. I reckon that the BBC’s idea of the dream nation state is Venezuela under the guiding fist of Hugo Chavez. The communist thug Chavez has earned his brownie points by nationalising anything that moves, oppressing private enterprise – and you can read all about it on various approving BBC posts. Just select through the sidebar menu of this latest story expressing Venezuelan outrage that there has been an alleged violation of its airspace by an American military aircraft. Defence Minister Gustavo Rangel said the jet had been tracked by country’s air defences over the Venezuelan-owned island of La Orchila on Saturday. You can just tell how in sympathy the BBC writer of this report was in the admiring tone that Chavez “is a fierce critic of Washington.” It strikes me that the BBC admires those thuggocracies like Venezuela who delight in attacking the USA and this seeps through to the tone of the reports it files.
THE IDEAL BBC APPROVED STATE – VENEZUELA
Bookmark the permalink.
Perhaps David V can look at the IP address from whence these various sock puppets and identity thieves are posting?
Sarah Jane (20% BBC) | 21.05.08 – 12:57 pm
“So by BJ not wanting to engage with us, it makes me interested to find out a bit more about what he thinks. Feel any better”
Yes thank you.
Furthermore, have you a masochistic streak? Some people are attracted to indifference and rejection.
“The day we amend the site to suit the BBC employees I’m out of here, it would become a mockery, you might as well call it ‘points of view 2’.”
Fair enough that you agree with that, but why on earth he thought I advocated amending the site to suit BBC employees is a bit of a mystery.
As you say, the anger displayed on this board about the BBC is indeed stimulating, but even more intriguing is the anger that frequently erupts amongst ourselves. Where’s the credibility in that?
BaggieJonathan | 21.05.08 – 1:51 pm
I’m not sure what concessions I have actully asked for.
You certainly did bite my head off.
Why don’t you save your verbal assaults for Beeboids? Oh, I forgot. You don’t want to engage with them. Oh, maybe you do. Not quite sure now.
Anyway, it seems they were there all along.
I don’t know why you are so incensed, but if it was because of something I said, I apologise. If it was because of something you thought I said but didn’t, you apologise. In that case, please consider your apology accepted.
By the way,
I hope I haven’t been addressing myself to these pup sockets.
Sarah Jane? Are you real? Or 80% sock?
It’s still me, thus far. There seems to be some kind of gay thing going with the troll and I have been spared.
If only he (safe guess I think) knew…
If my posts descend into innuendo it is probably the troll, although I reserve the right to refer to my ‘Tikabilla’ in a smutty way.
Personation is not only offensive it is also illegal.
I suggest the site moderator does something immediately.
I thought it was clear, but here goes again…
This is a blog of individuals, there is no organisation, editorial board, daily policy meetings and the like.
We do not share common poltical persuasion, though more do seem to be from one spectrum than another, that is entirely voluntary.
Most here actually do attempt to remain civil most of the time, usually breakdown to abuse and obscenity is only a response to strong emotion or trolling.
Not to condone it, but to understand it.
Incivility usually reflects badly on the argument, so best left said at that, its better not used.
So there is no ‘side’ apart from our common interest in BBC bias (or in some cases lack of it).
Engaging – there’s no problem with BBC employees/representatives coming on and engaging.
But note even when they do:
…
They tend to be of non senior levels so have little significant influence, (though they are indicative of BBC views)
They insist on posting in a personal capacity rather than on behalf of the BBC, limiting its value as a response
They often post anonymously, there’s no problem with this, it makes them freer to post, but this is directly related to the point above.
They sometimes post mob handed to a theme acting as stooges, often under orders to do so, this attempt at deception is particularly distasteful, accepted not all BBC employees do this.
Many cherry pick very select points and ignore the rest of the thread as if it weren’t there.
…
Even taking all this into account, there is no problem with them being on, but we cannot allow them to dictate what can and what cannot be on the blog.
You would be surprised how many BBC staff actually do read the blog from time to time, and some things on the BBC are changed in reaction to the blog even if unacknowledged.
The ‘point’ of the blog is to expose BBC bias and look at what can be done about it; it is not the ‘point’ to engage the BBC personnel and no changes should be made to accomodate them either in terms of personnel or setup, if you do that it might as well be a BBC site.
If the BBC does want to contribute, and it is probably in its interests as well as ours (from a different point of view) to do so then that is fine.
If you disagree with this and think there should be a site where you argue about BBC bias but always make changes to ensure that the BBC employees come on and engage you will need to set up your own blog, its relatively easy.
Its doubted you will get much interest but feel free to try.
Even if you do, you will be seen as a stooge to the BBC because you change things to suit them and soon you will be indistinguishable from a BBC pointsofview site.
Good luck if you try, you may well need a lot of it.
