It’s on – it’s even got a dragon on the panel, your comments?
QUESTION TIME WATCH
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Up2snuff May 4, 2024 at 11:00 am on Weekend 4th May 2024Scrobie, Peter and Fed, I still miss the City of my birth and given the right circumstances would face a...
- tomo May 4, 2024 at 10:54 am on Weekend 4th May 2024https://twitter.com/UpperLipNews/status/1786304647180747087
- JohnC May 4, 2024 at 10:37 am on Weekend 4th May 2024One thing I am certain of is that if Israel do blow up some civilians in Rafah, it will be...
- tomo May 4, 2024 at 10:33 am on Weekend 4th May 2024Malmo?, Eurovision songs? pfff.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68950907
- tomo May 4, 2024 at 10:30 am on Weekend 4th May 2024https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1786395357057859795
- tomo May 4, 2024 at 10:24 am on Weekend 4th May 2024Mendacious ? Nuts? Both? https://youtu.be/R-cUWeuYBb0
- Emmanuel Goldstein May 4, 2024 at 10:15 am on Weekend 4th May 2024We all are sick of the politicians saying things like “Lessons will be learned” and other stuff they keep coming...
- tomo May 4, 2024 at 10:08 am on Weekend 4th May 2024https://twitter.com/exRAF_Al/status/1786466725451411721
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Jeff | 17.10.08 – 12:04 pm
The Eastend also had high levels of antisemitism in the ’30s too, and coincidentally, if one visits Cable Street today, there’s more antisemites living there now than there ever was.
Actually there were practically none in the old days. In the battle of Cable Street, Eastenders, whether Jewish, Irish or English (and even a few Chinese), fought together against Mosley’s blackshirts, who weren’t locals but had been bussed in from up West.
@ Tom,
I’m afraid you’re wrong. I was born and bred in Bethnal Green, and my families’ linage goes way back there – Mosley had a huge following in the Eastend, especially in Stepney, Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Stoke Newington and the Limehouse area. That’s why the BUF held numerious meetings there. My mother, who was also BG born and bred talked about work colleges and neighbours being Blackshirts.
All of us here taking our time to expose and balance out bbc bias are doing something
Was it not interesting that one member of the panel appeared to equate voting for the BNP with Islamic extremism (that is, blowing up people in the name of religion). Does this represent a new high for the BBC of moral equivalence?
Geoff Hoon’s remedy for Islamophobia.
“We need to educate people on what Islam is about.”
Couldn’t agree more. He could start by receiving some of that education himself. Hugh Fitzgerald could help.
Although the comment that upset Roland Deschain and others may be grist to the mill of detractors of this site, nevertheless it has to be said that one thing that Islam is not is a ‘tolerant, understanding’ religion, or a religion of peace.
People who say it is are profoundly deluded and have let their desire for diversity, peaceful coexistence and wishful thinking cloud their judgment.
In my view.
Adam, by not paying my licence fee and NEVER posting here I would still be doing a hundred times more damage to the BBC than people like Martin.
Right, I’ve told you about this before. If you can’t play nicely you can come in and go to your room.
Kill the Beeb: You really are a troll. Oh I don’t pay my licence fee. Of course you don’t and we all believe you.
Islam is not a religion of peace. And neither is Christianity. Or Judaism. Or any religion for that matter. All religions are hateful. Let’s not just single out one for criticism. Islam is not unique for being a religion of violence.
Have you ever heard of Jainism, billybob?
Billybob:
Including secular atheism, which produces some of the most aggressive nutters around.
Islam is not unique for being a religion of violence.
billybob | 17.10.08 – 3:59 pm | #
You what? Have I missed something???
Trying to equate the menace of Islam with all other religion-based war-and-violence scenarios only shows you know less than you oughta.
You’ve got your knickers in a very big twist Sillybillybob, which only shows ignorance is obviously not bliss after all.
Sue: “Although the comment that upset Roland Deschain and others may be grist to the mill of detractors of this site, nevertheless it has to be said that one thing that Islam is not is a ‘tolerant, understanding’ religion, or a religion of peace.”
I personally think that it doesn’t have to be said, not here, unless it is related to the BBC. Hence the title of the site.
