. Just wanted to say thanks to all Biased BBC readers for making May our second biggest month in the past year! I am enjoying my time here and trust you all approve. I find it tough sometimes getting the time to blog here every day as well as on my own site, A Tangled Web. However such is the rich vein of bias that runs through the BBC that mining it is a joy.
THANK YOU
Bookmark the permalink.
Mr Vance – even though i disagree with some of your politics, the site has certainly gone up a notch or two as a DIRECT result of you blogging on here.
your posts are controversial, and are searing arrows into the safe groupthink of the BBC.
thanks for brushing away the cobwebs and saying how you really feel. thats important – and stick with it.
its been a blast.
thanks!
“Lord Sidcup | 04.06.08 – 8:24 pm ”
as someone from a republican Irish Catholic nationalist background, i can vouch for that. Mr Vance’s attacks have been from a Unionist perspective and not explicitly anti-Catholic.
its a viewpoint that is sorely lacking on the BBC – and considering that the loyalists are by definition “loyal” , i do wonder why the hell they even pay the telly tax, considering how the BBC tries to demonise them at every opportunity.
it does not compute.
completely OT . and no i dont work for them.. check out Zattoo folks – http://www.zattoo.com
its kind of cool having live TV in one window whilst your commenting on here!
Cheers Archduke! I write directly on those things that I passionately care about. I fully accept the right of any (or indeed all!) to take issue with me, that’s what healthy debate is all about. It’s a concept alien to Al Beeb.
Can I also say that I would welcome any of those who have contributed here previously to continue to make their mark. I know my style of writing is different and I think variety is good. Hopefully the ranks of writers here will grow but in the meantime, I am quite comfortable to take up the cudgel and beat the BBC all over the head! Does that sound aggressive? If so, good.
I will be banning the troll “A Tangled Web” btw – those who hide behind a false identity and mimic my site have nothing to contribute here.
I am glad people here don’t buy into the contrived nonsense that I am “anti-catholic” – that’s the job of the BBC as has been shrewdly pointed out. I have made mention of my own Christian views and have frequently expressed my admiration for the RC Church’s moral stance on many issues.
I AM anti-terrorist, I am proud to be right of liberal, I make NO apologies for my attacks on militant Islam, I despise Statism, and I resent being forced to fund an anti-British anti-western civilisation State Broadcaster. Hope that makes it clear where I come from! Toodle pip…
“However, I would bet that the collective efforts of this site, plus the many increasingly popular libertarian/conservative blogs and websites are having an effect on the overall political temperature.
GCooper | 03.06.08 – 11:28 pm ”
just read in the Standard this evening that the BBC big wigs invited some “youth” to a conference last year. the Standard reported that the BBC chiefs faces “turned pale” as the youths told them that they spend most of their evening freetime , NOT watching the telly.. they’re online instead.
and if they arent myspaceing or facebooking, they’re browsing the blogs.
“and I resent being forced to fund an anti-British anti-western civilisation State Broadcaster”
i sympathise Mr Vance. it even astonishes even me how far the BBC will cuddle up to Republican terrorists. if anyone in RTE did that sort of thing , they’d be arrested and imprisoned under the “Offenses against the State Act”
its mind boggling to me how folks of a Unionist background put up with it.
now this is only a personal story, so its not some sort of YouGov statistical poll , but i can only convey what was said to me last time i was in southern Ireland.
i asked folks what they thought of the BBC – and more or else 100 per cent couldnt stand it.
why? well, its surprising – because it wasnt “British” enough. the phrases “poltically correct”, “mealy mouthed”, “bland” , and “whats the point” were uttered numerous times.
in the headlong rush to be politically correct, its actually turned off people in other countries , such as the south of Ireland.
if folks down south want to get European news ,instead of BBC News 24 , they turn to Euronews or RTE.
pathetic isnt it, considering the billions spent on the BBC every year?
“Lurker in a Burqua | 04.06.08 – 1:22 pm”
spot on. annoys the hell out of me as well.
here’s a prime example.. the bbc news report on the muder of Martin Dinnegan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7431331.stm
have a read through it – there’s a certain aspect to the case that the Evening Standard reported on , but curiously the BBC chooses to omit.
if anyone read the Standard over the past week, you’ll know what i’m on about.
if it was 20 Poles that killed Martin, you can be damn sure that the BBC would have mentioned it.
‘David Preiser (USA):
David Vance,
….
Also, I think making a book out of all this is a fine idea.
