It’s my view that the BBC plays an active role in the “greening” of Northern Ireland and I have commented here before on stories that run on the Northern Ireland portal which have NOTHING to do with Northern Ireland. This evening the LEAD story on BBC NI concerns a house fire in the Republic of Ireland. On what basis has such an event ANY relevance to Northern Ireland? None. But the BBC is determined to use the Northern Ireland site on a 32 county basis and that, my friends, is a clear political bias.
UPDATE: The BBC has now moved on from the above story and is instead running a story about an industrial dispute – in the Repubic of Ireland. Hibernianisation.
(PS Ernest went on to agree with me.)
hmmm….and contrary to what he says you needed reassurance, otherwise why post it up on atw. You’ve posted on this point before and never found the need why now? You know why. Your actions speak differently to your words.
Typhoo,
This is dreary now. Joc has been a regular poster on ATW from its inception and I am sorry he has chosen to leave HOWEVER if you read what I said, I underline my determination not be bowed, cowered or in any other way derailed from my intent to speak truth. My actions fit my words and my final action is to wish everyone here goodnight. I’m tired now.
I agree it is dreary now, and I tried to get away earlier. However no one wanted to bow or cower you, merely disagreeing with your choice of stroy to illustrate your point. Like joc I found it objectionable, and restate my position that you lost more than you gained.
Goodnight finally!;-)
A fatal house fire is certainly tragic but not a lead story for national news, maybe not even local news, and and certainly not the headliner of the national news of an adjacent country.
“Hibernianisation”. The irony is this: the BBC are countenancing ethnocentrism. Racism in other contexts. Another irony is this: the BBC’s own beliefs demand the creation of death camps for anyone who believes their country and people are distinct entities that exist.
woad:
Another irony is this: the BBC’s own beliefs demand the creation of death camps for anyone who believes their country and people are distinct entities that exist.
Shocking. We must ACT NOW!!!!
Just let enough of us know where these camps are and we’ll liberate those brave people who, um, believe their country and people are distinct entities that exist.
Mere words will not solve this. The time for action is here!
.
You know many a true thing is said in jest Hillhunt.
woad:
Excellent! Which camp should we concentrate our efforts on first?
.
David,
I think on this particular story that you went to far in attempting to link it to BBC bias.
Your point about the behaviour of the BBC in it’s reporting on Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has been well made over the last two months, now would be the time to move on to other obvious examples of BBC bias.
The phrase ‘now is the time to move on’ seems to me a classic evasive technique of people who don’t wish to be investigated too closely. That may not be your intent, of course, but there this phrase is quite inapplicable: as long as the BBC spouts propaganda, overt and implicit, it remains necessary to expose it.
Using a name which is clearly not your own is also a classic evasive techinique used by people who do not wish to be investigated too closely.
I agree 100% with David in exposing BBC bias, I agree with him that the BBC keeps refering to Ireland in it’s Northern Ireland site, however, I feel that the point is made and David should move on to other areas of BBC bias, for instance the disgraceful blogs of Mark Mardell would be one area which shows clear BBC bias.
On a personal point to you Nearly Oxfordian, unlike the BBC this site has viewers who are not always going to read from the same hymn sheet, which David encourages and you do your best to stifle with Hillhuntesque posts.
Utter drivel. You are the one trying to stifle discussion of this issue – and then you have the unmitigated nerve to claim that I am stifling the discussion?
Your infantile dig at my chosen handle reveals where you are coming from.
Utter drivel?, unmitigated nerve?, grow up Nearly Oxfordian, you made a point and I responded.
If you cannot handle responses tough luck, perhaps you really should be working for the BBC, at least they would appreciate your dictatorial behaviour.
An idiot tries to stop the debate on a particular issue – and then complains about my dictatorial behaviour? You don’t understand how grown-ups debate, little boy. Inter alia, they don’t attack their opponent’s name.
I can handle responses from the likes of you with no trouble, little boy.
Ha!, you are the one who does not understand debate, as for grown up debate forget it, you started with an attack on me, so any comment I wish to respond to you with is perfectly valid.
What a total loser you are, and before you respond with another of your oh so biting comments, I am off to meet some friends for a relaxing picnic on the Loire, what are you going to do?.
