I was doing a little research on Lib-Dem Lynne Featherstone for another post I am writing and came across this little snippet;
“Lynne has been a champion of gay rights in Parliament and outspoken critic of the Government’s Equality Bill, which fails to explicitly outlaw harassment of young people in schools because of their sexuality – gay bullying. She has also fought for greater protection against discrimination for transgendered people in the new law.
The awards ceremony with take place on Thursday, 5th November at the V&A and celebrate “the range of positive contributions being made by the individuals and organisation to the lives of lesbian and gay people in Britain today”. The judges are Sue Perkins and Evan Davis.”
Would that Evan Davies, BBC “Today” presenter and Sue Perkin, much loved BBC “Comedienne”? Good to see BBC employees so ACTIVE in promoting the Stonewall agenda.
Yes, how DISGRACEFUL that gay and lesbian people should be treated with the same respect as straight people, not bullied because of their sexuality, and not harassed.
How AWFUL that gay people who have achieved success in their careers agree to contribute time to an organisation which can stick up for people who haven’t been so fortunate.
What?….Like Peter Tatchell for instance?…..A true bastion of honesty, with no ulterior motives in any way, shape or form.
Scott/Dez, what are your views on children who get bullied and victimised at school by teachers because they refuse to accept that homosexuality is normal?
What are your views on children being denied homes with first class foster carers because the foster carers refuse to teach that homosexuality is normal?
Oh, and any views you’d like to share with us on Peter Tatchell’s support of paedophilia (see end of link)? For some reason, when Tatchell was campaigning for the Pope to be arrested for allegedly covering up for child sex abuse by (mainly homosexual) priests, this is something that the BBC never brought up with him.
I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation.
Love to hear your thoughts Scott/Dez
My thoughts?
Homosexuality is normal – for gay people. Just as heterosexuallity is normal for straight people. And “refusing to teach that it’s normal” is more usually a euphemism for “refuses to stop telling people that gay people are inferior”.
And forgive me if I don’t regard the Christian Institute, which uses the C-word as an excuse for spouting ignorance and bigotry in a most un-Christian way, as a reliable source of material…
Nurse he’s out again !!
Look it’s very simple Scot so you should get it !
Hippy asked do you agree it right to persecute those who don’t agree with your benetton version of the world ? don’t get all religious about it as I have many atheist mates who also have views you won’t like! mind not sure you like much really ??!
Oh yeah, and thanks Matt for pointing out that Scott/Dez is implicity in favour of schoolchildren being bullied and victimised by teachers if they don’t accept correctnick indoctrination that men having sex with men is normal.
O Brave New World! I have seen the future, and it’s a horror story.
You’ll find Scott that what is natural to heterosexuals – people with sexual inclinations according to nature – is to feel a natural revulsion for homosexuality. I know when I was at school aged 11, and we first found out that there were men who had sex with each other, it was so disgusting we found it hysterically funny. In all my time at school there were about 3-4 boys who were obviously homosexual – ‘queer’ as the normal usage was then. I was friends with one of them. He was an obvious fag, but he was ok, it’s just the way he was born, which you can’t hold against someone.
Scott/Dez wrote: “And forgive me if I don’t regard the Christian Institute, which uses the C-word as an excuse for spouting ignorance and bigotry in a most un-Christian way, as a reliable source of material”
Erm, what might the ‘C’ word be then Scott? Do tell.
A right cop out out not addressing Tatchell’s letter. He accepts it as verbatim. I have an email from him to prove it. So Scott, do tell, do you share Tatchell’s view that its fine grown ups having sex with 9 year olds? Any reason why you’re being so coy about this?
he’d rather shag an islamofascist 😉
And Islamofascists are so often found with child pornography on their PC’s when arrested.
I had thought it would be taken as read that I’d be against any form of padeophilia. I should have remembered who we’re dealing with here – Hippiepooter, the man who can’t even cope with the fact that two people disagree with Biased BBC’s commenters to the extent that he deludes himself they must be one and the same person.
For the record, Peter Tatchell does not speak for every gay person out there, and especially not for me.
Although I do note that his comments about young people just below the current age of consent were only ever about not criminalising young people who have sex with each other. Two teenagers who make the mistake of sleeping together risk having enough on their plate without being prosecuted for it, surely.
So you do accept the Christian Institute as a reliable source on what Tatchell had published in the Guardian. Trying to dodge the issue made it anything but read what you think of grown ups having sex with 9 year olds.
Despite your evasiveness, let’s take on face value that Peter Tatchell doesn’t speak for you as a homosexual or for homosexuals as a whole. The BBC treats him as if he does. Are you going to take it up with the BBC the deference that they show to this paedophile enabler?
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)
Let’s examine the word “normal”. If I were to roll a ball down a ramp with a horizontal line of holes at the bottom, and the ball fell into the middle hole 99 times out of a hundred, and then once it rolled sideways into another hole, then it would be proper to consider that 1 in a hundred roll as abnormal. The 99 rolls produced a normal outcome.
If I were to toss a balanced coin 100 times, it would be normal to get a roughly 50-50 outcome of heads vs tails. If I were to toss the same coin in 100 sets of 100 tosses, then I would expect a normal outcome would range from 60% – 40% of tosses being heads across the full range of tosses. IF one set of 100 tosses produced 99 heads and one tail, then I could rightly consider that one aberation set to be not normal.
