Right then. B-BBC has been gaining an increasing amount of media attention with more and more people realising that we provide an invaluable daily guide to the bias of our State Broadcaster. With the Daily Mail and places like Conservative Home also paying attention, I do think it is important that all who comment here ensure that they use language that does not leave the site open to criticism for being vulgar and just a wind-up.
You and I know we are serious people doing our best to expose the bias rampant in the BBC. Crude words and vulgarity does not help us in any way. I’m asking you PLEASE to keep the comments as family friendly as possible as otherwise we reduce the impact of the site.
I am also making you aware of the fact that there are those out there who wish this site ill. In recent days we are aware of attempts by certain parties to discredit this site. Do not help them by adding irrelevant vulgarity. We will deal with them behind the scenes.
Many thanks for your co-operation.
I agree with all of that. It is so easy to create a wrong impression and lose the valid point of a comment when it is couched in …er… too “colourful” language.
I agree totally with this post. Let’s not give our enemies ammunition to use against us. Keep the language strong but clean.
Also, every time there is a Gay Pride event or celebration, the BBC doesn’t write news articles that focus on notorious cases of homosexual child abuse – such as the Scottish homosexual campaigner and adopter – rather than on the celebration event itself.
Hell yeah, what about all those millions of sickos who bought Garry Glitter records in the 70’s just to subsidise his wig and degenerate pedo’ lifestyle. Why haven’t they been locked up?
Glitter’s paedophilia was not public knowledge at the time that his records were released in the early 70s.
And Michael Jackson fans are equally guilty.
I agree David – often people who have no answer for their bias counter the argument with how it was said rather than what was said.
Could we all keep comments to their appropriate threads please? This one has no relevance in here, for example…
Yes, Sorry. I only realised after I had responded that this topic is in the wrong thread. :-[
PS: Can the site admin move comments to the right thread?
If you pay too much heed to your detractors, and thus play by their rules, then where are the likes of Martin to go with his blue toned mockery? Different people bring differing thoughts and energy to this blog, that’s why it’s gaining readership and attention.
Remember that Derek Draper played a similar game with Guido Fawkes last year, for the Socialist elite, and yet where is he now?
Along with New Labour……
I find Martin posts better when he refrains from … ‘language’. Still, I guess one must always show more latitude to an ex-squaddie.
I see the shooting dead of an innocent hamas commander in the west Bank is still occupying the top spot on the bBCs Middle Eastern quasi-news web site;
Israeli forces kill West Bank Hamas commander
According to Palestinian reports, the brother of the Hamas militant was forced to lead the Israeli soldiers to the house Shilbaya was staying in. The brother is reported to have said that the militant was shot three times while asleep and his body taken away by the soldiers.
And in which to substantiate that claim the bBC show a picture of blood on a mat.
Funny enough the Palestinian News agency has a different version of the story;
The slain man’s brother who said he was abducted by Israeli forces and commanded to identify Iyad’s home, said he heard Iayd say three times, “who’s there?”, words followed by three gunshot wounds.
Funny how sleeping hamas commanders can ask questions while asleep?
If BBC “journalists” actually covered this conflict with their eyes open, rather than shut by their prejudices, they would have noticed that the Israelis don’t shoot Palestinian terrorists in their sleep, they arrest them if they are not resisting.
I note that way down in the article the BBC gives the Israeli version of events – that he was shot because he came towards them, ignoring orders to stop. The propagandists at the BBC know very well that a lot of people don’t read the full article in these times of the short attention span.
Well Dez, You make a valid point, however because Gary Glitter comes from a working class background the liberals of the world would never defend him like they would say Roman Polanski or even like how almost 2 billion people of a certain faith would and still do defend their founder for marrying a six year old child.
P.S
I still have a few Gary Glitter records records. Bit nowadays I prefer to listen to..Jazz
So here I am with a cup of hot lime juice ready to hit the sack and I stumble across this picture essay from the bBC about Yom Kippur.