BJ: you speak much sense there I think, but when you say:
“If you […] think there should be a site where you argue about BBC bias but always make changes to ensure that the BBC employees come on and engage…”
I’m unclear who has asked for such a thing. If I’ve genuinely missed something, please put me right.
One last thing:
“I always think of blogs like a good pub”
David, either you need a new local, or I’ve been reading the wrong blogs.
“By your own definition – ie, the one you keep presenting to me – “scum” has no such concrete meaning, and is more subjective. It is slang derived from waste matter, ”
GT words gain substantive meaning through usage,words are also a contested area,if “thug” can have substantive meaning so can “scum”.The word thug is itself subjective,language is subjective.
So stop going round in circles
“Your question re Chavez and Kali is too risible to respond to.”
Never stopped you before.
“The word “thug” now means something
other than “thugee”, Peter. As I’m sure you know in less anal moments. Trolls are not the only ones who can indulge in lame and spurious arguments it seems.”
Oh dear,is this the gharqad tree who was driven away by insults,who has only just come back to B-BBC? The qharqad tree going on interminably about keeping discourse civil? Surely not?
For the last time.
The use of the word scum goes further back than use of thug,both are slang words adopted into common usage.
gharqad tree | 21.05.08 – 8:05 pm
I think he was talking to me……..
BaggieJonathan | 21.05.08 – 5:07 pm
Thank you for your elucidation.
If it was directed at me, (you didn’t say,) I agree with most of what you say up till this bit, where you seem to have forgotten your own advice about incivility. Perhaps you meant imbicility?
If you disagree with this and think there should be a site where you argue about BBC bias but always make changes to ensure that the BBC employees come on and engage you will need to set up your own blog, its relatively easy.
If this was aimed at me, and your clarification didn’t make that clear, I can’t for the life of me think what can have given you the idea that I wish to set up such a site, but you seem mighty keen that I have a go. Or just go, so to speak.
You continually allude to ‘we.’ And I am curious to know who is ‘we’ and does we include me? I thought not.
You kindly add
Its doubted you will get much interest but feel free to try.
Not quite convinced this is offer is really made in the spirit of generosity, but I’ll take it as though it was. So many thanks.
Peter – fine, have it your way: “someone regarded as either concept a or concept b” can be accurately and objectively called “scum” by your favoured definition.
You claim it’s not merely subjective abuse, so please enlighten me: “regarded as” – by whom, and by what objective criteria? If there are no objective citeria then it is, as I say, by definition, subjective.
Enlighten me further: “despicable” has an absolute moral judgement attached to it. “Worthless” on the other hand harks back to the original roots of the phrase, and carries no such value judgement.
So you have presented me with a word that means by your definition:
Someone you decide to see as having some negative quality, which could range from absolute moral degeneracy through to mere pointlessness”
Yeah. Very concrete peter! No wonder that, having introduced the petty dictionary definition in the first place, and having had it pointed out that the definition supports my position more than it does yours, you then retreat to the notion that “words are a contested area” and “language is subjective” (and accuse me of going round in circles!). Yeah – in other words, it means exactly what you choose to have it mean when you use it.
I’ve enjoyed debating this with you – your dictionary evidence was an unexpected bonus, for which I thank you. I’ll let you have the last word now, as this has become tedious and I would rather spend my time writing about the BBC than debating with people who believe we do anything but infantilize and damage our cause by flinging words like “scum” around.
Still intend to let you have the last word, Peter, but have only just seen your further post, to which I would like to respond.
“Oh dear,is this the gharqad tree who was driven away by insults,who has only just come back to B-BBC?”
Yes indeed. Do you have a problem with that? I am unclear whether you are making a point or just blustering. I was driven away, also, by dint of having a life that kept me away from the internet more than I would like over the past few months. I apologise if that somehow disqualifies the logic of anything I have written.
“The qharqad tree going on interminably about keeping discourse civil? Surely not?”
Yes indeed, and I’m still waiting for the punchline at the end of all this superb rhetorical questioning.
Oh – perhaps you were upset at the fact that you accused others of having lame and spurious arguments, only to have your own pointed out to you? Surely not?!
“For the last time.
The use of the word scum goes further back than use of thug, both are slang words adopted into common usage.”
Yes, which has nothing to do with our argument. Thug now has a concrete meaning, whilst scum is a ctach-all term of abuse, as demonstrated by your definition.
I notice, still no explanation of your embarrassing and unethical attempt to damn me by association, or your warning that I should be careful about being too courteous to people with whom the majority disagree.
You realise of course how very Stalinist a tactic that was?
“You claim it’s not merely subjective abuse, so please enlighten me: “regarded as” – by whom, and by what objective criteria? If there are no objective citeria then it is, as I say, by definition, subjective.”
But “thug” isn’t.answer your own question.