If the BBC shows a deference towards, or an uncritical acceptance of what is said by Islamic spokesmen or women, then we are well within our rights to discuss that, to highlight and criticise that partiality and that failure of journalistic standards; to point out the disparity between what Islamic spokespeople claim and the way Islam operates when it has power (and even when it does not), and to ask why the BBC is not capable of asking such fundamental questions on its £3.2bn budget, when Channel 4 can do so, the blogosphere does so, and you and I can too.
The comment that was highlighted above went way beyond that, makes us all look stupid, and to object to that level of brainlessness has nothing to do with political correctness.
There is, for example, so much that could be said in response to Billybob’s lazy, fashionable, and demonstrably inaccurate assertion above, but it has nothing to do with the remit of the site.
As an example of precisely the type of thing I was getting at, see for instance DV’s post today – in which he highlights the very selective way in which the BBC reports Iran’s decision to stop executing juveniles. Context is the least we can expect for the money we pay, and the BBC, as part of its steady drip of pro-Iranian anti-war campaigning, fails to give us that context, neglects to mention the other groups who are routinely imprisoned or executed under Islamic law in Iran. DV manages to highlight this and draw attention to it without resorting to the type of stupidity witnessed above in the parasite comment. He and I have had our disagreements, and no doubt will again, but that post illustrates exactly what we should be saying and how we should be saying it.
does that mean that our spies are woefully underesourced and ill-equipped , compared to say the NSA in the States?
archduke | 16.10.08 – 11:39 pm |
Yes.
I’m afraid you’re wrong.
Jeff | 17.10.08 – 1:28 pm |
I’m with you on this Jeff.
An uncle of mine (by marriage and now deceased) was a university lecturer and wrote several textbooks.
Prior to WWII he was one of Mosely’s Blackshirts. He even got my Gran to put up ‘Jews Out’ stickers.
When war broke out he got put in Pentonville. Then he was conscripted into the laundry section of the Pioneer Corps until the end of the war.
He then became a Liberal, then a socialist, then a communist, going back to the Liberals and finally settling on ‘humanism’.
To me he was a typical product of the metropolitan liberal elite. A highly educated and very intelligent man who was totally devoid of any common sense whatsoever.
The last time I saw Clare Short on QT (and that was a long time ago) she was as pissed as a fart.
Leary and belligerent. When someone in the audience vioced an opinion that was contradictory to her she sneered, “And what do you know about it?”
A revolting slag.
Clearly the BBC has taught billybob everything he knows.
henryflower | 17.10.08 – 5:09 pm
I’ll take your comments as a reprimand, but I think it is is misplaced.
An earnest remark on Question time, (that Islam is a tolerant and understanding religion) sparked this off. After all that is what Mr. Hoon said on Question time. On the BBC. It was unchallenged, of course. Furthermore, he stated that the remedy for curing Islamophobia was for everyone to educate themselves about Islam. I agreed, because I think that if he did the latter he would no longer believe the former.
The parasite remark may have been a sock puppet vehicle to discredit people like myself. Or it could have been a heartfelt expression of exasperation in reaction to the accepted P.C. tiptoeing around matters concerning Islam, from Jihad and Islamic extremism at one end, to moderate Muslims who would have us believe that the Koran is benign, peaceful and tolerant at the other.
Roland Deschain feared the parasite remark would discredit the whole site but might it be that he believes what another poster described as
“the time-honoured routine about ‘a perversion of Islam’.”
Having ‘educated myself’ a little bit about the subject I am less, not more reassured.
Since I don’t believe you are in favour of us being constrained by Political Correctness I would like to ask where you would draw the line on ‘speaking your brane.’
Those scientologists are scary buggers. Most muslims i know are lovely i must say.
Can i ask Sue whether you follow a religion? I think if one is non-religious it’s difficult to see that one religion is worse than another. Chrisitianity has at times in its history been barbaric. That it is less so today is down to secular ideals rather than any innate superiority.
whitewineliberal | 17.10.08 – 10:24 pm
Are you mad?
Can i ask Sue whether you follow a religion?
Hello. I am Sue. What is that strange question? Are you asking someone if you can ask Sue something or what?
You probably haven’t read any of Sue’s previous posts because she occasionally mentions that she is a secular Jew. Benign and non militant battalion, if you must know. If she hadn’t already ‘come out’ in that respect she may have said MYOB
Now you’ve made me talk about myself in the third person which I don’t usually bother to do.
