Further to Robin’s post, The Sunday Programme, presented by pouting Suzanna Reid, further puts the boot into the Roman Catholic Church by asking the question “Is the Catholic Church obsessed by sex”? Surely it would be more accurate to ask if the BBC is obsessed by sex? It strikes me that the BBC is up in arms about any Institutions which promote Christian values and which, gasp, might even take the view that homosexuality is not the ideal life-style. Now I am not a Roman Catholic, and I am well aware of the imperfections of that Church and the tragic failures that surround serial child abuse, but the BBC is using this to advance its own insidious agenda which is about removing Faith and substituting it’s own secular anything goes agenda. The BBC would like to see the Pope arrested for “crimes against humanity” as one of the studio guests demanded, and I am certain that during the Papal visit the BBC will cheer-lead for the lunatic anti-Church fringe.
IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OBSESSED BY SEX?
Bookmark the permalink.
Stumbled from Marrshmallow to the fragrant Ms. Reid, and it came across more as ‘Is the BBC obsessed with homosexuality?’
Ok, it’s an aspect of society. Just not sure it’s one warranting the wall to wall coverage being shoved out 24/7.
Oddly, given all else around, the main thrust seems to be more on alleged (of which there are main doubtless accurate, proven and soon to be, so not excuses there) paedophilic abuses by errant men of god of one religious sect, and not so much on the whole clearly proven dangling from cranes thing from sanctioned leaderships of others.
Unique.
first thing I thought of when I heard the “obsessed by sex” line from nice-but-dumb eye candy Susanna was
pot
kettle
black
you can’t make stuff like this up
really
Increasingly for me, contact with the bbc leaves me feeling as though I have been projectile vomited over. Not a pleasant feeling.
Is the Catholic Church obssesed about sex? Not really as there is much, much more to Christianity of the Catholic persuasion than that.
Islam is immeasurably more up itself about sex and riddled with chauvinism.
I think that folk like Tatchell are obssesed with sex. Only he calls it gender. He’s always talking about sexuality. As does the BBC.
Most Catholics just want to get on with their lives. You know things like work, worrying about gran’s health, paying the bills.
Tatchell is clearly a very sad single issue individual of the type the bbc delight in projecting as the default position on an issue.
I look forward to someone who objects to islams’ regular stoning and flogging , not to mention routine genital mutilation of women getting the same exposure.
As someone who spent 20 odd years working in countries with muslim society , I am genuinely perplexed as to how the suposedly fearless & impartial journalists the bbc boasts of, colude in avoiding reporting these issues. Is it the old support the palestinians at any cost & don’t want a sacred cause of the left guilty by association, mentality ?
You’ll never get that on the BBC! Too scared.
“Tatchell is clearly a very sad single issue individual of the type the bbc delight in projecting as the default position on an issue.”
You’re talking about Peter Tatchell? Seriously?
Yes, the guy who tried to citizens arrest Mugabe, got beaten up by neo-Nazis in Moscow fighting for gay rights there, regularly condemns the treatment of women, gays, and dissidents in the Islamic world, and has a CONSISTENT view on human rights is just a single-issue individual.
But that doesn’t fit the idiotic “anyone who’s not heavily biased to the right is a screaming, mincing lefty communist student pinko” line, does it?
Idiot.
But he goes on about sex an awful lot, though, doesn’t he. Human rights for Peter is about sexual rights in all its many permutations.
Good for him.
What does he think about sex and Islam?
We know what he thinks about the Pope.
Islam is to be found outside your friendly, neighbourhood mosque. They would be only too pleased to explain their point of view.
Peter Tatchell supports sexual rights, yes. But as stated already he’s consistent.
Just one example of him criticising Islam’s attitude towards gays:
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/islamic.htm
The Islamic holy book, the Koran – deemed to be the word of God – unequivocally condemns male and female homosexuality as “transgressing beyond bounds”. Moreover, the Hadith, the collection of sayings attributed to the prophet Mohammed, calls for the punishment of homosexual acts, but does not state what the penalties should be.
Perhaps, given his clear concern, he might try a bit of research outside Boris Johnston’s house mosque. They are deobandi so they can be relied upon to give you a definitive answer from the fatwas.
I think it is important that Peter gets a move on (after the Pope flies home, natch)
He can’t be too concerned about it when he’s willing to deface a Christian Bible to support homosexual rights but was just on Newsnight a few days ago saying that there should be laws allowing the government to arrest someone for burning a Koran.
I do beg your pardon. And here was me thinking Tatchell was just a tiresome self publicist – which was entirely incidental to the main point of the post anyway.