Chavez is not despicable?
Does Chavez actually do physical violence with his own hands?
Victoria Derbyshire was not despicable question a grieving mother’s faith? Doing it simply and callously in whilst earing her salary.Perhaps you should use some of the language you used on me on the BBC.
I know you are overwhelmed by your own cleverness but you should examine the historical usage of the English language.
“Yes, which has nothing to do with our argument. Thug now has a concrete meaning, whilst scum is a ctach-all term of abuse, as demonstrated by your definition.”
Scum also has a concrete meaning,you reiterating it doesn’t will not negate that.Thug is also catchall term of abuse.One of the wonders of English is flexibility.
Peter, if you want the last word, please don’t ask me such irresistable questions!
“answer your own question”: that’s fine, I will, while noting that you didn’t. “Thug” is used to describe someone who illegitimately uses or threatens violence to get their way, at any level. Carrying out that violence with your own hands or not, doesn’t matter. That, as you would put it, is the common usage and understanding of the word.
Anyone who meets that definition can be called a thug, objectively. That it carries an element of moral censure in no way renders it subjective. It is no more subjective than the word “murderer”.
Now it’s your turn: who are “scum”? How can I spot them?
“Perhaps you should use some of the language you used on me on the BBC.”
Such as???
“you should examine the historical usage of the English language”
I’m not going to stoop to pulling rank here, Peter, but let me reassure you that your advice is redundant. That sentence may sound conceited, but it would never have been necessary without the patronising and ill-judged advice.
Peter, let’s just agree to disagree, on the basis that I don’t think we help our cause by using words like “scum”, and you disagree with that.
I can live with that, as I’m sure you can. It was not my intention to say anything insulting to you, and I hope we can find common ground when discussing the real problem here, the BBC and its liberal political bias.
In other words, truce? and apologies to you if any personal offence has been caused.
gharqad tree,
You’ve been reading the wrong blogs! ATW is indeed akin to good pub where everybody knows your name..!
pivate eye this week alleges that tim donovan , bbc london political editor spiked the heskon biog of red ken.
this allegation comes on top of previous allegations of failing to follow up the county hall leaked email provided to him as detailed on this blog.
this scoop enabled al beeb to release details of ken’s kids which he had previously denied.
this was possible due to hugh muir ( ken’s buddy at al grauniad) breaking a confidentiality agreement between publishers of heskons book and al grauniad – enabling bbc london to scoop the biog.
muir was on ken’s payroll as a consultant paid to prepare rebuttals of various (true) allegations.
oh what a twisted web……….
Ghargad Tree.
Thanks for the “cut-out-and-keep” description of your friend – which must apply to a lotta lotta beebers:
“My BBC friend wakes up, listens to BBC Radio 4 …reads the Guardian or the Observer … spends all day working with a group of rather young, inexperienced people who came to the BBC straight out of college…”
This is what causes the “bubble” effect – they lead self-contained lives with not enough contact points with reality. The result is group-think.
Sue,
The long post was aimed at the whole discussion in the thread, though specific points were of special significance to you.
Whilst my language and arguments may be extremely forthright and forceful at times you will very rarely find them uncivil in terms of swearing and abuse, unless provoked by extreme trolling such as in the past was practised by hillhunt.
So I would shy away from using the term imbecile, certainly not for you as it clearly does not apply, and not even the BBC employees.
That is unless it is to refer to the individual who recently has been posting under other peoples names giving vent to his perversions, he might well qualify for the epithet.
Further clarification, especially for more recent newcomers:
When this argument ensued in the first place it was suggested by several posters that the reason for the blog was to have BBC employees come on in response and engage in the debate about BBC bias.
I reject this as our objective.
Further it was suggested that the editorship (that is David Vance), the tone (of the posters), and the content discouraged said engagement.
That is open to debate, however the site is not run for the BBC’s benefit.
The implacation of this reasoning is that the editorship, tone and content of the blog should be changed to attract those BBC employees.
I fundamentally disagree with this on every level and that is the reason for my response when it was being raised again albeit in reduced form to the original suggestions.
often under orders to do so, this attempt at deception is particularly distasteful, accepted not all BBC employees do this.
BaggieJonathan | 21.05.08 – 5:07 pm | #
Do you have evidence for this or is it an assumption? While I think most of your points reasonable, this one is simply not true in my experience.
Firstly, the kind of senior bods who would give this kind of order probably (and lamentably IMO) do not come here to give this kind of order.
Secondly, if they did, it would be ignored or get leaked and we would know all about it.
Those of us who come here, defend the beeb of our own free will, and because we have a better handle on engaging with licensee-payers than the great and the good. And most of the BBC 🙁
I think in order to do this, one has to be honest, and accept failings, in order to do this properly (rather than in a Points of View manner), I feel obliged to be anonymous, which is more than a bit sad really.