04.06.08 – 4:15pm’
===================
DavidP, I’ve emailed DavidV about hopefully taking this idea forward with practical suggestions and help. I’m grateful for another voice in support. It was only a vague thought on my part in the middle of a previous thread but I might have started something! Cheers!
Geoff,
Looking forward to your email. Ensure it is sent to atangledweb@hotmail.co.uk and I will respond.
“if it was 20 Poles that killed Martin, you can be damn sure that the BBC would have mentioned it.”
LoL. Good timing Archie.
A less charitable interpretation of which is that the site has become an echo chamber with which few can be bothered to debate.
p and a tale of one chip | 04.06.08 – 10:43 am | #
Agree.
However IMO on balance the site has improved since the arrival of DV.
Telling people the REAL truth about anything important and counter to their brainwashing is never easy. It go’s straight to the Human EGO and kicks it where it hurts. Doing so usually attracts personal abuse followed by a complete non attempt to address the issues or arguments so very carefully made.
Understandably nobody wants to easily admit they have been conned or have been a bit gullible, now or in the past.
It is one of the reasons why BBC establishment brainwashing is so incredibly easy to achieve especially in so called intelligent people who have a real ‘problem’ with their established belief systems.
Thick people on the other hand will believe anything as long as there is a hand out, a free beer, or a half decent shag at the end of it. If they really do not like what you say, they dont argue with you, they just try to punch you in the head.
So at least stating historically based well documented, but very largely ignored by the BBC facts on the internet, has some advantages.
I do not expect people to like or even believe what I tell them. I am not The BBC.
All I hope for is that people read it and start thinking for themselves, for possibly the first time in their entire lives. If that sounds patronizing I am sorry, but someone has to wake you all from your intellectual slumbers.
Matt & Nearly Oxfordian:
Of course not every anti Israel comment is anti Semitism but Israel is singled out as the perennial scapegoat and seems responsible for all the worlds troubles.
Well said Atlas.
Insights like those posted here are often painful to brainwashed minds, provoking many a writhing response from Beeboids…
David Vance – keep those pulverizing comments coming!
“NO, of course not every anti Israel comment is anti Semitism but Israel is singled out as the perennial scapegoat and seems responsible for all the worlds troubles”
Lemar, don’t teach your grandma to suck eggs 😉
The non-stop screeching vilification of Israel by ignorant scum is what we are talking about.
“Nearly Oxfordian is arrogant and aggressive” –
I’d rather be that than a dumb, ignorant antisemite.
“Woff! Woff!”
Yes, very much your vaunted level of ‘debate’.
“No debate – no rationalisation”
Dumb crap. I have posted many times in detail about the non-stop, totally disproportionate, targeted, sick vilification of Israel. It’s not my fault you can’t read and can’t join the dots.
DV, thanks for the comment at 7:57, much appreciated.
Matt and N Oxf:
Reserving the right to criticise Israel is no problem, and finding moral imperfections in the actions of the Israeli government is not by definition anti-Semitic. But what is anti-Semitic is to make sure that the public have access to numerous daily updates on any hint of wrongdoing by Israeli leaders or citizens, while keeping almost completely silent on the far worse human rights abuses carried out (against their own people as well as against Israelis) by the Palestinian Arabs, by the leaders of Iran, the leaders of Syria, the fanatics in Afghanistan, the violent fundamentalist murderous bigots of Hezbollah, and so on and so forth.
To publicize and magnify every Israeli transgression in the ongoing war (whether true or false), while constantly whitewashing the far worse actions of those states or groups who hate Israel – in order to give people like Matt the right to criticise Israel – that is anti-Semitism, pure and simple.
Matt, that’s not a personal attack on you in any way, merely pointing out the mechanisms that give you the right to criticize one group while attempting to keep you in blissful ignorance about others. As I’m sure you’re already aware.
That is why, even when Israel does do something wrong (as all countries do) criticism of those actions can still be anti-Semitic, if it magnifies them while keeping quiet about similar or worse crimes committed by Israel’s enemies.
Let me put my cards partly on the table.
I am half Jewish and half Anglican. I am a product of a MASONIC union. All the senior members of my family where Masons going back to the late 18th century. My original family maternal name is Cohen, my mothers family are one of the 3 remaining original tribes who have lived in this country to my knowledge, just about as long as any Jews have.
I am therefore a Zionist by birth but I will say this anyway.
The people that run the world are all but completely running the BBC. The people that run the world are very high up the Masonic ladder. These are well documented historical and current facts which can not be denied.
What exactly the above means I can’t explain, I simply don’t know even half of it. But it must be clear that someone is pulling your plonkers, if you seriously do believe that the BBC really is anti-Zionist at the top.
