A COMMERCIAL BREAK!

I hope this short commercial break will not affect your enjoyment of B-BBC but I wanted to take a few moments of your time to tell you about my new book called “Unionism Decayed” and to explain why I think it has a direct relevance to this site. For over ten years, I have watched the role the State Broadcaster has played in the relentless and merciless perversion of democracy in Northern Ireland. I have seen the bias, the spin and the neo-Stalinist questioning of the character of those people like myself who oppose putting murderers into government! I watched the BBC’s chief political correspondent jump ship and become part of the very administration that he was supposed to impartially report upon. I watched BBC behaviour during a crunch referendum that was bias incarnate. Worst of all, I have seen how the BBC can help crush the spirit of freedom by acting as a compelling echo chamber for an immoral appeasing government. It’s all detailed in my book along with my own political journey over this period. If you are interested in reading about this, please email me here and I will provide you with pricing details. My final observation is that you can be sure that the views I express are verboten on Al Beeb – the terrorists friend – so perhaps that is the finest recommendation I can have?

Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to A COMMERCIAL BREAK!

  1. Ed says:

    I am definitely getting the book- just got to get round to it…

       0 likes

  2. Reversepsychology says:

    Can we not pop off to Waterstone’s and buy it ourselves?

       0 likes

  3. Cockney says:

    what’s the ‘perversion of democracy’. appreciate that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but surely in NI the current situation is there because a majority found it preferable to what went before. actually let me but the book and i can find out for myself πŸ™‚

       0 likes

  4. David Vance says:

    Cockney – good point πŸ˜‰

       0 likes

  5. Nick Smith says:

    The Northern Ireland Settlement may have been for the benefit of the people of NI, but it does confirm the awful fact that in western liberal politics if you resort to violence and intimidation you will eventually be accommodated.

       0 likes

  6. David Vance says:

    Nick,

    That is a key lesson – violence pays because the political class lack the resolve to deal with it. Militant Islam must look on with grim satisfaction at the wortheless “peace” we purchase.

       0 likes

  7. Phil says:

    The Beeb’s still at it. Here’s a current headline:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7397737.stm

    Dissidents eh? Like Sakharov? Like Walesa? And it was a car they attacked was it, and not the policeman inside?

    Why not “terrorists attack policeman”? It would have the advantage of being true.

       0 likes

  8. David Vance says:

    Phil,

    Because the BBC has a real problem even admitting that there is such a thing as terrorism. It is institutionally morally bankrupt, in my view, which my book makes clear.

       0 likes

  9. Barry says:

    Nick,

    Re “The Northern Ireland Settlement may have been for the benefit of the people of NI” – the point is that it’s peace, but at what cost? Is the lesson about NI that if you support/endorse/train murderers you can still get into government when enough time has passed? If it’s clear to the government that you will not give up your murderous ways unless you have a bit of power, and providing you say the right thing in public, then is it okay for you to govern eventually? If Osama bin Laden offered a truce and then stood for office in Birmingham, providing his appointment meant a lull in terrorism, would this be acceptable?

    And re David’s “Because the BBC has a real problem even admitting that there is such a thing as terrorism”, i think that’s a bit too simplistic. Calling someone a “bomber” or “millitant” is factually correct, if not morally or emotionally. I have no problem with the wording they use, but some accuracy would be nice.

       0 likes

  10. steve says:

    reverse psychology, you cannot buy thisd book in the shops as it is self published, no good book store will stock self published books. This one in particular is published by vanity fair. In essence anyone can write a book and send it to them and they will publish it.

    I tried it myself, but didn’t go with it. Usually this route is taken by those who have been rejected by main book publishers. Obviously this is a first attempt at writing.

    The format is you pay vanity fair and then they will go through the publishing thing for you, and give you a link to amazon. Then you try to sell your books to get your money back.

       0 likes

  11. steve says:

    I am curious though how a person can be a dissenter politically and then stifle dissent on this site? Or indeed any site.

    Any answers anyone?

       0 likes

  12. steve says:

    ps. i thought the bbc didn’t have commercial breaks, isn’t this a breach of the rules?

    Are the bloggers here allowed to sell their wares on this site?

       0 likes

  13. Jack Bauer says:

    Calling someone a “bomber” or “millitant” is factually correct…

    That could be argued — but while all terrorists are “militant,” not all “militants” are terrorists.

    So therefore in a contextual usage, it is incorrect, unless the BBC has co-opted a word in the English language for it’s own purpose.

    The result would seem to go against the BBC charter as that then misinforms, rather than informs.

    As a bit of a militant myself I am very offended.

