I’m sure you’ll all be sorry to hear that our old friend Scott Matthewman of luvvie paper The Stage has just about had enough of us:
Well Scott, nutty as it can sometimes get here, at least we don’t look at Islamofascist terrorists and think, “Hmm, fancy a bit of that!”
“Do me like I’m hundreds of innocent New York civilians, Faisal. And then cut my throat like the bitch I am.”
Shame they arrested him eh Scott? Still, there’s always Greg Gutfeld’s bar to look forward to.
What a wuss !!
The naievty of the ScotM type is breathaking. I would like to be there when he told this radical islamist that he fancied him.
Having just read some of the Tweets I’m still amazed an adult (who isn’t in a care home) actually watches those TV shows !
Yo Scott, If you’re still reading, sorry to hear about your blood pressure and all the idiocy here. If you’re still desperately seeking Faisal, I’m sure his associates can put Aylesbury on their map while he’s away. Enjoy XFactor!
An off thread snippet. Caught my attention trawling through the Gulf Press.
The virulence of anti-semitism in the Arab World is crude and omnipresent. On this occasion Mubarak’s office had the courtesy to remove the disgraceful item from one of his party’s house journals-
But look at the reaction of the Brazilian tosspot who submitted the deeply insulting slur. No doubt he is a soulmate of the self-styled activists of the Jihadi convoy.
PS I think that the regional powers that be have decided that peace convoys are not a good idea. One left a month ago and hasn’t been heard of since sailing….en route to Cyprus six weeks ago and then….?
CAIRO, June 29, (RTRS): The Israeli embassy has sent a complaint to the newspaper of Egypt’s ruling party about a cartoon that linked Israel and Nazis, an unusual step from a mission that tends to ignore its Egyptian media critics.
Al-Watani al-Youm (the National Today) published a cartoon on June 15 showing an aid ship apparently bound for Gaza being grabbed by an octopus carrying an Israeli flag with a Nazi swastika in place of the Star of David symbol.
The weekly is the mouthpiece of President Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party.
“The Israeli Embassy chose to comment on this caricature specifically because of the comparison between Israel and Nazism,” spokeswoman Shani Cooper-Zubida told Reuters.
“There are a lot of anti-Semitic comments and caricatures in the Egyptian media that we prefer not to comment on. This one didn’t present legitimate opposition to Israeli policy, but defamation,” she said in an emailed response.
The cartoonist, Carlos Latuff, a Brazilian, said in an email to Reuters: “The Israeli ambassador could show the same interest, that he shows for my cartoons, for the lives of the activists lost in the Freedom flotilla.”
“Allegations of anti-Semitism are a well-known strategy of the Israeli government and its supporters in order to neutralize any criticism against the Israeli apartheid. These malicious allegations will not prevent me keeping on making my cartoons on behalf of the brave Palestinian people,” he added.
Egypt in 1979 became the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, but ties have often been chilly. The storming of a Gaza aid flotilla in May by Israeli forces in which nine activists died drew Egyptian and world criticism.”
byeScott :'(
you complete knobend 😛
Scrottm will be sorely missed I’m sure. Who is he again?
Generic gay leftie twat.
Scott darling lube up your bum, I’m sure we can arrange for you to be bitch banged by some rag heads.
Do the big bushy beards turn you on?
What’s The Stage? Never mind – it’s not important.
I wonder how David Preiser is getting on. Best wishes today.
Never heard of this ‘man’ before but it sounds like a very sad and pathetic freak!
AM, he’s an arsehole (lover) who trolled this site.
Wonder if Scotty boy did “unsubscribe” before this post was published?
If not, It’ll do nothing for his blood pressure, perhaps he’s already “exploded” (we can but dream)…But it links him in nicely to BBC ideology, and the compulsory specification that all beeboids are gay.
There again, wouldn’t he have to “Revert” to play with Shahzids Islamic hardware?
I believe the Muslim saying is “A woman is for babies, but a beeboid is for pleasure”
tara moonbat
As an avid twitter user, it is becoming apparent that those who feel the need to cite their employer to gain some sad, reflected credibility their individual situation would not warrant… and then has to set themselves apart for fear of any connection being inferred… is a tad pathetic.
Also for the person these organisations seem content to represent them.