[Perhaps it may have something to do with the fact that very few people know what ultimately Zionism really is.]
The BBC like people to believe it is of the left so therefore The BBC being basically Anti-semitic in much the same way as Adolf, is a ‘gimmi’.
Take my word for this or not, I only wish you to read it and think.
The BBC can not be trusted on face value with anything other then the sporting results. If organizations like the BBC really wanted or where designed to achieve peace in our time, we would largely already have it.
Ruling elite peace only comes when they own and control everything and we have a one world government with a one world political and religious leader.
The BBC’s current job, is not to help the interests of peace and especially not truth. It is to spread dissatisfaction, division, racism, radical socialist thinking, feminism, ect, and as much terrorism around the world as it can muster. Without even letting the vast majority of its own employees understanding the real mission, never mind the general public.
This is obvious not just because our Ruling Elites wish to do this, so they can change to world to their liking, but because it is clearly what the BBC does indeed achieve in reality.
A brainwashed terrorist thinks when they listen to the BBC, is that the British people are on the point of abandoning the mission. They believe that they will get full coverage and publicity from the BBC, which they will. This they believe will have an effect on British public opinion, which it will, but it will make not difference. We are supposed to live in a democracy, are we not?
In reality the British people are more interested in drinking excess alcohol, copulation, football, and East Enders, and have no real power to effect British foreign policy anyway.
So our ruling elites can and so will carry on doing exactly what they planned to do anyway. Thus terrorism domestic and international is encouraged by the very people who so cleverly pretend they are doing the exact opposite.
Obama may say what he is told to say about the war in The Middle East while trying to get elected. But I make this prediction. It will make no material difference whatsoever whether he gets elected or not, as far as long term important national and international policies are concerned. Or he is a dead man walking, or there will be another serious terrorist attack in The US shortly after his election.
Our Ruling elites can not sustain a ‘war against terrorism’ and the vast expense for the British and American tax payers that go’s with it, if there is not any terrorism to have a war against.
Get it yet?
I dont question the plan I only pray for the outcome to be as bloodless and painless as possible. Which is a bit like in 1914 hoping WW1 will turn out to be OK in the long run, but it is the best I can think of right now.
Atlas shrugged | 04.06.08 – 10:33 pm |
Thick people on the other hand will believe anything as long as there is a hand out, a free beer, or a half decent shag at the end of it. If they really do not like what you say, they don’t argue with you, they just try to punch you in the head.
Is it at least real ale, or just the crap they advertise during ballgames?
All I hope for is that people read it and start thinking for themselves, for possibly the first time in their entire lives. If that sounds patronizing I am sorry, but someone has to wake you all from your intellectual slumbers.
Hear, hear, although you and I tend to disagree on much of what they should think upon awakening. But seriously, even though your comments are not exactly welcomed with open arms here, you should recognize that at least some of us here meet you half way every now and then. Others may not admit to that but I will, and have in previous comments.
By they way, my maternal grandfather was a low-level Freemason in the South Shore area of Long Island during the ’40s and ’50s. I don’t know if there were fully Jewish chapters at the time, but I seriously doubt it. In any case, he took it very seriously (was even buried with his apron and some trinket or other). However, according to his own children who sneaked many peeks at his secret Masonic books and papers, the codes were basically grammar-school substitution cyphers, and the rest of it was cutesy rituals that nobody quite understood anymore and other excuses to get hammered outside of the wives’ jurisdiction.
By that time, it seems that any Masonic influence in the business world was reduced to the occasional local business contact or local bureaucrat freebies. There must have been something at that level anyway. Hence the Monty Python architect/abattoir/Masonry sketch, I suppose.
But it must be clear that someone is pulling your plonkers, if you seriously do believe that the BBC really is anti-Zionist at the top.
Sure. Al Beeb is a fervent, nay fanatical supporter of Zionism. That must be why it spews such a non-stop stream of vile antisemitic propaganda, mainly in the form of daily lies and consistent propaganda aimed against Israel (see next para.).
Perhaps it may have something to do with the fact that very few people know what ultimately Zionism really is.
I was going to say, it’s a world domination crusade by shape-shifting lizards from Arcturus IV, but there is a real chance you would have believed me; so let’s stick to the facts, shall we? Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, with the aim of re-establishing their independent state in their homeland (OK, done in 1948), making it a successful country (done) and defending it against its enemies who seek to destroy it.
You see, it wasn’t so hard after all? But I really would lay off that cheap glue if I were you.
There should have been “(ongoing)” at the end of the penultimate paragraph; and I have no idea why Haloscan is playing silly buggers. I most certainly wrote ‘1948’, without any smileys whatever.
