7. This site may need moderation insofar as I do agree there are some serially disruptive elements who specialise in spinning threads off-topic. I don’t have the time to do it but perhaps the site owner may want to think about this? One way to cut down on the disruption would be to insist on registration. That is what I have done on my own site, A Tangled Web. At a stroke it has removed all the trolls, and means genuine readers can log-in and engage in a civil manner. My site readership has gone UP since I took this measure and it is one way to restore stability and balance.
8. In the main, I am very impressed by the majority of B-bbc contributors, most of whom have the BBC rumbled and so it is for you that I will continue to post here.
That’s my final word on the subject. My aim is true.
Keep up the good work.
well said.
Your input is much appreciated. keep up the good work.
Nice one DV.
Well said Mr Vance.
I have nothing to do with the BBC, I tend to agree with you much more often than with them. As far as I am concerned you are doing a good job.
The best thing about DV’s input is the regular posting – it was disappointing at times in the past to see nothing new for 2 or 3 days at a time. Also, however much some may dislike DV’s style, what he says is more or less true – I mean who cannot fail to be astonished by the way the BBC treats Israel as if it is something found under one’s shoe? And the way the BBC excuses anything perpetrated by members of a certain non-Judeo-Christian monotheistic religion? Plus he actually responds to issues and comments, unlike Beeboid drones who just stonewall and deny by nature (as evidenced by my experience on the telephone or by letter).
It is vital that pressure is kept up on the anti-British Broadcasting Corporation. David has admirably been fulfilling this task.
I am shamed that billions of pounds of taxpayers money is sunk into an organisation which seems to be ashamed of all things British, pro-terrorist, hostile to most things Judeo-Christian, and full of moral relativism. A site like this is a godsend. Keep up the good work!
I don’t have a problem with your pieces, keep it up. But I do think it’s a good idea to have an easily visible general thread every day too, as some have said.
Mr Orange:
I notice from this and your own site that we share an affection for Elvis Costello.
Here are three of his tunes which my iPod delivered on random play:
1. Oliver’s Army, in which El despairs of the recruitment of working-class lads by the British Army, and is not entirely complimentary about Oliver Cromwell, something he explains as a result of his Catholic education. On his re-issue liner notes he says: I made my first trip to Belfast in 1978 and saw mere boys walking around in battle dress with automatic weapons. They were no longer just on the evening news.
These snapshot experiences exploded into visions of mercenaries and imperial armies around the world. The song was based on the premise ‘they always get a working class boy to do the killing’.
2. Tramp The Dirt Down. In which El looks forward with relish to standing by Mrs Thatcher’s grave:
there’s one thing I know, I’d like to live
long enough to savour
That’s when they finally put you in the ground
I’ll stand on your grave and tramp the dirt down
3. Shipbuilding: In which El expresses his displeasure at the Falklands War:
Somebody said that someone got filled in
For saying that people get killed in
The result of this shipbuilding
As he later told Q magazine, the song had a special poignancy when he visited the monument to the dead of the Belgrano: Whatever you say about the conflict of war, that crime alone will see Thatcher in hell.
Despite all our differences, I’m delighted to see we share a taste in music. On the other hand, are we entirely happy that this sort of stuff gets played on the BBC?
.
I think you’re doing OK, David. Keep up the good work.
But registration’s not such a good idea. I just want to be able to comment on a whim, without the tedium of logging on, AND having to remrember a password.
Thank you.
Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added
By clicking Publish you indemnify B-BBC and accept full legal responsibility for your comments
If David Vance gets over-exuberant and off the mark at times, so what? The BBC has been spreading its vile bias and propaganda across the planet for decades. But in recent years it really has started to take the gloves off in its unaccountable arrogance. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the BBC does not need to be reined in and exposed? Or that the methods used to expose it need to be impeccably polite and considerate? The BBC is not worthy of such consideration.
I think the BBC defenders will be back. There have been long periods before with none of them around.
David, thanks for your contribution here. I echo others in hoping you will keep up the good work.
I think the site was good before DV, and it’s even better with DV.
And can I also say that I have always thought Elvis Costello was a twat.
David, can I add my appreciation.
By the regularity ,professionalism and robustness of your contributions -you’ve greatly improved B-BBC’s effectiveness IMHO.
David
I appreciate anybody with the time and energy to post and to give the committment that you are giving to this site and to those commenting, except certain trolls .
I always knew there was bias in what the BBC did, B-BBC allows me to see it in places where I hadn’t realised I was being manipulated.