It is normal for people to sleep through the night. It is abnormal for people to go for many days without ANY sleep whatsoever.
If I were to have a child that was born with three arms and three legs, then that would be considered numerically abnormal. It may be a totally natural mutation which caused the three arms and three legs, but it would definately be considered not normal.
OK so we are getting a handle on what is normal vs what is not normal.
According to a scientific poll carried out using anonymous questioning and the same methodology which political polling uses to great levels of accuracy, it was established that 1.5% of people in the UK self-describe themselves as homosexual. 0.5% as bi-sexual.
This means that being homosexual or bisexual is NOT NORMAL. Can we now please, for the sake of diversity and tolerance, accept that being homosexual is NOT normal? It IS natural, like any mutation which occurs naturally in nature. I accept homosexuality as a natural abnormality arising with a 1.5% occurance within humans. I hold NO prejudice whatsoever against homosexuals and accept them as having an equal social value in society as any other group which covers any other self-selecting sub-set of society (providing that group is law abiding).
It is wrong to discriminate in favour or against such groups in society, and to pander to artificial needs of any minority group, based solely on their self selected abnormality. (as already established, that merely being a member of a ‘minority’ group by necessity means being an abnormal member of society from which that minority is a part)
I am tolerant of homosexuality, but I tire of having homosexual politics rammed down my throat at every opportunity on the BBC. I tire of an emerging heterophobia which is now seeing children suffer guilt at being unable to discover homosexual feelings within themselves. Heterosexual bullying is now a growing taboo which must not be mentioned, but instead is actively denied.
When a tiny, abnormal minority use political correctness, censorship, and bullying to oppress normal and rational discussion of sexual politics, then a backlash becomes inevitable.
I applaud the vast distance society has travelled to accept homosexuality, but enough! It has now gone too far. Society should never accept homosexuality as normal for it is NOT normal. It should accept it as it would accept any harmless abnormality. Homosexuals must be free from discrimination in work and housing and all the other areas of life, which are not directly affected by their natural abnormality.
The BBC should STOP trying to portray homosexuality as being normal and portray it as a natural aberration, which it’s practitioners should be allowed to continue. Consenting adults must be free to live as they please, but that does NOT mean allowing a small, unrepresentitive minority to dictate what is, or is not, normal to the rest of us!
Homosexual abnormality is not harmless when large numbers of them seek to criminalise anyone who says the type of things you do and I have done.
They’re having roaring success, and things can only get much, much worse.
I am all for not bullying people – no matter what their sexual orientation or other little idiosychrazies – the trouble is that ‘gay activists’ are all out to bully those who while tolerant withold their full support for homosexuality. Maybe we should address the bullying done in the name of Political Correctness.
This is your house, David, and I wouldn’t want to to tell you how to arrange your furniture, but I do think you’re being harsh.
Stonewall is a non-partisan (i.e. cross-party) pressure group and Sue Perkins and Evan Davis are prominent gay figures. Yes, Stonewall has its share of trouble-making Trots and assorted loons but it has worked tirelessly for minority groups that have been routinely discriminated against. They are occasionally dogmatic to a fault but Stonewall is, overwhelmingly, a force for good.
Yes, one may not approve of identity politics but I don’t think you should use this as a stick with which to beat Perkins and Davis.
Scott – you are a little ray of sunshine, aren’t you? 🙂
JC, the issue of homosexual normalisation is very contentious. A BBC presenter should not be hosting such an event held by such an extremist group as Stonewall, It is, after all, named after a riot, and speaks volumes about the innate violence and intolerance of this homobigot group.
Of course, the riot was named after the bar where people started fighting back after many, many raids in which clientele were brutally beaten. But of course they had it coming to ’em, I suppose…
If you think Stonewall is an “extremist group”, when it’s almost exactly the complete opposite, then more fool you.
But of course they had it coming to ’em, I suppose… ??
cheap shot Scott !
Not very good at this debating stuff are we !!
What Jersey’s Mainstream Media have(n’t) been reporting http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-havent-they-been-reporting.html
The award is this:
“Local MP Lynne Featherstone has been nominated for the award of ‘Politician of the Year’ by Stonewall, the national lesbian and gay rights lobby group.”
How REASONABLE a use of licencepayers’ money for BBC-NUJ to delegate out its political propaganda production according to the special vested interests of its various staff: to PROMOTE, not tolerate: BBC, Islam, homosexuality, E.U., mass immigration, socialism, Obama, etc.
Whatever your opinion about laws against bullying
(I watched the trilogy of programmes about Whitehall by Michael Cockerell – for once a programme on the BBC that was not an agenda pushing Leftist sermon – and could not help noticing that it was special advisors on the Left from Marcia Falkender to Alisdair Campbell who were the worst bullies by a country mile)
and whatever your opinion of the cerebrally challenged Lynne Featherbrain, or the ubiquity of Sue “No Talent” Perkins on the BBC
(presumably because she is a lesbian)
I think that jug ears
(even factoring in his obsession with David Vance)
is quite right to draw attention to the petty bigotry of this David Vance post.
Ermm (I’m doing a lot of ‘erming’ lately), would you care to explain where the “petty bigotry” in DV’s post is?
“The awards ceremony with take place on Thursday, 5th November at the V&A and celebrate “the range of positive contributions being made by the individuals and organisation to the lives of lesbian and gay people in Britain today”. The judges are Sue Perkins and Evan Davis.”