    Tell you what, why doesn’t the BBC do its usual trick of passing off, as in..

    “The Hamas organization, whom some people regard as terrorists…”

       0 likes

  14. Barry says:

    From Jack: “That could be argued — but while all terrorists are “militant,” not all “militants” are terrorists.”

    That’s very true. They should make the difference clear.

    A “bomber” blowing up civilians is NOT a “millitant”. In general language they are “terrorists”, but the Beeb will never use the word because they still maintain it’s a “value judgement” or something. In the same way that if they went the whole hog and reported on behalf of the IRA or Hamas they’d be “freedom fighters”, which again is a value judgement.

    Baz

       0 likes

  15. WoAD says:

    The BBC themselves decided to call terrorists ‘Militants’ and not terrorists because it is,

    “A barrier to understanding.”

    Proof here.

    “use of the words “terrorism” and “terrorist”. The BBC advises its journalists to avoid the latter because it can be “a barrier to understanding”.”

       0 likes

  16. Joel says:

    They are better described as ‘Republicans’ because that tells you who they are and what they what, their objectives. They are ‘dissident’ because that tells you they aren’t the IRA, but are a break -away group ie they don’t support the Agreement and are still active in terror.

    Oh yes, and the whole of the world’s media refers to them as such. I know you don’t pay for them, but it’s one objective measure of the BBC’s coverage.

       0 likes

  17. Joel says:

    Belfast Telegraph’s headline ‘Dissidents blamed for car bomb attack on off-duty officer’. Are they biased too?

    Strange too that the head of the police in NI, Sir Hugh Orde also calls them ‘dissidents’. Maybe he’s biased in favour of terrorism too? Strange for a police officer?

       0 likes

  18. David Vance says:

    Steve,

    Sorry you are so ill-informed. This book is published by Authorhouse in the US and UK. It is also on sales in Waterstones Oxford Street and will soon be available in other Waterstones.

    Next up, who is stifling debate exactly?

    Third and last, anyone can write a book? How interesting – odd that so few do.

    Crawl away until you have a comment worth making.

    Joel,

    The language of the peace process is based on deceit and euphemism. This lot of republican killers are NO different from the lot in power. End of.

       0 likes

  19. Joel says:

    I suppose it’s the age old question of whether you are the only sane one and the rest of the world is insane?

    I think I’ll stick with the rest of the world.

       0 likes

  20. David Vance says:

    I suppose it’s a question of whether you believe murdering terrorist scum should be permitted into government. I think I’ll stock to the concept of justice.

       0 likes

  21. Matt says:

    David Vance

    I suppose it’s a question of whether you believe murdering terrorist scum should be permitted into government.

    Or whether you believe bigoted and prejudiced scum should be permitted into government.

    Deal with it!

       0 likes

  22. David Vance says:

    Matt,

    Your support for terrorists in government says plenty about you. I’m afraid when you talk of bigoted and prejudiced scum, you talk of yourself. So why don’t YOU deal with that?

       0 likes

  23. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Hear, hear!

       0 likes

  24. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    “I suppose it’s the age old question of whether you are the only sane one and the rest of the world is insane?

    I think I’ll stick with the rest of the world”

    Based on this pseudo-argument, you are welcome to it. I’ll stick with the sane ones, however small their number.

       0 likes

  25. John Bull says:

    “Murdering terrorist scum” did get into government in Israel (Ben Gurion). It seems this phenomenon is not exclusive to western politics.

       0 likes

  26. David Vance says:

    John Bull,

    So is that reason to emulate it?

       0 likes

  27. Pot-Kettle-Black says:

    steve,

    im curious is it intentional or are you really the stupidest poster to ever grace this blog (and thats up against some damn stiff opposition over time)?

       0 likes

  28. Cassandrina says:

    Strange how positions become more entrenched the longer the dialogue goes on, as well as the verbal poison.

    David Vance – my advice is to be a little more accomodating since it is your blog of repute and YOU are seeking comment.
    “Crawl away until you have a comment worth making” Tsk Tsk Tsk.

       0 likes

  29. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    “Murdering terrorist scum” did get into government in Israel (Ben Gurion) –

    I see that we have yet another moronic, ignorant antisemitic turd on this blog.

       0 likes

  30. Matt says:

    David Vance

    Your support for terrorists in government says plenty about you. I’m afraid when you talk of bigoted and prejudiced scum, you talk of yourself. So why don’t YOU deal with that?

    The Governmental arrangements in NI have come about because of Unionist intransegence. There were opportunities to share power with the Nationalists long before Sinn Fein became prominent but these were scorned.