The implacation of this reasoning is that the editorship, tone and content of the blog should be changed to attract those BBC employees.
I fundamentally disagree with this on every level and that is the reason for my response when it was being raised again albeit in reduced form to the original suggestions.
BaggieJonathan | 22.05.08 – 1:05 pm | #
I agree with this. The BBC will not survive unless people like gharqad tree’s friend (who sounds dreadfully dull, sorry) come to places like this and realise how pissed off some license-payers are, and that they cannot ALL be dismissed as neocons.
In order to do this you have to get past the op-ed on the homepage and engage with the commentors.
This is something I think David needs to reflect on.
These spats that break out between B-BBC posters such as the one between myself and B.J., and the one with Peter and G. Tree, are O.K. in themselves as ‘we’ are not a homogeneous entity. But their increasing ferocity and longevity are beginning to distract us from the aim of this site which I thought was exposing BBC. bias. Not only exposing, but since debate is our only weapon, using that to switch a light on where there was darkness, a first step on what could be a long journey..(note strange, uncharacteristic prose)
There is certainly a case for carrying on regardless of input by Beeboids, as B J has explained, but his very own words “The ‘point’ of the blog is to expose BBC bias and look at what can be done about it;” beg the question how can anything be done about it? Given that all complaints through the usual BBC channels are ignored or treated with disdain, I think input by Beeboids on this site is one way of convincing not only the individual spokespersons, but anyone else who might look in, that we have a case. Because their point of view is essential for what we all want. Balance. Without it, we become too easy to dismiss altogether.
I know many of you disagree with me, and some don’t, but sadly, stepping out of line with consensus on this issue seems to attract the full force of residual fury, I contend this is partly due to frustration at the lack of participatory BBC bods who formerly attracted most of it unto themselves. (our fury)
If this looks as though I am asking for impunity and forgiveness for saying something disagreeable, I suppose that is what I am doing.
I wrote the above before seeing B.J. and S.J.’s recent comments.
And I admit that my original remarks about the subject were indeed on a thread about the ‘tabloid’ nature of David Vance’s tenure, which he himself instigated, but I never advocated adapting the site to suit the BBC. Not in a million years. At the time I was not the only one who thought he had taken us in the wrong direction, but as I said, I neither went off in a huff, or ever mentioned it again. I accepted it and deferred to the democratic decision of the majority. So I was astonished at what I thought was an unfair attack on me for just having my opinion, from B.J.
It amuses me to have my style described as “tabloid” – what delusions of grandeur some have. Shall we all sit around and debate the fine nuances of Beebom bias? No – let’s just cut to the chase.
“BaggieJonathan:
Further clarification, especially for more recent newcomers:
When this argument ensued in the first place it was suggested by several posters that the reason for the blog was to have BBC employees come on in response and engage in the debate about BBC bias.”
See, I dispute this. It wasn’t suggested that that was ‘the reason for the blog.’ D.V. said he didn’t care at all whether or not BBC posters joined in. I don’t know about other people, but what I suggested was that it was pointless without any participation at all from them, or even from incognito nom de plume ones who shared their ‘worldview’. That’s a bit different from saying their participation was the reason for the blog. Their input improves the balance and arguing with them give focus and stops spats like this which never end till one of us drops dead.
“I reject this as our objective.’
So do I.
“Further it was suggested that the editorship (that is David Vance), the tone (of the posters), and the content discouraged said engagement.”
Sort of. More that D.V. was over-reacting to relative trivialities, thereby reducing the effectiveness of pointing out more serious examples of BBC bias.
“That is open to debate, however the site is not run for the BBC’s benefit.”
No one would want that.
“The implacation of this reasoning is that the editorship, tone and content of the blog should be changed to attract those BBC employees.”
That’s not exactly how I would put it. But I see your point.
“I fundamentally disagree with this on every level and that is the reason for my response when it was being raised again albeit in reduced form to the original suggestions.
BaggieJonathan | 22.05.08 – 1:05 pm”
Yes, I know you do. But your response was the only one that was hostile and aggressive.
(As for David Vance’s cryptic comment above. I’m not sure what you mean, David. Who has delusions of grandeur? What is Beebom?It wasn’t me who first used the term ‘tabloid’ about your style by the way, I’m not sure if I ever used the term apart from quoting someone else.)
“Hope I haven’t brought this thread about with my well-meant $20 whore comment”
I doubt that you have posted a well-meant comment in your life. Be that as it may, it does take a juvenile loser to imagine that calling the moderator a ‘whore’ can be construed as ‘well meant’. Maybe behind the bikeshed where you lurk when bunking off, but not here.
I agree with the comments about Chavez being a thug and worse, and the appropriateness of calling him that.