The bigotry of taking offence at Sue Perkins and Evan Davis (well known homosexuals) simply because they attended an event which gave awards to people who have made positive contributions to the “lives of lesbian and gay people in Britain today”.
If a BBC journalist with a duty to impartiality presided over an award ceremony for the Christian Institute, Christian Concern or something like ‘Campaign for Real Education’, would that be acceptable to you?
That is the point about Beeboid bias. Contrary to what has been said in the comments here, it is not a non-partisan, non-political pressure group and these two Beeboids did not merely attend. They were the judges! I am sure there are loads of special interest groups and institutions which they would not attend, let alone judge and their refusal in such cases would be a political decision just as much as the one to involve themselves in the agenda of this particular group. In no way is this impartial.
If a BBC journalist with a duty to impartiality presided over an award ceremony for the Christian Institute, Christian Concern or something like ‘Campaign for Real Education’, would that be acceptable to you?
Sorry, you have to explain why it would be unacceptable?
If you give me a good enough argument (you know the sort of thing you have yet to provide about why Sue Perkins and Evan Davies should not attend the above awards ceremony) I am happy to be persuaded.
Erm (that word again) I refer you to my previous response, which you have responded to without, apparently, digesting.
Yes, I am having difficulty in understanding why being a Christian or believing in a good education is something that should be unacceptable. I am sure you have an argument, you just have not managed to articulate it yet.
I have wild, you just haven’t appreciated it. It’s very straightforward, the groups I have mentioned are political campaign groups. Just like Stonewall is. BBC journalists are supposed to be impartial. We’re talking really basic, straightforward stuff here.
Well for a start Sue Perkins is not a political journalist, so that argument does not even get out of the traps.
As for Evan Davis, he used to be an economics correspondent, and is now is an interviewer on the Today programme, and presents Dragon’s Den.
Since he makes no secret of his sexuality it is hard to know what point you are making here. Assuming that he supports homosexual equality, does that make him unfit to interview the Archbishop of Canterbury?
A few years ago he wrote a book which argued for the privatisation of public services. Does that render him unfit to report on public services for the BBC?
We have very different ideas on what constitutes impartiality, let alone your idea of “petty bigotry”, which as someone has pointed out, on your own terms would apply far more to you.
“We have very different ideas on what constitutes impartiality.”
Feeble.
I think HP’s point is the ‘C’ word in the groups’ name would make it declasse in the eyes of the ‘enlightened’.
That it would, but also it would bring into disrepute a BBC journalist’s impartiality if they were seen to be taking sides on contentious issues. What should apply to organisations like Christian Concern should also apply to their opposite numbers at Stonewall. It doesn’t. In any shape or form.
“…and whatever your opinion of the cerebrally challenged Lynne Featherbrain, or the ubiquity of Sue “No Talent” Perkins on the BBC
(presumably because she is a lesbian)…”
Petty bigotry, eh? 🙁
I was unaware that it was controversial to suggest that Lynne Featherstone MP is not the sharpest knife in the box. All I can say is that if she is brighter than she seems, she does a very good impression of a stupid women.
As for Sue Perkins; given her lack of comedic talent I assumed there was some reason for her ubiquity on the BBC. From what I know about the BBC I assumed that it is because she is a lesbian.
So which is the bigoted bit? The observation that she is not very talented as a comedian, or the assumption that the BBC is keen to have “out” lesbians as presenters?
And WHAT Bigotry would that be, pray tell?
The bigotry of objecting (and expecting others to object) to BBC employees Sue Perkins and Evan Davis (well known homosexuals) attending an event (on the grounds that they are BBC employees) which gave awards to people who they judge to have made positive contributions to the “lives of lesbian and gay people in Britain today”.
1. It is not “bigotry” to point out the utter inapproriateness of BBC employess using their perch to advance certain causes, Were they promoting “most butch person of the year” I would similarly object.
2. It is tranferance of bigotry to impose your own little prejudices onto me.
3. Is there a memo that says BBC advances its impartiality by ensuring prominent figues are …erm, partial to certain causes? If so, I missed it.
‘Were they promoting “most butch person of the year” I would similarly object.’
Even you do not believe that statement. Pathetic.
“It is transferance of bigotry to impose your own little prejudices onto me.”
That is not even a joined up thought. I am transferring my own bigotry onto you so that I can attack my own bigotry? Feeble.
“Is there a memo that says BBC advances its impartiality by ensuring prominent figues are ..partial to certain causes?”
Just to remind you about the CAUSE (you have clearly forgotten)
“The awards ceremony with take place on Thursday, 5th November at the V&A and celebrate “the range of positive contributions being made by the individuals and organisation to the lives of lesbian and gay people in Britain today. The judges are Sue Perkins and Evan Davis.”
Since you are a bit slow I will repeat the previous answer
“The bigotry of objecting (and expecting others to object) to BBC employees Sue Perkins and Evan Davis (well known homosexuals) attending an event (on the grounds that they are BBC employees) which gave awards to people who they judge to have made positive contributions to the “lives of lesbian and gay people in Britain today”.
You got it yet?
Wow, and I thought Scez had no competition for ‘Most Obnoxious Poster Award’.
Scez for BBC bias, wild against it, but both utterly obnoxious and arrogant in championing the homosexual cause. I wonder if there’s a lesson to be learnt there?