I think a classic has been following Clinton and Obama primaries in Texas and Ohio – not that I really cared who won – but you just knew it would be Clinton by the way that the BBC, who had been pushing Obama, admitted it was ‘neck and neck’. Then apply the same knowledge to political events in the UK – eg if the BBC admit that Boris and Livingwort are ‘neck and neck’in mayoral elections we shall just know that Boris is home and dry.
I agree with Umbongo that there are now too many active threads left going at once which makes it very difficult to keep track of what is being said at any given time.
Also, even DV’s fans have to admit that many of the more thoughtful contributors (not just beebiods) have left recently and been replaced by a more rabid element. Is this a coincidence?
Don’t apologise,don’t explain,just keep on hammering away.The beeb enables those who wish to destroy our way of life and threaten everyday the safety of my family.Nothing said or done here can make up for the damage done to our society or our reputation abroad by the beeb.
Hmmm…..dunno what to make of this. It’s not what I expected to find here. I usually only read, and I’ve been reading here ever since I found the site when my video on the Protestant Exodus from Derry was connected here and I clicked on the link. Just slightly before DV came along, and I was more than surprised to see him come. For a few reasons.
Firstly David is always complaining about time. If you are pushed for time then you should not really take on more – which you did and I assume were happy to do so.
Lastly I don’t really want to say much more, cos I like DV, but controlling everywhere you post is going a little over the mark. This business of ‘well I’ll walk away if you like’, it’s becoming a little tired now – sorry if I offend David, but we’ve just been through it accross the way, and now here we go meeting it again.
A little praise is a good thing, but surely this site should not be turned into a fan club. What you do, and what you control on your own site is one thing – controlling all elements on the internet where you post is something else all together.
I’m not defending trolls, but you cannot register for a blog, neither can you ban IP’s all you can do is enable comment moderation. There is a thingy you can download that will allow a blogger to ban up to 5 IP’s at a time, but I wouldn’t fancy downloading it all the time, you’d clog up your internet space-thats why most others like Iain Dale etc have comment moderation enabled. It looks like if you don’t want the trolls then moderate, if you don’t moderate then you have to consider your position. It really is your decision David, but personally I hope you do stay.
David…..your contributions are very VERY welcome. This country has need of anyone who can hold this dangerous organisation to account, and you do an indefatigable job of it.
You have my admiration.
I’ve always been bemused by the arrogance of those who feel entitled to criticise the efforts of the B-BBC contributors. What sort of self importance soes it take to slag of people providing a wholly free resource for your entertainment?
I think the blog has contributed to a public appreciation of the Beeb’s biases. I also think that this has led to subtle changes and a bit more willingness (through gritted teeth) to bring in alternative views – I’m starting to hear more whingeing from the more extreme left about the Beeb edging away from ultra liberal left positions as an unquestionable given.
And the comments have always been a bit of a zoo – I’d love to know which was the halycon period when the highest of intellectual debate ruled the roost??
Well said David. Keep it up.
David.
Did anyone ask you to go away?
Tone it down and not so many overlapping threads was our plea, I think you’ll find.
Good thread above re Gaza. That I approve of.
Your point number 3. If BBC employees no longer come here to engage, this whole things becomes a bit pointless. If you are not concerned with how the BBC feels then why are we here?
My fear is antisemitism and the concomitant creeping Islamisation of the BBC. New Arabic channels, lighthearted programmes about Islam here there and everywhere – for example – ‘Fashion scarves in Turkey, great new freedom from the ban on wearing them in acedemic institutions’ Hoorah!
Yesterday, on Melanie’s blog, George Steiner advises the remaining British Jews to get out of the country while they can.
These things are on my mind. And I want the BBC to be aware of the consequences of a bias they will no doubt continue to deny till they all get stoned, in the unfamiliar sense of the word, for playing music or doing some other unIslamic frivolity.
Everyone wants this site to be good. My aim is true too.
field.size | 06.03.08 – 12:12 pm
Admire his indefatigability, eh?
Glad for your input Dave.
Keep it going DV. It’s not as if I have to read everything, after all. And you don’t take money from on pain of imprisonment, unlike the Beeboids.
this site is a good read. keep it up.
registration would be welcome if it clears out the trolls. they are ruining it.
My comments on another thread were meant with the best of intentions. This blog has been – and continues to be – the outstanding blog for consistently exposing BBC bias. I would like it to remain so. My criticisms are meant to be constructive.