    I blame the DUP and Paisley in particular for the final outcome.

    NI pre 1969 was a one party state ruled by bigots. Some of those bigots are in Government now. It’s an unusual arrangement but it seems to be working.

    I’m dealing with it very well, thanks very much.

       0 likes

  31. katherine says:

    Just out of interest,which BBC correspondent joined the administration?Thanks

       0 likes

  32. David Vance says:

    Hi Katherine,

    It was Stephen Grimason – the CHIEF BBC correspondent, no less.

    Cassandrina,

    I stand rebuked. I try not to be too hard on the simple-mined so love and hugs to poor Matt.

    Matt,

    Please note I am a critic of those Unionist politicians you mention so the sheer illogicality of your comments is indeed impressive.

       0 likes

  33. Matt says:

    David Vance

    “the sheer illogicality of your comments is indeed impressive.”

    My comments are logical and thought out. Argue with me, don’t patronise me.

    This is a Blog primarily abour BBC bias. Can you not see the irony of your introducing your opwn bias?

       0 likes

  34. The Aged P says:

    Few people would deny that the Loyalist side had its faults – however I think what makes many of us so angry is the glamorisation of the IRA by the media, especially TV and film….”Hunger”(Channel 4) with Bobby Sands as hero and Mrs Thatcher as villain will be a prime example…
    http://theagedp.blogspot.com/

       0 likes

  35. John Bull says:

    Ben Gurion and Gerry Adams are one and the same – terrorist scum.

       0 likes

  36. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    John Bull is an ignotant antisemitic scum.

       0 likes

  37. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Ignorant – I am pre-coffee.

       0 likes

  38. THFC says:

    yeah, and anti-catholic scum as well. scumbag

       0 likes

  39. Matt says:

    Can we add Mandela to the list and be racist as well!

       0 likes

  40. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    No, we can’t. One can detest Mandela and not be a racist: unless you regard blacks as immune from any and all criticism.
    And for the record: Gerry Adams IS terrorist scum.

       0 likes

  41. Matt says:

    Nearly Oxfordian

    “No, we can’t. One can detest Mandela and not be a racist: unless you regard blacks as immune from any and all criticism.”

    So how is regarding Ben Gurion a terrorist anti-semitic then?

    One man’s terrorist etc……….

       0 likes

  42. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Because Ben Gurion didn’t arrange to bomb peaceful civilians going about their daily shopping.

    Do some basic research before posting the tired old crap about ‘one man’s terrorist’.

       0 likes

  43. Matt says:

    Nearly Oxfordian

    I have not called Ben Gurion a terrorist. I am simply asking how regarding him as such is antisemitic. You can detest Ben Gurion (I don’t) and not be antisemitic

    Why don’t you read posts before you reply rudely to them?

       0 likes

  44. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Drivel, Matt. The original poster called B-G a terrorist, comparing him to GA. I called him an antisemite, since it’s antisemites who call Jews ‘terrorists’ for legitimately fighting foreign occupying military forces. I didn’t call you one. I wasn’t rude: I highlighted the idiocy of the ‘one man’s terrorist’ pseudo-argument, which I am entitled to do. Why don’t you think before you post?

       0 likes

  45. Matt says:

    Drivel?

    You argue on the one hand that it’s not racist to call Mandela a terrorist unless you regard all blacks as being immune from any or all critisism but on the other hand anyone who calls “Jews” terrorists is antisemite!

    By the way, when I posted about Mandela, I was using i-r-o-n-y.

    The one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter arguement is neither idiotic or pseudo. It highlights different perceptions and positions.

    Stop being so prickley!

       0 likes

  46. Diana says:

    Cassandrina,

    I stand rebuked. I try not to be too hard on the simple-mined so love and hugs to poor Matt.

    Isn’t Matt correct, Is not authorhouse a self publishing outlet for people to publish their own books?

    Can I ask you to clear this up Mr Vance, did you publish your own work? Or was it published for you by authorhouse?

       0 likes

  47. Alex says:

    I’d quite like to know who did the picture. I like the guy’s gormless expression.

       0 likes

  48. Diana says:

    So Matt was right, it is self published! So why tell him to go crawl under a rock? Not very nice comments, and completely uncalled for.

    http://www.authorhouse.co.uk/ContactUs/Publish.aspx

       0 likes

  49. Diana says:

    Alex, I think the picture is totally obvious. Ugly even. What are the white lines in the background? Rays from heaven? And is that a cloud or smoke behind our balaclava friend?

    It’s silly really.

    For the price he is asking I think I’ll give it a miss.

    Is the break over now? Hopefully.

       0 likes