Incompetent at “championing” anything. Doesn’t have an argument, doesn’t get an argument, won’t engage in argument or discussion of different opinions: throws mud and smears to create a deflection in lieu of persuading anyone by reason, argument or evidence. Hopeless.
Maybe that comes from inhabiting a world formed by indoctrination in which one rarely meets an opposing real-life view. Hence the complete inability to engage and the resort to posting chunks of propaganda, followed by insults and smears.
“I wonder if there’s a lesson to be learnt”
Yes.
Millie Tant,
You are raging against your mirror again. Put it down and give your hate filled heart a rest.
So let me get this straight (sorry wrong word) Lynne Featherstone is now wanting the Police who a couple of months ago didn’t want to actually stop a riot in progress wants them to go into school every time a spotty little school boy calls another one gay !
So if little Nigel calls Steve gay does the teacher have to call the Police ? Does Steve have to admit to being gay for the case to proceed ? What happens if Steve is gay and proud of it ? Honestly the entire British state is decending into idiocy.
I think assuming the police would be called in, just because reference to bullying on grounds of sexual orientation is referenced in an equalities bill, is exactly the sort of fictional stretch that appeals to many Biased BBC readers without having any basis in fact.
I haven’t seen any proposed wording, but I’d imagine it would have more to do with teachers having a statutory duty to combat bullying of all kinds, but explicitly including homophobic bullying – which research shows tends to be both under-reported and taken less seriously than other forms of bullying.
Many schools have effective, encompassing anti-bullying policies in place. But many, many don’t – and if legislation means that it’s legally incumbent on education authorities to make sure schools do introduce such policies, then sooner rather than later, I’d say.
scezz, does that include islamic schools. 🙂 .
…..mind you dott, you know they have their own seperate
inspectors these days i hear, so wouldn t be homophobic
at all…………..all muslim.
No problem there either for Scotty boy, as we discovered a little while back.
http://biasedbbc.tv/2010/09/exit-stage-leftie.html
Ah yes, the post which DB later admitted was written purely to get back at me because he didn’t like me very much.
Still, if it manages to provide a couple of chuckles to some of Biased BBC’s more intellectually challenged commenters, I suppose even the most inane rubbish can have some value.
Your inane rubbish certainly did provide a chuckle Scezzer. Twitter aint called twitter for nothing.
Somehow I managed to miss that BBBC post. Before I pass comment, did you actually send those Tweets?
The usual policy of schools with self-styled ‘anti-bullying policies’ is to play dumb and hope the problem disappears. If it doesn’t they simply blame the victim and either threaten the child or the parents into silence.
They do this because to actively deal with a case of bullying is to admit that bullying occurs and, of course, it never does in a school with an ‘effective anti-bully policy.’
This is before we get even close to why the bullying was taking place at all. Liberals never seem to learn – making special cases creates division and hatred. It feeds the morons of the BNP rather than starving them. Is that your goal I wonder?
Indeed this is what happened at the final school my Mother taught at before retiring. Teachers were told in quite frank terms by the management that there was no bullying at the school and if they ever reported any there would be hell to pay. As a result there was no bullying at the school but a hell of a lot of “accidents”. Any parent trying to complain their child was being bullied would be threatened and bribed.
I always think bullying in any form is a sure sign that a school has a discipline problem. But no one can ever admit that these days.
You’re dead right, Mr. Cattle. A story last year in my region featured heavily in the local(and national) news. It told of a dinner lady at a school who was sacked for daring to tell a child’s parents that she had witnessed their daughter being bullied while at school. The reason for her sacking?…’breaching pupil confidentiality’.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/6216303/Dinner-lady-sacked-after-telling-parents-of-daughters-bullying.html
Carol Hill took her case to employment tribunal. Reading the report after the tribunal was concluded – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-12345393 – it appears that while talking to the parents would have warranted a formal warning (unwarranted in my view, as I suspect in yours too), it was taking her story to the press which resulted in the gross misconduct under which she was dismissed. such actions would be covered in her contract – they’re pretty standard terms.
She was awarded £350 because the dismissal process had been “procedurally flawed”, but the tribunal upheld the dismissal itself.
Ever heard of ‘whistleblowing’ Scez? I’m sure if a child had been bullied over homosexuality you would not be anywhere near as blasé over the rank dishonesty of the school in dealing with it.
The dinner lady protected the interests of the child and the parents. The only people who should have been facing discipline and dismissal were the school management for gross misconduct.
Unless of course we’re talking about school sanctioned bullying of school children who wont accept homosexuality as normal, then a correctnick reign of tyranny is what Scez and his rainbow Nazis are after.
Watch out any good looking boy at school who rejects a proposition from a ‘gay’ pupil. I doubt that being called ‘homophobe’ will be treated as bullying – the reverse.
1327 your original post is very reminicent of just such a dilemma of the oldey but very goody
“.The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal was interviewed on the BBC and expressed the view that homosexuality was “immoral,” was “not acceptable,” “spreads disease,” and “damaged the very foundations of society.” A gay group complained and Sir Iqbal was investigated by Scotland Yard’s “community safety unit” for “hate crimes” and “homophobia.”
Independently but simultaneously, the magazine of GALHA (the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association) called Islam a “barmy doctrine” growing “like a canker” and deeply “homophobic.” In return, the London Race Hate Crime Forum asked Scotland Yard to investigate GALHA for “Islamophobia.”