Peter Hitchens on the ‘consistent’ Tatchell in today’s Mail
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/09/who-said-not-all-sex-involving-children-is-unwanted-and-abusive-answer-the-popes-biggest-british-cri.html
On another note – keep up the good work Biased BBC.
Not exposing “anti-Israel,” “anti-American,” “anti-military,” etc bias. I mean the good work as a flak machine ENFORCING “pro-Israel,” “pro-American,” “pro-military,” etc, bias.
You do Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model of media control proud.
Any possibility of debating a specific case, Phil? How can we tell if you’re right? You’re just insulting people from the start.
On this specific case, I did respond to the whole the but-what-about-ery by pointing out that Tatchell is consistent in his views. Which was my main point in commenting on this thread – most people respond to “bias” by arguing that the argument should biased against something they’re not particularly fond of over something they are.
The point about flak was a broader one. This blog, on the 9/11 post, claimed to not be political, but its choice of what it sees the BBC as biased against is coloured by its own bias.
In fact, I’ll place money on – even if the BBC were taken over by rabid, foaming far-rightists – we would never see “anti-Islam,” “anti-Palestine,” “anti-communist,” etc, as a tag. It’s not looking for impartiality – it’s looking for bias in its preferred direction.
Meanwhile, the BBC only has one bias. It’s the same one all of the mainstream media has: the bias in favour of established power.
Phil, your statement in defense of Tatchell shows that he is primarily focused on homosexual rights, which is the same thing people here are saying, isn’t it? I suppose one can make the case that he speaks out against regimes which have poor human rights track records in general, but they all have bad records on homosexual rights, so he’s really only criticizing these regimes on the other issues by association. If Iran was a homosexual paradise (officially and publicly, I mean, not behind closed doors), he wouldn’t be spending any time complaining about stoning women.
In fact, I’ll place money on – even if the BBC were taken over by rabid, foaming far-rightists – we would never see “anti-Islam,” “anti-Palestine,” “anti-communist,” etc, as a tag.
But isn’t this what so many people – including those at the BBC – accuse Fox News of being? Isn’t this what so many people think would happen if Rupert Murdoch ruled all of British media? If right-wingers took over the BBC, why would that have a different outcome?
It’s not looking for impartiality – it’s looking for bias in its preferred direction.
This is the age-old cry of the defender of the indefensible. Nobody here wants an exclusively right-wing biased broadcaster either. You will find no proof for your charge here. We want both points of view to be heard, and without the BBC’s editorial disparaging one side only.
Surely you can’t see the BBC as being biased in favor of the current Government? Or of the Bush Administration? Or of Mrs. Thatcher’s Government? Or do you define “established power” differently than we do?
Before answering the points made in David’s post, to clarify: I do not believe the BBC to be entirely balanced and impartial. I merely believe the bias to be of a different kind than that expounded on here.
Anyway…
If Iran was a homosexual paradise (officially and publicly, I mean, not behind closed doors), he wouldn’t be spending any time complaining about stoning women.
Well, if Iran was a “homosexual paradise,” I doubt they’d be stoning women. But that’s by-the-by. Tatchell spends a lot of energy on gay rights, yes, but the point I was responding to was the “why doesn’t he criticise Islam” charge, which I’ve seen elsewhere as well, which is a) based on a false presumption, and b) a classic case of but-what-aboutery.
I also believe it’s disingenuous to belive he only cares about other issues “by association.”
If right-wingers took over the BBC, why would that have a different outcome?
I’m not saying it’d be different to Fox News / The Daily Mail / etc. I’m saying that those so concerned about its bias now (with links to sky news in their navbar *cough*) wouldn’t be as demanding of “impartiality.”
You will find no proof for your charge here. We want both points of view to be heard, and without the BBC’s editorial disparaging one side only.
Reading the posts, and the right-wing perspective that Biased BBC clearly comes from, I don’t believe that to be the case.
As for hearing both sides – the implicit suggestion is that there are only two sides. If balance means hearing out the hawkish and dovish ends of the establishment, it still means only the establishment gets heard.
Surely you can’t see the BBC as being biased in favor of the current Government? Or of the Bush Administration? Or of Mrs. Thatcher’s Government?
Well, actually, yes. Again, accusations of being anti-*insert right-wing hobby horse here* are made, in the context of blogs and forums such as this, The Sun, etc, to ensure that the BBC remains biased in favour of said hobby horses.
Medialens have explored this point on more than one occasion, and here is just one example:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/09/091015_the_balance_of.php
the BBC and Peter Tatchell do believe in a god
but for them,their god is between their legs
and yes Phil-
you truly are a dick
for every lefty idiot like scottm you get rid of,you pick up another even bigger idiot like the one above
“Leftie disagwees wiv me – oy’ll call him a dick cuz his surname’s DICKens. Hyuck Hyuck.”