Bye scrot 😛 thanks for helping to drop the idiot quota to an all time low of 0 by leaving 🙂
Dunno, wasn’t ScottM the guy who was banned by David Vance – unreasonably I thought since he occasionally made valid points and was polite in his arguments?
(Sorry to put the proverbial spoke in the wheel here.)
TrueToo
Yes, I did ban him. One of my best decisions! 😀 He was an obnoxious and offensive commentator. That said, the Tweets spotted by DB indicate he was much worse than even I thought?
But DV, I always felt he presented such well constructed, balanced arguments:-
Nice to see the pathetic conspiracy theorists at Biased BBC are taking time out from being racist, xenophobic morons to read my tweets… hace cerca de 10 horas vía Twitter for iPhone
Wow – that link should have a warning alert. 😀 Scotty was a nutter and he continues to demonstrate that.
“racist, xenophobic morons” eh?
Ah the New Labour mindset. Still alive and well, and living in Sottys fantasys.
Wonder if Ed Balls is “Hot Looking” in Scotty boys opinion?
David – define “offensive and obnoxious”. Particularly, if you could, explain how I’m somehow much worse than the abuse you and your cohorts have flung in my direction in the past, much of which is visible in this thread.
Or you could, as you’ve done in the past, evade the question, write me off as a “troll”, delete comments that make fair and reasonable points that happen to disagree with yours or point out mistakes (remember your 8 out of 10 Cats incident?) and give the impression that you’re somehow respectable, professional and never, ever wrong.
Scott, basically you seem t’ve misread the situation. Here, for a very rare moment, people get to vent their disagreement with the behemoth that is the BBC. You think that such free speech is intolerable and so do your best to trip it up and diminish it. Can you be surprised when this trollish behaviour meets with a barrage of contempt? Normal people understand when they are not wanted and adapt or disappear. However certain very spoilt people think they are entitled to dictate the views expressed everywhere and everytime they happen to stick their nose in.
I had a dog once who insisted in exploring every place and every thing she saw, mainly because she was a greedy little bitch. Among the funniest and most educational things I’ve seen was when she tried that with an electric fence. Priceless look on her face. Loved that dog.
“You think that such free speech is intolerable and so do your best to trip it up and diminish it.”
Thank you SO much for telling me what I think and why. How useful! It’s a complete pack of lies, of course, but what price the truth when you can attempt to besmirch someone’s character by just making something up?
If you can demonstrate that I think free speech is intolerable, please do so – or apologise.
But maybe let’s not go into the concept of “free speech” on a site where Vance deletes posts that point out where he’s not expressed an unpopular opinion, but has plain and simply got things wrong, and allows posts to be written about a person who he does everything in his poweer to deny a right of reply. I’ve had to jump through various technical hoops here just to comment on a post that’s about me. Do you really think that’s fair?
You don’t think that free speech is intolerable per se. You think that free speech is acceptable, but only when it suits your own political leanings, and woe betide anyone who dare disagree with you.
Or indeed I may add, (to quote Mark Thompson) your beloved “left wing” BBC …
Socialism in a nutshell..
And well done for reintroducing the term “xenophobic” to my consciousness . Never heard that allegation since New Labour lost power..
Timely reminder not to vote Labour!
“You don’t think that free speech is intolerable per se. You think that free speech is acceptable, but only when it suits your own political leanings, and woe betide anyone who dare disagree with you.”
So, in a nutshell (a) Ed Thomas is wrong – thanks for the agreement, if nothing else; but (b) you’ve made the same mistake he has, of assuming he knows what I think better than I do myself.
Do you realise how those sort of statements can be applied to the likes of David Vance, but with post upon post of supporting evidence on this very site to justify such a claim? Or is hypocrisy too hard to spot when it’s staring you in the face?
Quick correction – when I said “assuming he knows what I think”, I of course meant, “assuming you know what I think”. Sorry.
If you actually make a valid point, then I for one will agree with you, and wont be afraid to go against others, who have differing ideas to what I may be thinking.
However, as your calling us all – and I quote: “racist, xenophobic morons”, you kind of defeat your own logic, in telling me not to assume that I know what YOUR thinking.
What brand of Vaseline do you use Scott?
I wasn’t judging from your words but your actions. You come screaming girlishly into a debate with all the weapons of political correctness, errm, blazing. You love trying to pin some or other phobia on commenters. You think we should be held to the same standards that we wish the BBC upheld, when it’s not generally the position of people here that the BBC just needs to brush up its standards to their taste. The people here generally don’t like the power of the BBC as it is undergirded by their money and those of friends and relatives. Imagine how much one’s extended family “donates” to the Beeb each year.