IMHO leaving too many overlapping open threads blunts the focus on BBC bias. The BBC demonstrates its bias in so many ways and on a huge variety of subjects. Trying to expose its bias everywhere is, I consider, counterproductive. Concentrating on a few egregious and continuing examples of bias (eg the treatment of Israel or the BBC agenda on anthropomorphic climate change) bears the risk of becoming boring but, like the drip of water on a stone, constant informed exposure (from, for instance, the likes of David Prieser or Arthur Dent) might have an effect. The shotgun approach, although possibly satisfying for the authors/commenters, has, in my opinion, less chance of being effective.
Coming to the trolls: registration would be effective but, as DV implies, it would completely alter the character of the blog: probably for the worse My appeal was for DV and commenters to stop responding to the trolls. In the end, when ignored, trolls tend to go away.
I also noted with some concern the apparent disappearance of responses from adult BBC employees. As I said, this might be a deliberate ploy by the BBC to degrade this blog by encouraging the replacement of constructive dispute with exchanges of rant and insult. The absence of those in the BBC apparently prepared for constructive engagement (even if they pick and choose where they constructively engage) cannot but be bad for this blog and the exposure of BBC bias.
I cannot see why the above should be contentious. It’s a statement of opinion: it is not a personal attack on DV. It is not, in fact, an attack at all. DV can (and will) do as he sees fit since, as he writes, he has been invited to post. I don’t want to put words in DV’s mouth but I’m sure his attitude (and that of some commenters) would be that if I don’t like it I don’t have to stick around. That’s true. Nevertheless, a bit of constructive criticism never hurt anyone or, rather, if constructive criticism hurts anyone then maybe they needed to be hurt.
DV, you are doing an excellent job. BBC bias needs to be exposed.
I also welcome the increased number of posts, it has invigorated this blog.
Of course Beeboids are complaining.
Sue, the purpose of this blog is not only to enable its readers (and trolls) to respond, but to point to the issues concerning BBC bias.
Most readers will read the post, but will not go through 100s of comments.
“Your point number 3. If BBC employees no longer come here to engage, this whole things becomes a bit pointless. If you are not concerned with how the BBC feels then why are we here?” Sue
Sorry I cannot accept this line of argument, it is fundamentally flawed.
I have no problem with individual BBC employees contributing and engaging but remember that they are doing so in a personal capacity, they do not answer for the BBC as an organisation (they are clear to point this out), and in most cases have little or no power to get our greivances actually answered. They are definitely NOT official spokespersons.
Yes the BBC has to respond, but that can be by follow ups from this blog to those directly with the BBC, by campaigns, by publicity, by the readership of the net and so on.
We no more NEED to have BBC employees on the blog than we would need individual slaveowners on one about the abolition of slavery.
Your logic follows that if the BBC does not participate we should stop the blog, why not go the whole hog and offer the BBC ownership of the site then?
Sorry it won’t wash and if individual BBC employees ‘decide’ not to engage thats their decision it really doesnt bother me it just means the BBC are letting more accusations lie unchallenged on the file, if that’s what they want so be it.
BTW keep up the work David, don’t let the trolls get you down.
DV,
IMHO your input here has been invaluable , principally in bringing a harder focus to the nature and extent of beeboid bias.(Although it would be good to shine a more regular light on areas other than Israel where they have a proven history of bias too.)
It would be good to see more posts exploring what actions the public can take to drive the political will to take on and change the bbc. And also more articles analysing the pernicious effect of the bbc pro nulab propaganda, in contributing to the serious problems we face. ( Anyone who doubts the last point, should see the table of economic growth for leading nations, published earlier in the week by Guido.)
Keep hammering away and exposing the BBC for the biased, state-owned propagandist it is.
Every time a writhing Beeboid tries to disrupt or obfuscate, you know you are doing something right.
BaggieJ, I think you are reading into Sue’s comment something that is not intended. I’m sure (though she can speak for herself,) that if BBC employees do not engage then the blog should go away. Not so. I do not think that is what Sue meant. And furthermore, individuals can and do influence the work environment around them.
Like Sue, my problems are islamification of western society and the demonising of the jews, a lot of DV’s agenda -hence posts- focus on issues such as the environment and his take on politics, re NI etc. Not all of us are on the far/medium right, some of us tinge any conservatism we have with a big dololop of liberalism. Our politics differ, it’s the bias with in BBC reporting that draws commentators to the blog.
DV cannot complain about delicate wallflowers and then behave like one.