Thanks. Frome someone with such an intellect as yours, I’ll take that as a compliment. 🙂
Oh, and as you’re clearly in the dark about what I’m talking about – a flak outlet (such as this) is one that undertakes targeted efforts to discredit organizations they see as challenging the prevailing assumptions of established power and ensure others don’t fall out of line.
In other words, bias is okay as long as it conforms to the dominant framework.
take it as a compliment?
why don’t you take it up the arse instead like a good little lefty boy should
why you trolling here anyway?
the gay bars closed round your way today?
and don’t talk crap about intellect,you arrogant arsehole
Trolling? I read the post and put a comment. People do it all the time with blogs, I’m led to understand. As it was a relevant point I can back up, I can only guess you’re calling it “trolling” in an attempt to make an inconvenient opinion go away.
Clearly, with that last comment, my point about intellect stands.
“I read the post and put a comment” yep you have a point shame you started the name calling though bit off if you are here to make a point and start acting like a child!
Well, my apologies to Backwoodsman for calling him an idiot – I got a bit over-enthused on that one.
‘I got a bit over-enthused on that one.’
That does seem to happen a lot with new visitors who feel viewpoints that do not conform to theirs are, by definition ‘wrong’ viewpoints. Oddly.
Bit of a metaphor there, in fact.
Blunder in, feel out of comfort zone, start exploding in all directions.
Rebuffed, robustly, unsurprisingly, in kind, with flea in ear.
Sulk, regroup and return illogically trying to claim moral high ground by suddenly seeking things to be on a fairer, gentler basis. Having kicked the whole thing off.
Can’t think when that has happened before, or recently.
It’s a wonder there isn’t an ‘ism being invoked and a quango being called in as we speak.
But kudos for the concession.
Great analysis of the new poster blunderer phenomenon.
Very funny. 😀
This was the bit I didn’t understand – someone argued with you over a particular issue and you go into full rant mode.
“Not exposing “anti-Israel,” “anti-American,” “anti-military,” etc bias. I mean the good work as a flak machine ENFORCING “pro-Israel,” “pro-American,” “pro-military,” etc, bias.”
From one critism of an individual you can tell all that? Now that is what I call “liberal” thinking.
You just don’t get it, do you ?
Senior BBC people have stated many times that the BBC has a strong liberal bias.
We are mostly non-liberal – that is why we object to the long-standing bias. But we do not want the BBC to swing to our point of view – we simply want our point of view fairly reflected. And we want the BBC to get its facts straight, to stop with all the narrative stuff. We don’t want ANY bias.
But an unbiased BBC may be a chimera. The current bias is far too deeply ingrained.
In which case – many of us object to the forcible taxation to support the BBC. One of Britain’s great strengths is its pluralist press. I want a pluralist market in TV news. There may be “public broadcasting” case for some of the BBC’s output, but there is NO case for taxation to support its news operation.
And technology allows all the BBC’s output to be on the basis of subscription – either for all the output, or for the parts we choose to subscribe to. I don’t want to be forced to pay for the sort of Chomskian rubbish you appear to like. I am not forced to buy socialist newspapers – or any newspapers – I see nil moral case for forcing me to pay for a particular “news” service which in practice is riddled with bias and often very poor journalism.
I do have a question. Are the posts on this site automatically emailed to the relevant BBC journalist with a request that they respond to the points made?
It would be interesting to see if any of them would actually reply. I do think where journalists are named, e.g. Suzanne Reid, Robert Pigott, that they should be offered a right of reply.
any reply you would get would be couched in the language of “common purpose”,aka BBC newspeak
in other words-a pointless exercise
The BBC and its agents do actively read this site, as can be seen both from IP addresses and comments by the occasional de-lurker.
Some of them have actually commented here over a period of time and there have been extended periods of interesting and polite interaction on both sides. Some come to troll and disrupt. We welcome the former, but it takes all sorts to make a world.
Oh, a rebel with a cause. Your bias is dominant in your circles and you, of course, have broken through ideology to see the true nature of reality.
Do me favour.
Chomsky.
Get real.
I wonder if, and, sadly, fervently hope that the next undiscovered chunky asteroid doesn’t miss…
To answer your question…. they take an ever decreasing number of young men, and women, and they forbid then any contact with members of the opposite sex; they tell them that masturbation is a sin, and they expect them to live out their lives with only Jesus in thier minds.
Then they wonder that there are sex scandals.