So you misrepresent, you imply dishonesty and your tone is disrespectful. All of which is ok except that, well, in that case why are you here on this site if you dislike it so much? You only want to disrupt proceedings, which is why I say that you are a troll. Trolls often have a deepseated ideological reason for disruption, or possibly a personal one. In your case I suspect it’s your total emersion in luvvie-BBC-friendly culture. It’s reasonable speculation based on your tone, your attitudes, your self-description, and the fact that you can’t keep from squealing about us.
I think you have hit it on the head there Ed !
For the last 30 or so years Scott and his ilk have controlled the MSM. No opposition to their attitudes was allowed and access was carefully controlled. Then along comes a new medium which can be used by anyone. All of a sudden Scott comes to the realisation that the last 30 years propaganda by his class has actually had bugger all influence on the thoughts and attitudes of 90% of the populace !
Oh well Scott back to dreaming about Islamic terrorists on Strictly Come Dancing.
Yo Scott, It’s David’s blog — he can do what he wants on it. It’s not public property. Cheers
Scott,
Please “Revert” to Islam for the love of Faisal Shahzad. You never know you might be in there if you play your cards right.
And You for one, would look far better in a burka and nijab.
Here you go, Scott…… try this, this, this and this …… oh……and just for luck, try this…..
Got a hard-on yet, you Muslim-appeasing-loving, Lefty cunt? >:o >:o >:o >:o >:o >:o
TWAT!
Seems against the flow, B-BBC got a plug from guido (order-order) site last week. I beleive this is one of the most viewed political sites in the country.
Faisal and Scott sitting in a tree k i s s i n g
Scott
Thanks for taking time out from your fantasies about the Times Square bomber to ask me a question. I suggest you review the comments you have left here in the past and then you will have answered your own question as to what constitutes “offensive and obnoxious”.
I do remember Scott becoming rather unhinged in a previous thread. I dont know if that is what depribed us of his eccentric presence?
“I suggest you review the comments you have left here in the past”
You mean the ones you deleted because they pointed out that you were being less than accurate in your reportage? Have you restored them?
I suspected he was a cackpipe cosmonaut from the first troll posting he made here
That Scott idiot is like a walking leftist stereotype.
scott, u get a hard on for muslim terrorist’s u sick fuck,
u said u wasn’t comming back to this site, do us all a favour and fuck off back to camp moonbat ya big eared muppet
Nice to see that The Beebinator has a much better handle on what’s not offensive in the eyes of the Biased BBC moderators!
Let me see if I can get this right: call into question the factual accuracy of a post = offensive; use the f-word multiple times, berate someone’s appearance = not offensive.
I’d suggest there were double standards at work here, but that would imply any standards at all…
Yo Scott, You still struggling to grasp the difference between public and private property ?
It’s David’s site, and as moderator he can do what he likes. People come here of their free will, and David doesn’t owe you or anyone else anything.
“People come here of their free will, and David doesn’t owe you or anyone else anything.”
Fair enough. But if he wants to be respected in the wider world, he’ll need to be a little more consistent, and demonstrate that he actually belives in the principles he demands from others. It’s a little tough to be taken seriously as an upholder of truth and honesty when his actions give off the impression of the exact opposite.
Yo Scott, Don’t think David or anyone needs your advice on how to be more respected in the wider world !
So you appoint yourself Custodian of Respect? Or is that just a personal attack, thinly disguised as concern for the wider world and someone’s standing in it?
Scott dear boy, someone earlier made a smashing point about your hypocrisy in complaining people claim to know what you think after you’d branded everyone hear ‘racist and xenophobic’. I do seem to remember you were ever so ever so selective in what points you chose to address. Rather then ever admit you were wrong or inconsistent about anything, you would just dodge the facts if they went against you and go on to accuse everyone else of what you are guilty of. That lacks style.
Yo Scott, One more thing.
The BBC is a broadcaster and disseminator of news which enjoys effectively mandatory public funding. It employs vast numbers of people and carries a strict mandate and responsibility not to show bias.
David runs a private site which analyses cases of perceived bias in the BBC’s reporting. He’s not a news service. Unlike the overstaffed and overpaid BBC, the site is privately funded and relies entirely on the contributions of volunteer individuals. The constraints on David’s time are enormous.