Got that? If a Muslim says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for homophobia; but if a gay says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for Islamophobia.”
the case of who trumps who? ,
(the devil as always in the detail 😀 if you can distinguish the difference between homophobia and islamo-faux-bia)
This highlights the inherent problem and the divisive nature of identity politics.
exactly Reed, you know where this can type of this offence/rights/phobia industry can lead, instilling it into the young and impressionable mind, will actually CAUSE some of the children involved, to get a “phobia”….a victim mentality, which plays into the self fulfilling prophesy scenario, which the liberal lefties love so much.
bullying, definately needs reigning in, but then again L.Featherstone
does too.
Or you end up, as was seen recently, with that C Matthews case in Aus..
you know the one, where lifting a burkha to establish identity by the police, is turned into an absolute farce, with accusations of accost,
threat, offence, rights…….a right pantomime.
to which was penned
“So, if I follow correctly, we can never establish the identity of the woman who falsely accused the police of demanding she remove her burka because to establish her identity the police would have to demand she remove her burka thereby rendering her false accusation true.” 😀
1327,
“[Lynne Featherstone is now wanting the Police] to go into school every time a spotty little school boy calls another one gay”
That would indeed be a ridiculous idea.
And your evidence that this is what Lynne Featherstone wants is what exactly?
I’m sure your right Scez. Ridiculous suggestion.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391185-police-send-four-police-officers-to-tackle-boy-11-who-called-schoolmate-gay.do
Hippie1964,
Your link has absolutely nothing to do with Lynne Featherstone.
FAIL!
Indeed, despite being in the London Evening Standard, it has nothing to do with London.
The most telling line in that article comes some way down, where the police spokesman says that the email was “part of some behaviour which was ongoing”.
In which case, I’d rather police investigate and then decide to take no further action rather than ignore it. But in general, schools ought to be in the best place to deal with all sorts of bullying, and parents shouldn’t have to feel that the police are the best peoe to deal with the situation.
It has everything to do with the type of correctnick tyranny that you claim is inconceivable.
Lynn Featherstone, fanatical correctnick bigot that she is, wants this state of affairs to go further.
The Emperor is wearing no clothes.
hippie, a 10 year old boy was bullied to such an extent that his parents contacted the police; and the police found the complaint serious enough for them to intervene.
But you consider this “correctnick tyranny” because the perpetrator’s parents thought it was a big fuss over nothing.
As Scott highlighted; “This e-mail message was part of some behaviour which had been on going”. Behaviour which the Daily Mail choses not to tell you about.
Have you given any consideration to plight of the 10 year old victim?
Here’s a story for you to consider:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7080877.ece
“Lynn Featherstone, fanatical correctnick bigot that she is, wants this state of affairs to go further.”
And yet you are still unable to provide a single quote to back up the claim that; “[Lynne Featherstone is now wanting the Police] to go into school every time a spotty little school boy calls another one gay” ?
Have you considered for a moment that that might just be because you are wrong?
Hmmm…I wondered what the esteemed, gay-friendly Lynne Featherstone had to say about the brutal assaults on the gay community in Tower Hamlets, with proportionally one of the highest rates of gay hate crime (almost exclusively by the local muslim community) in the country. So I checked out her blog (opened in 2003) on the Lib Dem site….Nothing, not a sausage. As a Labour seat (which aslo mentions nothing about hate crimes against gays on the official Tower Hamlets Labour site – plenty about the EDL march, but nothing about gays) you’d think this was an obvious political opportunity…but nothing.
So I turned to the home of the Lib Dems and did a search there….nothing again. Everyone on the left seems very tight lipped about this. I wonder why?
http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/
http://www.libdems.org.uk/home.aspx
http://www.towerhamlets.labour.co.uk/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100091835/east-london-mosque-under-pressure-over-hate-preachers/
http://homintern.posterous.com/anti-gay-hate-crime-up-21-in-tower-hamlets-ga-42214
It’s that victim totem pole at work again. Muslims are higher than gays, so Muslims can torment gays, but not the other way round.
yep!….want to see, P Tatchell & co outside those
T. H. mosques, before friday incitement hour……i mean prayers.
You know getting all his media chums with the cameras
arresting the Imams,(just like he was determined to do
with the Pope). for hate/homophobia etc.
yep! Pete a burning/vitally important issue for you there, what!
get L Featherstone along to hold the handcuffs/lovecuffs for you. 😀
Great research, it’s only ‘homophobes’ like us who think people should receive equal protection under the law. Exploiting someone’s vulnerability to inflict thuggery on them is repellant to any half-decent person. Just look at the ant-Semitic ‘gay’ hate groups who support ‘gay’ hating Islamists against Israel. No doubt B-BBC’s ‘Mr Evasive’ himself Scezz will studiously sidestep this issue to, as he has on the issue of whether it’s right or not for grown ups to have sex with 9 year olds.
What a fantastic argument
Scott ‘Homosexuality is normal – for gay people. Just as heterosexuallity is normal for straight people’
Hearing a constant ringing sound is normal – for people with tinnitus
Seeing fish in front of your eyes is normal – for SCUBA divers
Hating Jews is normal – for antisemetics
etc etc
Just because a practice is normal to a certain group does not make it normal per se. There is a big difference between Homosexuality being ‘normal’ and perfectly acceptable in our society. I think the population of the planet would be considerably lower if it was normal!