It seems that just as the bBC believes that all school children are coloured, that all Islamic terrorists are innocent victims and that the Pope is evil incarnate they also presume that the only Jews who celebrate Yom Kippur are Orthodox Jews who are all weird , do really silly things and thus need to be removed from this earth.
When was the last time you saw a Photo essay about Muslims hitting themselves with knives? Seeing as there are around 190 million Shia Muslims on the planet (As opposed to around 18 million jews of which less than a 1/4 are orthodox) there is much more scope in which to find a Muslim covered in blood than to find a jew whipping another. But hey this is the Pro Islam, Anti everybody else bBC I am talking about.
I will reply shortly on the Open Thread
What discredits this site are things like my own mistake on the thread below, which I hope I’ve dealt with appropriately, and bullying, which is when millions of people mercilessly savage a slightly dissenting voice. I don’t mean a defender of the indefensible btw, I mean someone who just sees things differently.
As far as swearing is concerned, sometimes it adds impact, sometimes not. If in doubt, leave it out. That’s my motto.
As far as sticking to thread topics is concerned — let’s do it!
There are plenty of Open Threads. We must keep them visible.
Although I appreciate any attention paid by the Daily Mail and Conservative Home, it’s the BBC that I hope to reach.
Go on. Savage me.
Yep, poor Johny Beeb doesn’t know what he’s doing. Its the way he was brought up. He needs a good social worker and than he’ll stop being so biased. It’ll come in time. .. Johnny Beeb is an overgrown spoilt brat who needs a good hiding – an adult version, of course.
I agree – leave the coarse language to the Guardian.
This is something I mentioned before on the subject of language interfering with the message:
When it became known that they were planning a crescent design for the 9/11 flight 93 memorial, a regular on littlegreenfootballs* wrote a long, passionate and well-argued letter to whoever, I forget, insisting they rethink the design. Before sending it he posted it on the site to get feedback. I complimented him on it but pointed out that a few times he had used the word “cretins” to describe the members of the planning committtee, I think it was. I felt that weakened his argument, whether or not they were in fact cretins. He disagreed and stuck to his version.
Another aspect of the debate is when you say f*ck this and f*ck that on a continual basis it loses its impact and meaning. And it definitely does give ammunition to those who would discredit the site.
*This, of course, was in the days when littlegreenfootballs was strongly right wing and a powerful defender of America against all those who would destroy her from without and within. These days it has turned into a meeting-ground for the left and Johnson himself into a petty and intolerant ideologue of the left. The transformation was quite remarkable.
Yes, to use the word cretins once is unfortunate, but to use it several times is positively careless. Lady Bracknell wouldn’t say the other one you allude to.
How about Mong? Would you say that gives anyone ammunition?
I don’t think individual words are right or wrong. It’s the context dear boy. Martin is Martin and long may he mong.
So according to that, it depends on who is using the words? Sorry, but it doesn’t work like that.
Not just who is using them. For example if a swearword is used because the writer is lazy, it will dilute his argument and make his point less effective. On the other hand one can be extremely offensive without using a swearword.
Gordon Ramsay isn’t allowed to utter anything on air without at least severalty f*cks per second. It’s in his ****ing contract.
Whereas you or I just wouldn’t get away with it.
How can I properly be an Internet Tough Guy if I can’t swear?
Whilst I don’t consider myself a prude I had noticed that the language of comments on this site was becoming more ‘choice’. References to a physical description of the homosexual act is unnecessary in all but exceptional circumstances. I stopped reading Guido some time ago because most of the comments had become sexual inuendo and nothing about politics. I am pleased that DV and the others who run the site won’t let that happen. Thank you to all of you for your good work.
Dunno, had to look up the definition.
Mong: Slang for spastic, but used against a person who says or does something completely idiotic by accident or without realisation.