2 people here say you are usually polite in your postings here. Having taken a look back at your postings, I can’t say you always are.
So as far as I’m concerned, whatever David may have done in response to some of your posting — BIG DEAL.
Making out that this somehow undermines David’s consistency across the massive output on this site or that he needs to `demonstrate he actually believes in the principles he demands of others’ is just troll bullshit.
Meow!
Scott please excuse me if i have offended you, but u make my blood boil, im sure u know the feeling. As a former squaddie, friends of mine are now dead because of terrorist scum that u get a hard on for.
so please excuse me if i sound like i want to punch you teeth so far down your thoat the dentist would have to extract them from your arse hole, but i view u as a fifth columnist, and your head should be hung on traitors gate u big eared muppet
Coming to a site and goading and sneering at posters betrays a hostile attitude which conveys the message that one’s purpose is not the sincere expression of views and an honest wish to discuss the topic at hand. Hence the description of troll and trolling.
Ahem, speaking for myself only here but I rather enjoyed some of Scotts posts.
I know this may annoy many but I even though I disagreed with him sometimes I found him to be on the whole polite and dare I say interesting and intelligent. We come from a different school of thought but I respect his views and his opinions, they are not mine but through communicating with him I honed and perfected my skills(such as they are) and anyone who takes the time to show me errors and mistakes in my positions earns them my respect.
I hope Scott keeps posting here, we learn by interacting with those who hold opposing views, we evolve and refine our arguments and positions with dialogue not blackballing.
Yes I know that I am the odd one out and I may well be wrong but my tuppence worth is out there now 😀 .
Cass.
I happen to agree with you. Although Scott’s views seem diametricaly opposed to me and the majority who come here, the fact that opposing views are allowed are a healthy indication of Un-biased debate.
Like Voltaire, I would fight to the death for Scott’s right to free speech, no matter how offensive it may be to my ears.
I also agree that Scott is usually polite.
BUT the whole point of this site is that the BBC does NOT allow freedom of expression or speech, only its censored left vision of the World, and actively campaigns for causes it likes (in other words, leftie causes) which is in breach of its charter for failing to be impartial or balanced.
So I say, let Scott have his say, and in return I ask Scott to fight for a fair, balanced and truthful BBC.
You can’t get fairer than that, eh?
Give me Scott any day rather than drive-by snipers who post one innuendo-filled remark and disappear for good.
Scott, at least you ‘engage.’ Drop that you-know-what with DV and we can move on. You’re quite cyberbrave, coming here and getting savaged. I wouldn’t want to do it. I commend your indefatigability sir.
I’ll probably regret saying that.
I don’t agree with Cassandra or Manfred on the point about being polite.
I also don’t agree with some of Cassandra’s views from time to time. Same is true of other posters here. But it’s not just a matter of the views held. It’s how the poster conducts himself. His post at 16 03 is an example of his manner: he resorts to insult.
Does Scott do irony? Readers will have noticed that he has been allowed to comment here just as every other visitor. Gosh, I’m so draconian….
“Readers will have noticed that he has been allowed to comment here just as every other visitor.”
So you promise to revoke every IP block that you’ve previously imposed so that I don’t have to jump through hoops to post here, David?
Scott, you really do need to get a grip of yourself.
Of course I have noticed that no one seems to like what you have to say, and I am at a complete loss to understand what you are on about, but a word to the wise, have a lie down before your next post.
Scott M, if you had a track record here of successfully defending the BBC against our charges of bias that was better than 2 out of 100, I’d make an effort to defend you. But you think correcting one typo and one misreading of something in one or two incidents by one of us proves that the entire site is bogus and that there is no bias at the BBC, ever.
You never admitted when you were wrong. You mostly waited for the lowest of the lowest hanging fruit to pounce on, then cry triumph as if that proved 100 other cases at the same time.
Worst of all, while I realize that you only came here because you wanted to defend yourself against a gratutious, insulting post, why have you kept a feed from this site at all? It makes no sense. Or did one of your fellow defenders of the indefensible alert you to it after you deleted the feed?
Still, if we’re all so pathetic, prove nothing except that we’re evil, why bother? I don’t think it makes you look very good to come here having told your friends that you still keep a feed so you can laugh at us and make you feel better about yourself every day. I honestly don’t understand why you would have bothered to keep up to date on anything we say here, unless it’s out of anger or some pyschological need.