Thankfully,the number of people who believe that homosexuality is “perfectly acceptable in our society”, as you put it, is going up all the time. Maybe that’s one reason why David Vance hates the idea of equality so much – it’s just another way by which he is, bit by bit, becoming ever more marginalised.
I’m a bit confused re your comments regarding population size, though. The only way that would even approach sense is if you’d assumed that normality meant the majority…
Scott, people are cowed into silence by the Great Correctnick Terror that the BBC has done so much to instigate. That’s why your greatest fear is that campaigners might restore BBC impartiality, then the Thought Police tyranny will be rolled back and needy children can have good foster homes again, amongst many other benefits.
Actually, if you believe the gay agitprop there are more gays in denial than there are ‘out’ gays which would suggest that homosexuality isn’t normal for homosexuals …
what is normal about a man inserting his penis into a faeces evacuation tunnel?
don t know dude, better ask a good old amount of women who class
it as par for the course?
beats me…
T.M.I.
Hippie1964, it’s much more normal than being a virgin at your age. But never mind.
Ah, now I know for certain that Scott and Dez are the same person. Such tell tale cattiness.
Nope – you’re still wrong, and always will be.
But you keep telling yourself you’re right, if that’s what it takes for you to feel good about yourself. For other people, it’s making a difference to society: for you, it’s confusing two different people in your head. I applaud the way you embrace such low standards.
the propagandising by homosexuals of the general population is encapsulated in an article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America” was written by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill and appeared in Guide Magazine, a homosexual publication, in November 1987
It outlines strategies and techniques for a successful widespread propaganda campaign to confuse and deceive the American people and demonize opponents. Like all propaganda, their methods are based not on solid intellectual arguments, but instead upon emotional manipulation of the public in an attempt to gain widespread sympathy and approval for homosexual behavior.
The Overhauling of Straight America
by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill
The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.
At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full “appreciation” or “understanding” of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America.
STEP 1: TALK ABOUT GAYS AND GAYNESS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE.
The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one’s fellows doing it or accepting it. One may be offended by its novelty at first– many, in times past, were momentarily scandalized by “streaking,” eating goldfish, and premarital sex. But as long as Joe Six-pack feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on. The skeptic may still shake his head and think “people arc crazy these days,” but over time his objections are likely to become more reflective, more philosophical, less emotional.
The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as “respectable” gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.
And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent–only later his unsightly derriere!
Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message– of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films (though often this has been done to achieve comedic and ridiculous affects). On the whole the impact has been encouraging. The prime-time presentation of Consenting Adults on a major network in 1985 is but one high-water mark in favorable media exposure of gay issues. But this should be just the beginning of a major publicity blitz by gay America.
Would a desensitizing campaign of open and sustained talk about gay issues reach every rabid opponent of homosexuality? Of course not. While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed “secular humanism”). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.
STEP 2: PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our “gay pride” publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia-“They are all around us!”–on the other.
A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower it’s guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note — North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)
Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: “As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn’t willfully contrary – it’s only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!”
Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, “they are not like us.” To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in appearance–in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach. (To return to the terms we have used in previous articles, spokesmen for our cause must be R-type “straight gays” rather than Q-type “homosexuals on display.”) Only under such conditions will the message be read correctly: “These folks are victims of a fate that could have happened to me.”
By the way, we realize that many gays will question an advertising technique, which might threaten to make homosexuality look like some dreadful disease, which strikes fated “victims”. But the plain fact is that the gay community is weak and must manipulate the powers of the weak, including the play for sympathy. In any case, we compensate for the negative aspect of this gay victim appeal under Principle 4. (Below)
The second message would portray gays as victims of society. The straight majority does not recognize the suffering it brings to the lives of gays and must be shown: graphic pictures of brutalized gays; dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, and public humiliation: and the dismal list goes on.
STEP 3: GIVE PROTECTORS A JUST CAUSE.
A media campaign that casts gays as society’s victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.
It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle.
STEP 4: MAKE GAYS LOOK GOOD.
In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know–this trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announce proudly, “Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was _________?” But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as “queer” people– shadowy, lonesome, fail, drunken, suicidal, child- snatching misfits.
The honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women is truly eyepopping. From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman, from Sappho to Gertrude Stein, the list is old hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual America. In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.
Along the same lines, we shouldn’t overlook the Celebrity Endorsement. The celebrities can be straight (God bless you, Ed Asner, wherever you are) or gay.
STEP 5: MAKE THE VICTIMIZERS LOOK BAD.
At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.
The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the “fags” they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.
A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching.
Format E – for Vilification of Victimizers: Damn the Torpedoes.
We have already indicated some of the images which might be damaging to the homophobic vendetta: ranting and hateful religious extremists neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen made to look evil and ridiculous (hardly a difficult task).
These images should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the “bracket technique.” For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about “those sick, abominable creatures.” While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.
Two years after “The Overhauling of Straight America” appeared, the book “After the Ball — How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 1990’s”, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, was published. After the Ball expanded on these ideas, largely from the standpoint of psychological manipulation and persuasion tactics of Americans toward the homosexual cause, complete with sample print ads to use, as well as suggestions for radio and TV spots.
and the suckers have fallen for it hook line and sinker
Wow. Such impressive use of Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V. And to have such a wealth of material on homosexuality easily to hand, too. There was I thinking, that the only literature you had on hand would be more pictorial in nature.