There can be NO registration on a free blog like this one, neither can huge hordes of trolls be banned, it is moderation that they can implement, not much else. Two types of moderation, comment moderation, and someone going through the threads and removing objectionable content. That is fact. And moderation of the first type will slow pace of comments down unlike registration would. Better to have a moderator go through the threads, or each writer moderate their own threads, which would work much better, by removing objectionable content in their own threads. I think you’ll find I’m right in this aspect.
Pounce walks in.
Pounce sees DV doing a great job
Pounce walks out..
The bottom line is that anyone who is unhappy can take a full refund.
I think the increased number of posts is a good thing, but I second the comments asking for more open threads too. I’m sure most people like hunting out their own examples of bias to post in these.
In my view accusations of “a tabloid style” are simple snobbery. Although it may make it easier for BBC types to dismiss criticism as “green ink”, this is their problem, not yours.
There have been very few genuine BBC employees commenting here – and they seldom brought anything interesting to bear (the guy from Birmingham springs to mind). Alternatively, the end of the egregious flannel of ‘John Reith’ (who always insisted he wasn’t a ‘real’ BBC employee) is, in my opinion, to be welcomed. The rest of the BBC commenters (identified as such by IPs) were purely foul-mouthed name-callers. When it was clear to them that DV was here to stay, they drifted away – thankfully.
Keep doing whatever you see fit, David. We can all decide for ourselves whether a post is on target or not, and act accordingly. It’s pretty clear that everyone here is doing that anyway.
I’m sure you know how I feel about things in general, but I would like to say that I don’t think registration is necessary at this point in time. If the amount of commenters increases dramatically for some reason, then it would be worth considering. Commenters here can deal with trolls.
Tone does matter sometimes, especially when difficult topics and emotions are involved. As I recall, it was more the excessive no-topic Argument Room atmosphere that discouraged the actual BBC employees. I think both Sarah Jane and David Gregory said as much. JR may have decided he doesn’t like what you’ve been doing, but that’s too bad. He spent as much time responding to individual commenters’ points as he did any main posts, so he may have other reasons for checking out. Once things calm down, I’m sure one or more of them will notice next time they have a look. Discussing the problems with actual Beeboids is part of the appeal for me, but that’s more a by-product of whatever success this blog has. If this was all just barking in the dark, none of them would have bothered in the first place.
The only thing I would add would be that if anyone wants to get more attention to the blog, and possibly bring in more of the BBC defense squad, would be to send topical alerts to various major bloggers, both in the US and the UK, and anywhere else people see fit. Andrew got a big response when he sent Drudge that story about CBBC’s awful 9/11 articles. Other bloggers and print media have made mention of this site, it’s on various peoples’ blog rolls, etc., so the awareness is theres. They can’t all check every post every day, so perhaps a little marketing strategy is in order. If Stephen Pollard or Glenn Reynolds (to name two vastly different voices) mentions something, that’s sure to attract attention. That might bring in new supporters as well as deniers.
One last thing: can we have a new open thread, please? I think two or three open threads per week does help keep topical threads clean.
But thanks for keeping the site going, as overall this blog is necessary, and its goal is an important one.
This site is 100% better for your input DV so keep up the good work!
IMVHO You put a passion and interest into your posts that is very refreshing and easy to digest and easy to respond to.
You have my vote(FWIW)!
Thanks all for your comments – much appreciated at this end.
I also like some of your suggestions. The Drudge scenario is a good one to think about – what better to bury the BBC reputation that by flagging it up on his Report?
I will also ensure that I open up a general chat thread regularly. I like these too – I frequently see readers pick up on loads of points that I miss and some can then be taken up more specifically.
Trouble int’ playground. Please sir, I’m being bullied by Baggie, Sir.
D V threatens to go off in a huff, everyone pleads with him not to, he returns bathed in glory, end of playtime. (sob)
Everyone’s against me, Sir, except Typhoo, she’s the only one who understands me.
Umbongo, can I have the pleasure of the next lockstep?
“The Drudge scenario is a good one to think about – what better to bury the BBC reputation that by flagging it up on his Report?”
Sorry, is that the same Drudge report that took great delight in endangering Prince Harry’s life – a move which if the BBC had done it the chorus of dhimmi treason would still be going loud and clear.
Drudge endangered British troop lives and you think he’s a great guy to cosy up to for promoting your cause?
Typhoo you may be right about Sue but that’s how the words in quotes read to me, I’m sure she will clarify it if that is not the case.
I say this in hushed tones but I do not categorise myself as far right, moderate right or indeed any right.
I do not think my views buttonhole into one label like that.
I always register my vote and have never voted conservative or for any of the right wing parties.