Question is, would Martin still be Martin if he didn’t rant and wax explicit re various orifices belonging to various people?* And if he would not be Martin, and therefore less effective a soldier in the battle against BBC bias, would it perhaps be better not to insist that he stifle his natural mode of expression?
*Reminds me of a South African joke:
<i>A lost tourist arrives at the tiny one-horse town of Pampoenfontein in the middle of nowhere, to be greeted by Petrus, owner of the general store/hairdressers/hotel/bar/garage/pharmacy.
“This is the arsehole of the world,” he says
Petrus says, “Are you just passing through then?”</i>
Ha Ha nice joke.
Martins comments provided they are unadulterated by political correctness are one of the main reasons that I & numerous others are loyal to this site.
Deborah
I feel the same. I value all who comment here and Martin is not being singled out in any way other than me saying I want less coarseness.
Will do David.
Although sometimes, when discussing the lying, cheating, self-serving, extorting, stinking BBC ordinary polite language just does not suffice and one is obliged, in the interests of both emotional and objective accuracy, to resort to the most vulgar words in the English language.
But the end in this case is worth the means.
And very well done to your and your colleagues for achieving so much with this blog.
Actually as most here know I tend to use my comments to deliberately wind up the leftists that come on here, over the years we’ve had quite a few, they are quite fun to play with for a while, eventually though they usually spit their dummy out and run off.
I do try to be a good boy these days, but just occasionally =-X the BBC do do the most stupid things that I can’t help but vent. I am trying to be a good boy though, but it would help if the BBC pushed Mark Mardell, Nick Robinson, Emily Talentless and co off a cliff.
Martin
I know your heart is always in the right place and am sure you will be as good as is poss! 😀
The BBC would never condone the use of foul language, of course !
We have had this debate before and I try to restrain myself and certainly don’t always post what I am thinking.
On the other hand I still feel free speech should come first.
What actually annoys me more is when there is personal abuse between posters here, usually when some leftie appears, as they do from time to time. I welcome their appearance and I think people should either argue with them rationally, ignore them or light heartedly take the micky, but not just tell them to “go away “.
There, I avoided swearing !
Double ditto on BBC defenders who reasonabley state their opinions. Sue alluded earlier how too often they are ganged up on in a way that does this site no credit. I can understand the grounds why DV chose to exclude someone prone to trolling like Scott M, but I think his decision was undermined when in terms of language and abuse others on this site were just as guilty as he was from time to time.
Yeah, but the difference is we’re in the right.
The moment you start swearing and ranting you’ve lost the argument
Please tell that to Jon Stewart. Thanks.
If I may be permitted a bit of brown-nosing (not the type practised obviously by the BBC under Her Majesty’s previous choice of Prime Minister), I think what has made this site so excellent since DV’s arrival is the very measured, good humoured way he deals with such issues.
The problem with ranting and raving with the most insulting swear words you can find at a particularly vile example of BBC bias is that, according to Murphy’s law, an even worse example will present itself as soon as you’ve finished your rant. Then what? You’ve used up your best ammo.
I think what also might do ‘the cause’ a service is if people refrained from making gratuitously personal comments about the appearance of people they dont like, such as Diane Abbot for example. Aside from the sheer bad manners, surely it detracts from exposing her hypocrisy and race hustling?
I agree to an extent, but Biased-BBC was not put here to live up to anyones expectations, least of all the BBCs. Remember you don’t own anybody and nobody owns you. It is the BBC, that uses carefully chosen language in order to manipulate, convince and hypnotize, not us.
Some of the language used can at best be described as undissembling, but what the hey, if people are that sensitive they shouldn’t be reading blogs.
Just look at the success of Guido’s blog as a supreme example. If there is anything that will kill a blog stone dead it is excess moderating and stuffiness.
Agreed, but it’s also Murphy’s Law that people will be snacking at the keyboard at the exact time that their eye falls on a detailed description of various orifices.
Could turn them right off the site.