All I hope for is that people read it and start thinking for themselves, for possibly the first time in their entire lives. If that sounds patronizing I am sorry, but someone has to wake you all from your intellectual slumbers.
AtShr: thank god you’re here to tell us the truth. I feel as though I slept my whole life until I just read your comment. Please be careful – they will try to kill you or dismiss you as a nutcase!
It doesn’t just sound patronising.
One example:
But I make this prediction. It will make no material difference whatsoever whether he gets elected or not, as far as long term important national and international policies are concerned. Or he is a dead man walking, or there will be another serious terrorist attack in The US shortly after his election.
That’s what you call a prediction?! That if elected, he will be unimportant, or he may be killed (?), or there may be another serious act of war against America?
That’s not a prediction, Atlas, that’s a list of very different scenarios. And this is typical of the mindset that produces the nonsense you speak: unfalsifiability. Everything you say has to be carefully constructed to avoid being answerable to the usual processes of rational enquiry. Given your own “prediction”, you can be relied upon to say “I told you so!” almost whatever happens in a hypothetical Obama Presidency.
Further:
The people that run the world are all but completely running the BBC.
No evidence presented for this at all. Simple assertion.
The people that run the world are very high up the Masonic ladder.
No evidence presented for this at all. Simple assertion.
These are well documented historical and current facts which can not be denied.
They can be denied, until you present convincing evidence that supports your statements.
What exactly the above means I can’t explain, I simply don’t know even half of it.
I think you may be “on to something” there.
But it must be clear that someone is pulling your plonkers, if you seriously do believe that the BBC really is anti-Zionist at the top.
Rhetoric unsupported by any evidence, absolutely contradicted by observable facts.
Perhaps it may have something to do with the fact that very few people know what ultimately Zionism really is.
Perhaps it is merely that very few people agree with your absurd conspiracy regarding what Zionism really is.
Take my word for this or not, I only wish you to read it and think.
I’ve read it, and thought, and I don’t take your word for anything. Like most rational people, I am prepared to examine evidence and make rational conclusions based on that evidence. Perhaps you could try that approach in future. On second thoughts, given that you feel the BBC is NOT really biased against one party or another, and only pretending to be biased against Israel, etc etc, is there not somewhere else you would feel more at home?
gharqad tree
“To publicize and magnify every Israeli transgression in the ongoing war (whether true or false), while constantly whitewashing the far worse actions of those states or groups who hate Israel – in order to give people like Matt the right to criticise Israel – that is anti-Semitism, pure and simple.”
This is the sort of thinking that I have a great problem with. What has the BBC’s obvious bias in the Middle East got to do with the right of anyone to critisise Israel. I’m sorry to go on about this. I do not get my news and information solely from the BBC. As I get older, I am getting more sceptical and cynical about the media.
I object to being called antisemitic because I reserve to right to critise. Those who spray that charge around undermine their own arguements.
Nearly Oxfordian
“”Woff! Woff!”
Yes, very much your vaunted level of ‘debate’.”
Only with you dear.
When you hurl abuse about, expect some in return.
Matt:
gharqad tree
“To publicize and magnify every Israeli transgression in the ongoing war (whether true or false), while constantly whitewashing the far worse actions of those states or groups who hate Israel – in order to give people like Matt the right to criticise Israel – that is anti-Semitism, pure and simple.”
This is the sort of thinking that I have a great problem with.
I’m sorry for your problem. Perhaps you could explain where my reasoning was wrong.
gharqad tree
“I’m sorry for your problem. Perhaps you could explain where my reasoning was wrong.”
You are linking the obvious BBC bias with my right to critise. They are two separate issues.
Making critisisms of Israel (a country) does not make one antisemitic (anti-Jew).
Matt – your phrasing says more than you might intend:
“…criticisms of Israel (a country)”
Most reasonable people choose to be critical of certain actions, attitudes, behaviours, in whatever individuals/groups/nations they are found. Others reserve the right to be critical of Israel.
This is a formulation that rarely appears anywhere else: one can be critical of American foreign policy, Reaganomics, Thatcher’s social policies, violent Jihad, certain hairstyles, sharia law – but I cannot think of many other cases in which criticism is so frequently boiled down linguistically to an entire state – as it so often is when discussing the right to be critical “of Israel”.
You have the right to legitimately criticize anything without being labelled in any way. But what one (I do not say “you”) cannot expect is to single-out Israel for criticism, ignore the worse abuses committed by its neighbours and enemies, and object to being labelled an anti-Semite on the basis that your criticisms of “Israel” are all legitimate.