I hadn’t heard of Kirk & Pill before, but most of their ideas read like they’re straightforward PR, counteracting all the negative representations that dominated at the time with positive ones. I can see why someone like you would get so worked up about them.
yeah
it’s called “know your enemy”
comes in very handy
obviously hits a queer spot when the only repsonse is ”
“Wow. Such impressive use of Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V. And to have such a wealth of material on homosexuality easily to hand, too.”
you are a dopey ugly boy,aren’t you?
at least you got rid of the mong picture you used as an icon
I’ll have to get a proper fireguard now…….
Let me make this as simple as I can for you Scott :
What the fuck is your fucking point ?
Answer ?
Ltwf1964: great comeback. Doesn’t take much for you to fall back to your default position of flinging insults around, does it?
John: do you have anything of value to contribute, or are you just going to swear like a naughty school boy who thinks it’s big and clever, without realising it’s neither?
I do now darling, so, would you like to administer my 10 thrashings onto my bare bottom ?
Somehow I think I will be better off if you wear a bag over your head as I read the BBC Charter and you do your worst.
But don’t, don’t ever give me the chance to be big and clever with you because I will realise I might have to contribute something you certainly wont be wanting.
THWACK! …….please sir may i have one more
THWACK!……..please sir may i have one more
THWACK!……..please sir may i ……………………
😀
twat boy scotty
sure that’s what you come here for
to attempt to insult and get your fag ass kicked in the process
get used to it!
“As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn’t willfully contrary – it’s only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!”
“Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws”
“The honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women is truly eyepopping. From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman, from Sappho to Gertrude Stein, the list is old hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual America.”
“The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes…the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the “fags” they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.”
If I am a “sucker” for accepting the above then I wear the badge with pride.
good lad for owning up
Owning up to what? 1) Homosexuality is almost certainly nature rather nurture? 2) Belief in a society which protects liberties? 3) That many high achievers in Western culture were homosexual? 4) Concentration camps for “gays” is not a step forward?
So much hatred about what? Presumably you are gay yourself. Get over it.
oh-how long did we have to wait for that one?
the usual faggot self hate insult that “you must be a sodomite since you don’t agree with what’s said”
crap shots like that are lower than whale manure and akin to cries of “racist” when arguing about gypos or mass unfettered immigration or “islamophobia” when contending with islamofascism
a round of applause-no really……give the boy a big cream bun for that one 🙂
there is ZERO evidence for sodomy being “nature”…….where is your “evidence”?????
and before we get all touchy and offended about the use of “faggot”,let’s not forget how our islamic friends treat homosexuals now,shall we?
or does “PC” not apply to them,only the judaeo-christian west?
“gay pride” march for Teheran/Mecca/Riyadh anyone?
no?thought not…….
But those high achievers got on fine without government legislation telling people how to think, right?
I think you will find that this is what the right to free speech, freedom of belief, freedom of association, and due process and equal protection under the law means, but you may have your own interpretation.
Britain to become ‘world leader in gay rights’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038427/Gay-marriage-legal-Britain-2015.html
Increasingly, the site of a Union Jack makes me feel very sad at how far a great nation has been brought low.
We were once renowned for our sense of humour and fairness, now we’re renowned for being a laughing stock that has let the lunatics take over the asylum.
When somebody (such as yourself) gets so worked up about homosexuality I do assume (I admit) that they have “issues” as the jargon goes. Just as you assumed that I am homosexual. You deny that you are homosexual, fine, but it still leaves intact my “get over it” remark.
Given that the theory that “homosexuality” is hardwired is pretty standard stuff (although of course like all such claims it is controversial) maybe you could explain why you feel the need to get so excited about the issue?
Were you abused as a child by a homosexual paedophile?
you don’t half talk some bollocks!
I had not thought it possible,but you have out-twatted scott m as an utter clown
try going to a gay club/bar or sauna, like Chariots, you’ll find some of the most bigoted people anywhere and these are places that half the staff (or more) of the BBC go to
Hmm, I’m not sure one would be quite so intrepid. Also, very difficult to carry a hidden camera/mic in a sauna!?
Jonathan, you can meet bigoted people wherever you go. What leads you to believe that “some of the most bigoted” frequent gay clubs/bars?
i dunno, maybe it’s because the gay clubs/bars where i’ve been over the past twenty years, the clientele refer to straight people as hettys or breeders
Maybe you should reconsider who you hang out with. I’ve never heard conversations like that in any gay pub or bar I’ve been in.
really?!?
Jonathan S: Yes, really. When I go to the pub with my mates, there are far more important – or, more likely after a couple of pints, far more trivial – things to talk about.
“Maybe you should reconsider who you hang out with. I’ve never heard conversations like that in any gay pub or bar I’ve been in.”
can’t be easy listening to any conversations with someones knob up your rectum,is it scotty?
“…the clientele refer to straight people as hettys or breeders”
Is that it? That makes them “some of the most bigoted people anywhere”?
Or perhaps not…
You are too modest. Your comments on this topic have managed to make Jug Ears look enlightened. Quite an achievement. Worthy of a prize.
But who shall present the award?
well I won’t accept it after someone takes it out of your arsehole
Are you always this stupid, or are you making a special effort today?