‘you started with an attack on me’
Bernard would N. Oxfordian do that and not engage in grown up debate?? O look at N. Oxfordians’ comments here:
If you were able to read
Matt – your comment about ‘apartheid’ state is beyond stupid.
Typhoo, you’ve lost it big time.
N.Oxfordian, is this an example of grown up Oxford debate? Surely not.
Matt, how little you know, how much less you care.
nrq
‘Matt, how little you know, how much less you care.’
I care a lot and I know a lot. We all have our prejudices. David has his and I have mine.
Bernard, a sad loser who responded to my objective comment with the ad hominem attack “Using a name which is clearly not your own is also a classic evasive techinique used by people who do not wish to be investigated too closely”, now claims that I started the attack on him! So on addition to not understanding the concept of debate, he also cannot read … oh yes, and then he ends with another personal attack. Bernard, you really need to sue your teachers for not teaching you to read, nor to think.
in addition, of course.
Typhoo, given your brainless comments yesterday, you are in no position to talk.
For the record David I 100% support this thread and I utterly reject the attacks upon you for making the point that it was BBC bias.
It clearly was.
Its a very clear bias.
Apparently that bias has some support, it doesn’t stop it from being bias.
A Republic of Ireland story should not be the lead story on the BBC Nothern Ireland page unless it has specific elements that can be tied to Northern Ireland.
However tragic this story is, and I would not dispute that for a second as it is truly awful and my genuine sympathies go out about it, it is not a Northern Ireland story.
I am not arguing against its reporting, even high profile reporting, that is fine, but not where it is reported, that is the clear bias.
I do not think you have gone too far, on the contrary you have been consistent and logical.
I applaud your resistance to emotional blackmail or allow your self to be censored, what next no reporting of a view on the Holy Land? I’m sure similar arguments can be made.
If you ‘lose more than you gain’ so be it. You cannot lie and deceive your way to something and have it accepted, that way leads to the current and past political incumbents in this country, look at where that has got us.
I have long said that the two countries the UK shares a physical border with, the Republic of Ireland and France should merit their own section as they are of special interest to many in the UK, that would be fine.
But this merits a place on the BBC NI page no more than a Dunkirk story would on BBC South East.
At the moment it should be covered, perhaps headline, on the Europe page, as I said I would like to see a separate Ireland page on the BBC different to BBC Northern Ireland which it plainly is not.
Seconded.
Compare it to other countries.
How would such an event be reported by the state broadcaster be it in AAchen,Maastricht or Trieste for example.
Forgive me for saying this but Northern Ireland must be pretty tame these days if this is the headliner.
Nearly Oxfordian,
What an egotistical prick you have turned out to be, it seems to me that you make unsupported statements to try and rebuff any comment that you dislike.
Any of the positions taken by people posting here are legitimate, indeed any postion which is counter to your own seems to be examined in great detail, however, when it comes to your own comments you expect everyone to accept them as gospel.
Well the only thing that I can determine is that a clear pattern has emerged to your posts, namely you thrive on taking things out of context and then have the audacity to attack posters who have
alternative views to your own.
You are a prat and in urgent need of working out how to communicate with the rest of the world.
David Fuller | 28.04.08 – 6:49 pm |
You took the words right out of my mouth
Fuller, anyone embarking on such a stupid rant as yours needs professional help. And a large mirror.
Well when you have finished standing in front of it, and as long as it has not cracked by all means send it to me.
As a world expert at stupid rants, I take it as a compliment for you to put me in the same group as Bernard Sanderson, Typhoo and your good self!.
P.s. Do you not find it rather funny that you can dish it out but cannot take it?.
I can take it, mate, I can take it all day long (your categorical statement to the contrary is of the same kind as the BBC’s: mendacious and absurd). But if you think I’ll take it lying down from idiots like you, think again.
Nice one Nearly Oxfordian, again you have to use your number one word ‘idiot’, you really are a prick but I guess you know that anyway.
What a genuine, 24-carat waste of protoplasm you are. As to pricks – just look in the mirror.
I think one of you is very tough. Maybe both. I’m undecided yet.