“a gratuitous, insulting post”
I was responding in kind, and make no apologies.
Okay, I see what you mean.
DP, You’ve got his MO down to a T. Nice one.
But Scott, jumping through hoops might help you take your mind of your alleged Jihad fantasy figures. End of.
David, four points
1) close this string down – it is only feeding Scotts vainity and serving no other purpose
2) I thought Scott had publically flounced out and couldn’t stand us xenophobic morons
3) His point about offensive language is valid
4) We should welcome the posts of halfwitted socialist fellow travellers – there is no point in us all agreeing violently. The leftists need ro realise that there are millions who do not agree with them and that support for the left lib orthodoxy is not axiomatic.
Actually his points about language and moderation aren’t valid.
This site has an element of self-moderation, in that hitting the “Flag” option gives any reader the option to report a comment as offensive. More than a certain number of Flags (from unique IPs) and the comment goes into hidden moderation (ie will need to be approved to reappear).
It’s interesting that free speech here is flowing to the extent that not a single comment has been reported by anyone.
ASE:
It’s interesting that free speech here is flowing to the extent that not a single comment has been reported by anyone.
——————-
Haha! That’s hilarious. I love it. 😀
Please dont close down this thread, its really amusing!
Also makes it son of Nic R,whose BBC threads are rapidly getting to the point where they close before double digits, or within minutes, if things go ‘off narrative’.
Which, considering the novel ‘takes’ most BBC correspondents have on issues, doesn’t take too long.
No restitution of every previous post demands likely to fly chez Aunty, I’d hazard. And in fact the robust tonality used by this returning blunder blogger would, I suspect, not make it past the moderation used there.
So as a stout comparative defence of relative freedoms of speech, I think it a fair case of ‘when in hole… provide more rope’.
Is it just me, or is suspected Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad kinda hot looking?
Apart from the obvious, which has already been commented upon, the man is a little bit more than a suspect.
Asked by Judge Cedarbaum if he was sure he wanted to plead guilty, he launched into a statement, saying he wanted “to plead guilty and 100 times more”.
He said he wanted to let the US know that if it did not get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop drone attacks and meddling in Muslim lands, “we will be attacking US”.
Shahzad, 30, who wore a white skull cap, told the packed court: “One has to understand where I’m coming from. I consider myself… a Muslim soldier.”
Can I suggest that Scott, or anyone else, resorting to insulting other posters is not an excuse for others to descend to that level. Frankly it doesn’t reflect well on the site. If I were a first time visitor who came here having been cheesed off by something on the BBC I would look at a thread like this and not come back.
Roland
Scott specialises in baiting and others rise to it. I suggest that this thread now closes shop. It has exhausted the original (well made) point by DB.
Agreeing with much that Roland has expressed, and appreciating your concerns, it seems a sad, if apt metaphor for the era that that the words of a small minority can see such an action being considered the only viable alternative. Now, whose aims get served more then?
Anyone who interprets the words or deeds of one individual as representative of others on an independent blog (‘My views are not representative of BBBC’ is hardly necessary, unlike those caveats many who do get easily excited have to scatter about their opinion pages by needing to invoke the warm bosom of their employers and work chums for warm fuzzies), especially if conveniently ignoring them to focus on getting ‘outraged’, usually suggests either a lack of common sense that would not be missed should any not return, or a dogmatic tribal stance that is also unlikely to contribute… or change much.
It’s a blog. Things can get robust. So moderation is a fine line. I’d say weighing in with ‘You are all..’ and little else could qualify as a fair reason for being disinvited PDQ, but if the door is left ajar then what ensues is hardly surprising.
i’ve always been keen on a ‘rage thread’ option, where for freedom of speech the site owner can re-assign clearly emotive stuff to an opt-in side-view zone where master baiters, trolls and those who like to joust with them can go and explode in the desert together.
Don’t know if the tech exists, but this could be via anything from owner tolerance or when a certain number of flags get tripped.
Don’t close it down, this is a great play area for us with Scott.
Hmmm, skating quickly through the thread and looking at ScotM’s responses here I’m wondering if it’s the same ScotM I noticed making a couple of polite and not invalid points re BBC bias many, many moons ago.
If it is, he’s deteriorated.