That does not mean anything as this blog is about bbc bias, in all its forms, and that need not always be political or indeed about left right.
Indeed on may issues of BBC bias there is no right left but a bias regarding an issue.
I do not agree with the concept of a state broadcaster (whichever party holds power) or a poll tax that hits the poor worst, and yes I admit that does colour my views, but of course the BBC is not always wrong, being bias and being always wrong are two way different things.
I dont always agree with David Vance, I don’t come from his political or social background (nor the majority of posters here).
I don’t have to.
Its about BBC bias not left and right.
I can see David does much good work in revealing BBC bias.
If that offends a few BBC employees or supposed employees and they follow a BBC line of non engagement then that’s what it will have to do and I suggest they take care not to let the door hit them on the arse on the way out.
Sue | 06.03.08 – 4:57 pm
Don’t cry, you were right all along And all the sensible people like Jack Hughes, deegee and many others agree with you.
David Vance does tend to go over the top. And he does tend to rant on about a whole list of things he dislikes without pointing to any particular BBC bias.
I thought to myself the other day he’d end up bloggin about himself bloggin.
And here he is doin just that.
Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
Sue,
I suspect it will take a lot for the scales to fall from your eyes, so enjoy the fish.
BaggieJohnnie:
Your logic follows that if the BBC does not participate we should stop the blog, why not go the whole hog and offer the BBC ownership of the site then?
Brilliant!
I talked to a friend of a friend and they are willing to talk – if not turkey – at least albania, with us.
Their initial offer:
* Elvis Costello on rotation on Radios 1,2,6 + the chance to replace Melvyn Barg with Elvis next year.
* A worldwide ban on future mentions of the IMechE. (Possibility that they’ll appear, thinly disguised, as evil monsters in a future Dr Who, too.)
* Tailfins of obscure British airlines to appear beside all future mentions of Dublin & Shannon Airports.
* More Mr Orange on Radio Ulster
* WBA to get guaranteed slot on Sunday goal highlights, whatever league they’re in.
* New Comedy series – sort of Grumpy Old Men meets Last of The Summer Wine, to be set in Spanish pensioners’ resort will have plum parts for Bryan, Biodegradababble and Disinterred Cystander.
* Every Friday night news bulletin will replace every letter B with a C for universal merriment.
* pounce to replace Tony Robinson as Baldrick in remake of Blackadder
* £50 in TV licence vouchers.
Deal or no deal?
p and a tale of one chip | 06.03.08 – 5:02 pm |
Drudge endangered British troop lives and you think he’s a great guy to cosy up to for promoting your cause?
Drudge is a scumbag for leaking Harry’s story, but that’s the media. It’s a story, and he doesn’t care what happens with it. But he’s a valuable media outlet anyway. He posts gossip as well as real stories, whether he supports them or not. It’s a way to get the message out, and whatever Drudge is does not reflect on the story itself.
There are plenty of online media outlets to notify about important issues. Many of them are aware of this site, and could probably use a reminder, or a timely reason to pop in. Anybody can send somebody an email saying “Hey, check this out.” If something happens as a result, great. If not, try next time. It will draw attention in any case, which is the point.
I find this site to be informative as the contributors provide links to the reality behind the BBC’s ‘reports’. DV does an excellent job in priming the pump so no complaints from me.
Ahhh… bless…
“ex B-BBC commenter heading wes”: (why not shorten it to knob?) thanks for posting on here… we love a Beeboid(ex).
It must hurt that the truth about Al-Beeb/NuLiarBore is being exposed on here. Perhaps you are getting undeclared expenses (like the rest of your scumbag MP luvvies?) for posting on here?
… I’m sure it will be revealed in the Daily Mail in due course.
In the meantime… Beeboid commissars will always troll here. You’d think that the “TV licence” paying your wages would shut you up. No… you have an ego… and that’s why you don’t like the truth posted on here.
Shame.
“Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
ex B-BBC commenter heading wes | 06.03.08 – 5:26 pm | #”
Cheers. Don’t mention it.
Keep up the pressure. The Beeb has been spewing out its biased leftie garbage unchallenged for a decade.
So what if David pulls no punches?
The Beeb doesn’t either when it is promulgating its own world view of smug Guardianese dripping wet tripe.
Tripe, I might add, that we are forced to pay for.
A few BBC staff have stopped coming here? Do I care? No.
Keep up the good work DV. The blog needs more than 2 or 3 posts per week so thanks for raising the output and highlighting the failings of this scumbag organisation – if the pro-Beeb commenters don’t like it, well, excellent!