When wee Von Smallhausen comes here as a , I hope he gets boo’d off the streets. He’s a wicked old man in charge of a wicked old organisation, and in this case King of a wicked old country. (State visit, not pastoral… ie, it’s political not about God.)
Jesus never needed to be a king; or to have a papal palace or two, or to own art and treasures worth a King’s ransom in the richest country on Earth.
You make some fair points, but is it the BBC’s place to espouse this opinion?
Is the BBC obsessed with bottom fun?
Dunno, Aunty. But here’s a better question: Why am I paying you – under threat of criminal prosecution – to indulge in your faggotry? Let’s get down to brass tacks here.
BBC on the Papal Visit
A marvellously unintentional quote from the priest:
…The key “don’t” for many people of course, is sex. There is currently some debate within the Catholic Church over whether celibacy is still an essential requirement for a priest.
But Kurt, who has had reationships with women in the past, says celibacy is essential to allow him to single-mindedly dedicate himself to the church.
“That doesn’t mean marriage and children aren’t attractive to me, just that I also feel I can better serve the world as a spiritual father to many people, that’s what God has in mind for me,” he explains.
Not helpful…
At least Peter Tatchell has the courage to stand up for his beliefs, he is a brave man IMHO, I wish more people from the right had his drive and had the courage of his convictions, he sees hypocrisy and spite and cruelty and he protests and he will take take a beating in pursuit of his beliefs.
He may come from the left but he has my utmost repect as a human being and a courageous individual.
I think the right could do well to take lessons from his kind of bravery and direct action. Tatchell is one of my heroes and thought we are enemies in a political sense we are allies in a humanistic sense.
Peter Tatchell, who really seems to stand up for what he believes in, may well have strong opinions on homosexuality and islam.The problem is would the bbc ever give him a platform to express them?
“a flak outlet (such as this) is one that undertakes targeted efforts to discredit organizations they see as challenging the prevailing assumptions of established power and ensure others don’t fall out of line.”
Forgive me for finding your terminology a little opaque (perhaps because I don’t read Marxism Today?) but are you seriously suggesting that the BBC “challenges the assumptions of prevailing power”?!
The BBC is “the prevailing power”. It’s a £3.7 billion p.a. mouthpiece for the establishment – which, in case you haven’t noticed, is no longer the Colonel Blimps and Sir Humphrey Applebys of this world (all long dead), but the sixties-generation lefties grown all old and grumpy.
And as for “ensuring others don’t fall out of line” – are you joking?! If you don’t like what people say here, don’t visit the site. We don’t charge a £145.50 p.a. tax and prosecute those who won’t pay because they don’t like our opinions.
Forgive me for finding your terminology a little opaque (perhaps because I don’t read Marxism Today?) but are you seriously suggesting that the BBC “challenges the assumptions of prevailing power”?!
Nope. I agree with you when you say that the BBC is “a £3.7 billion p.a. mouthpiece for the establishment.” But that mouthpiece pretends to impartiality, and the right/hawkish end of the establishment (particularly Murdoch’s lot) are keen to ensure that they don’t veer to close towards genuine impartiality.
That’s what the flak is for. As long as the accusations fly from all comers – i.e. accusing the BBC of being biased unless it is openly biased towards the establishment, the military, imperial interests, etc, etc – in order to keep that impartiality in check.
In reality, the demand for “balance” means that journalists can say pretty much what they like in favouring powerful interests, but they will be severely castigated for losing “balance” when they criticise the wrong people.
For example – it is not “biased” to suggest that Britain and America are committed to spreading democracy around the world, but it is “biased” to suggest that they are responsible for crimes in the Third World.
In short, the demand for “balance” is a weapon of thought control – it is a way of policing and enforcing bias in media performance.
Hey Tristan,
Thanks for the anti-Catholicism! Beat up on Benedict all you want, I don’t care. At least his church doesn’t suck the public teat the way the Church of England always had. For hundreds of years my ancestors had to tithe a church they didn’t adhere to. And as someone who is part German, I don’t appreciate that put-down either. You are the sort of person who thinks that all civilization ends at the East end of England, aren’t you?
‘The BBC’s Jon Donnison in Ramallah says there has been an increase in rocket fire from Gaza in the past week, although it is nearly always ineffectual.’
Here we go again. Ineffectual rockets. Just don’t run into shelters they won’t ever hit anything says the BBC man.. What an idiot.Nearly always ineffectual = sometimes very effectual.
Any rocket can kill and firing at random towards civilians is, prima facie, a war crime.
I sometimes wish one of those “ineffectual rockets” would land on the heads of BBC people. Then they might change their views a little.