The rest of your post makes very little sense to me. “If one is non-religious etc. etc….” it’s nonsense. Illogical and stupider that the stupidest thing I’ve ever read of yours…..I think if one is non-religious it’s difficult to see that one religion is worse than another.
Also, I have a feeling you don’t follow a religion either in which case by your very own logic how would you know so much about religions?
But there is a flaw in your logic.
You see, I learned to read. Now I have access to information in the form of words. If you join them together they sometimes mean something. If so, this can help you find things out. Isn’t that brilliant? I recommend it.
Back to your wine, now …Mushlimsh are lovely …your besht friends… yesh they are. Hic.
I forgot to mention something else I find unattractive about followers of Islam. That is, should they be devout enough and dutiful enough to carry out the advice of their spiritual masters, they would kill me and mine. Even if we hid behind a stone.
I am not religious. None of them have presented me with any good reason to believe them.
We should be concerned as much by the culture that comes with a religion as much as by the religion itself.
For example both the Bible and the Koran could be interpreted as being anti women. Mainstream Christian culture is now to give more or less equality to women. (we have a pope Benny it will be a long time before we have a pope Bernadete) Muslim culture is still to treat women badly.
Both Christianity and Islam have been described as peacful religions and both have gone to war.
But only Islam is likely to use a mentaly retarded bomber in a pointless attempt to blow up a restaurant. And the only doctors that are likely to try to drive a car bomb into an airport at the start of the school holidays are Muslim doctors.
Martin:
No I don’t pay my licence fee mate, never have, never would.
I’m a troll, you’re a hypocrite.
Sue – no reprimand intended, certainly not to you – I always enjoy your contributions and responded to what you said in a spirit of respectful conversation. If it came across as anything more unpleasant than that, that is entirely my own fault for not expressing myself clearly and I apologise if you felt reprimanded. Absolutely not my intention.
My problem is entirely with the parasites comment, and others like it, that often crop up here utterly without reference to the BBC. It is quite a different thing from the informed opinion you offer, based on learning, and in direct response to biased representation from the BBC. The parasite comment has nothing to do with informed and valid criticism of Islam. I know several muslims who are scarecely even nominal followers of their religion, a religion whose theology of warfare and whose institutionalised subjugation of women, gays, and non-believers is well known to me through long study; and there is a world of difference between engaging aggressively and firmly with the loathesome traits that Islam displays, and dismissing all muslims as parasites. It’s the language of The Eternal Jew.
And no, before anyone claims I’m soft on Islam, or equating modern muslims with the Jews of the Holocaust, no I’m not: I’m merely equating stupidity and malice with stupidity and malice.
Sue I hope that explains precisely where I stand, and apologies again if I came across as something more unpleasant than I intended.
henryflower | 18.10.08 – 6:37 pm |
I can’t speak for Sue, but I certainly would agree with your sentiments. But I would bet that none of the regular inhabitants made that parasite comment.
As you point out, one of the main criticisms used to dismiss this site is that we make and tolerate exactly that kind of comment. I see it as similar to that News Online Beeboid who stuck his head in once and said that he and his fellow Beeboids have discussed this site and mostly dismiss it out of hand because of homophobic remarks.
There are certainly enough angry people coming in here just to throw stink bombs who would be capable of making that parasite comment, just to see if anyone criticizes it. It’s a set-up. If we don’t say anything, it proves their point, and if we do they just cravenly disappear into the ether. Hell, they probably take the position that if every single person here doesn’t make a full statement of condemnation, that still proves we’re all evil bigots.
It’s possible for the site owner or a mod with access to check the IP of that commenter and compare it to the rest of us. It would take a little time to do, but it would prove a big point about this site and some of those who come in merely to fight.
Of course, I could be wrong, but there’s a simple way to prove it.
David Preiser, you may well be right. I guess that is always going to be the downside of a forum such as this. It’s the price we pay for open and anonymous comment. On that basis, maybe I over-react. Maybe I am over-cautious. If I am, it’s only because I – like almost all of us here – want this site to actually achieve something. By the way, I always learn something from your comments – keep em coming!
henryflower,
Thanks. I share your concern about the overall tone, and goals about commenting here. Most people here do, probably. I made a couple of comments along those lines a while back during a discussion about why BBC employees no longer engage here.