I havne’t followed the previous between yourself and Nearly Oxfordian (it sounds as though there has been some, so forgive me if I’ve assumed wrongly), I have no idea what your position is re the M.E. conflict, I have in no way accused you personally of anti-Semitism, and was merely contributing my thoughts as to why some of us have become persuaded that the mantra about “criticism of Israel not being anti-Semitic if it’s legitimate” is not as convincing or as conclusive as some might wish it to be.
After all, any racist could spend his life compiling a dossier of genuine offences committed by black people, and thereby reserving the right to criticize them. The legitimacy of each criticism does not render his project any less racist.
gharad tree
“”…criticisms of Israel (a country)”
Most reasonable people choose to be critical of certain actions, attitudes, behaviours, in whatever individuals/groups/nations they are found. Others reserve the right to be critical of Israel.”
Semantics. Substitute ‘Israel’s actions” for ‘Israel’ when I talk of critism.
“After all, any racist could spend his life compiling a dossier of genuine offences committed by black people, and thereby reserving the right to criticize them. The legitimacy of each criticism does not render his project any less racist.”
This addition to your post is unneccessary, unless you are argueing that one shouldn’t critise blacks.
I am arguing (of course) that one shouldn’t criticize blacks per se, just as one shouldn’t criticize Israel per se.
Re “semantics”. Forgive me for taking you at your word.
Semantics can be important. Language is a place where people with prejudices do sometimes let the mask of legitimacy slip.
I’m not saying you have a prejudice, but I won’t change what you wrote retrospectively. You wrote it. You reserve the right to criticize Israel (a country).
Matt, my last word, as I’ll be too busy for the rest of the day to come back here: I do broadly agree with you regarding the sometimes unpleasant and abusive tone that gets adopted here in the comments – sometimes I too have got sucked into fruitless arguments and ended-up saying things I immediately wished I had not. I also agree with you that we are too given to finding examples of “bias” that are pretty flimsy.
I never call anyone an anti-Semite. I believe that several of my best friends are anti-Semites! They have an irrational and obsessive hatred for the history and actions of the only Jewish state in the world. They have never visited Israel or the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories, they have little or no positive admiration or attachment to Arab or Muslim culture, and yet they buy books and magazines that pump the criminality of Israel into their heads on a daily basis. They insist that their criticism of Israel is legitimate and non-racist. Indeed, they have a horror of racism. Yet they read voraciously also anything that exonerates Israel’s more violent and bigoted neighbours – any defence of Hamas or Hezbollah from the LRB – is immediately and conclusively convincing to them.
This irrational and deep-seated loathing of one state among the world’s states must have some name, and anti-Semitism might be it.
That’s why I and some others are suspicious when someone says they have the right to “criticize Israel”.
Of course you do. We all do. It’s a question of what else we criticize, of whether we apply the same standards to all nations, of whether we understand that the media are feeding us one side only.
I’m sure you’re aware of all that already, and please let me reiterate, I’m not calling you anything at all. I just wanted to contribute what I could in a more general way.
gharqad tree
Thank you.
“Only with you dear.
When you hurl abuse about, expect some in return.”
Oh, I don’t expect anything different from thick prats like you. But it’s a little … how shall I put it, stupid … to whine aboue abuse and lack of serious debate, and then to post such crap.
“This irrational and deep-seated loathing of one state among the world’s states must have some name, and anti-Semitism might be it”
It is. That is the meaning of the term.
Nearly Oxfordian
“Oh, I don’t expect anything different from thick prats like you. But it’s a little … how shall I put it, stupid … to whine aboue abuse and lack of serious debate, and then to post such crap.”
My comment isn’t abuse – it’s just an observation.
To quote Richard Littlejohn – “you started it pet.”
The echo chamber fiction.
A speedy analysis of posts before David Vance was here and since shows that then number of posts has increased as has the number of posters.
Obviously tricky things, facts.
“you started it”
Mummy, he hit me back!
What a whiny little jerk you are.
Nearly Oxfordian
“”you started it”
Mummy, he hit me back!
What a whiny little jerk you are.”
Is that all you’ve got, big boy!
And it was “you started it pet.”
Why are you so obnoxious? Why are you so rude? Why are you allowed to insult and abuse as you do?
In my opinion, you are ruining this blog. Soon, nowone will dare offer any critisism and you can rant all you like unopposed.
LOL. Matt talks about obnoxious – now, that IS rich.
OK you two – I think the BBC must be reeling by now, we can ceasefire 🙂