I just thought that particular parasite comment smelled funny, you know? Especially given the “you’re all BNP” or “you’re all Israel-Firsters” comments we see from time to time.
henryflower | 18.10.08 – 6:37 pm
Thank you for your kind words above. Perhaps I was being touchy It is a difficult one isn’t it.
I wrote the following before I saw David’s post above, and I see his point. But I have a slightly different take.
Recently people have been telling us what things they like about this blog.
We’re by no means a only load of right-wing bigots as our critics would have it. We get a wide variety of viewpoints due to the lightness of touch of the moderation. Self regulation works better than heavy-handed moderation where you get HYS.
Apart from sporadic collusion and prolonged two-way chatter, which I see as bunching, another good thing about B-BBC is the free flowing debate and other traffic analogies. I tend to see the parasite remark in terms of the cut and thrust of the freeflow, that also applies to some of the outrageously lefty and pro BBC comments we get. Diversity rules OK. 🙂
So I am in the process of making a ‘we are all parasites now’ placard.
Not really.
When Fights break out, reassuring back-up or support often materialises out of the ether. Some people always respond with good humour, and sometimes bizarre flare-ups occur without any warning. I even like that.
Another thing I actually approve of is the unsophistication of the site. Visual clarity, not all cluttered with ads and flashing things, and when Haloscan behaves normally it’s easy to post and preview without an interminable time lag. The background colour, though gross, is distinctive. We don’t need a huge buget to pay a designer to add more white space like the BBC did the other day.
I used to know about typography and I think the font and spacing adds gravitas to everyone’s comments. Even rambling ones like this.
David P,
I agree with you as well, it’s funny how we both used some of the same imagery to come to a different conclusion . You obviously enjoyed sparring with John Reith, otherwise you wouldn’t be calling him late lamented.
I used to say I thought this blog was pointless if it was entirely without Beeboid input, and I got short shrift for that if you remember. The majority said they couldn’t care less whether or not Beeboids joined in and one poster accused me of wanting to change the site to accommodate the BBC.
I certainly stand by my original point, because I would rather change the BBC than merely slag it off.
But if they are so dumb as to allow a few homophobic remarks to obscure or dismiss all the thoughtful reasoned ones, what hope is left for us all including the BBC?
I just think ‘that’s their excuse and they’re sticking to it.’
But if banning detrimental and discrediting comments really was a way to effect change at the BBC, I would be all for it.
Sue,
I will happily carry a placard that says “We’re all parasites now”.
I don’t know if “enjoy” is the right word for how I felt about debating with JR, but I admit that I learned a lot from his contributions here. He was never as crass when dealing with me as he was with others, but he always seemed to fight fire with fire when it came to that, and I usually kept the sarcasm at a moderate level. We got into it pretty heavily a couple of times, but there always seemed to be a modicum of respect. If he hadn’t been a Beeboid, I have to admit that I wouldn’t have been as respectful.
If nothing else, I thought it was really useful to hear what he would occasionally reveal about what went on in editorial meetings, the motivation behind certain things, and even when he inadvertently gave away the fact that there was a BBC Narrative on a couple of issues (like Social Cohesion and Mohammedans).
Similarly, I appreciate things like Sarah Jane’s correction about the BBC travel expenses issue not being worth complaining about. That was a useful insider perspective.
As I’ve said before, actual Beeboid engagement does lend credibility to the blog. Maybe that’s part of why nobody new has stepped into the breach. It’s also much more straightforward to debate a topic with someone who knows what goes on inside. Real discussions about reporting, analysis, and facts on the ground are possible, rather than just a bunch of “you want the BBC to be Fox News” retorts.
Every once in a while, I think even a Beeboid learned something, and I’m a firm believer in “ripples in the pond”. That’s how I viewed those discussions. Further, JR was defending the BBC, not necessarily a political viewpoint. Although, he did make his fair share of remarks in the “yer all BNP” vein, and I think he once suggested (only partially in jest, it seemed) that there was a paid Israel Lobby presence here. Ironic, I know.
In the absence of actual Beeboids, we’re left to debate with people who are here at least as much to argue partisan politics as defend the BBC, if not more so. That doesn’t really accomplish much.