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)
Worth repeating.
Then you get the argument that Jesus never said anything against homosexuality (He never said anything for it either). He also did not say anything on bestiality or pedophilia. He also never mentioned canabilism or wife beating. Does this mean that He condoned those too?
I was not aware that Sue Perkins or Evan Davies are Christians.
I don’t get your point – I was replying to Scott above. But if you want to argue that being a Christian does not entitle me to think of homosexuality as abnormal than please go ahead. I do not hate homosexuals but I do not think that it should be looked on as a normal activity and OK to teach to vulnerable children.
We once had a moral society one based on the Judeo-Christian tradition. It has now been totally undermined by all those who wish to destroy it.
Our laws and traditions should defend marriage, which is the best way to bring up children. Other sexual preferences should be confined to the privacy of the bedroom.
I was simply reminding you that neither Sue Perkins or Evan Davies are Christians. I was not seeking to make a theological contribution to what should or should not be believed by Christians. I was not saying what should or should not be taught to children. Nor was I offering an opinion about what should or should not constitute a marriage.
I think wild’s contributions on this thread show just how much in common libertarians have with lefties and very little with conservatism. David Horowitz recently made the point that Libertarian candidate for the Republican Presidential ticket has a foreign policy that is the same as the Left. The same goes for libertarians on sexual perversion. Many believe that incest should be legal.
You seem blissfully unaware of just how much your contributions to this thread have in common with what you call “homobigotry”. Two sides of the same coin.
Actually, I think Wild’s views(and other’s in a similar vein) are very much in line with Conservative values, but perhaps not in the way you are intending. One of the primary principles of Conservatism, as opposed to Socialism, is the freedom of the individual from the state. Conservatives tend to believe that governments should, as far as possible, stay out of people’s private lives and not indulge in state sponsored social engineering of any kind. This is the TRUE liberalism at the heart of Conservative values, rather than the bossy, authoritarian ‘do as you’re told’ centrally controlled version delivered to us by the left from their politically correct bully pulpit. This is why I don’t agree with the notion that ‘liberal’ and ‘left’ are natural partners, as those on the left often have the most illiberal outlook : they very much wish to control as many areas of people’s lives as the can get away with. Contrary to much of the political commentary in the USA, I see no contradiction in the term ‘Conservative Liberal’.
I think any sincere democrat would consider himself ‘liberal’ with a small ‘l’. However, ‘libertarianism’ and conservatism are different, which is why they have different names. The latter upholds judeo-christian mores over sexual morality, the former is completely in tune with the Marxist Left and its desire to oppress anyone who raises a dissenting voices.
As an old fashioned Tory I will cleave to my view of the Conservative Party as the party of Church and State, even though I realise that concept is pretty much hanging by a thread, if at all.
“that concept is pretty much hanging by a thread”
Maybe because it is threadbare.
Maybe not libertarians so much. Libertines more like.
Libertarians don’t hold that everyone must think the same or insist that others suffer from a mental state of irrationality or a medical condition if they don’t subscribe to the agenda of some special interest pressure group.
“Libertarians don’t hold that everyone must think the same or insist that others suffer from a mental state of irrationality or a medical condition”
I think the word you are looking for is bigot. That person you are jeering at in the mirror is yourself.
I wasn’t jeering at anyone, let alone myself. I was merely pointing out how it is as between libertarians and those who oppose them. Your own comments on this thread bear that out.
“I wasn’t jeering at…myself”
My point is that the bigot you see “out there” through the window is your own reflection.
You’ve got yourself confused. You took this thread off topic and started bleating about bigotry early on after DV posted this thread and you are still at it. What you don’t appear to see is that you keep confirming your own bigotry. Awareness isn’t your strong suit.
The bigotry (or otherwise) of the comment by David Vance is what is at issue. Try to keep up.
That Matthew chapter continues to say that divorcing a wife and marrying another is adultery, which most people these days don’t accept.
And then we get to the defending marriage argument, as if providing equality and respect to gay people is some sort of threat to heterosexuals and their marriages. I’ve yet to find anyone who can explain why allowing people to be open and honest about their sexual orientation without fear of (sometimes violent) retribution is somehow a threat to other people.
Try reading Sodom and Gomorrah. There you see what happens when unbridled perversion is permitted in society.
Ah, Sodom and Gonorrah.
Unfortunately, I don’t have any virgin daughters to offer up, so I can’t be quite as wholesome as Lot was.
Scez, you wouldn’t have any offspring to offer up, would you? And Lot’s offering of his daughters wouldn’t exactly have much currency with your ‘mileu’, would it? Lot’s celestial guests would be far more enticing for you and the citizenry of Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess that’s why Lot’s trade off didn’t hold much appeal to Sodom’s ‘gay rights activists’.
Know a lot of Muslims do you Scott ?
And don’t think that the ROP are any more forgiving
“…For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds…. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)”
Qur’an (7:80-84)
Christians forgive sins, the ROP does not.
I was not aware that Sue Perkins or Evan Davies are Muslims.
Strewth, we’re getting more sense out of Scott/Dez today.
One is a comedian, but Sue, not being one, could well be the “edgey” Muslim.
Personally I don’t give a toss what goes on between consenting adults of any permutation of sex or number of persons in their own bedroom. To each his own.
I’m less comfortable with the idea of having National awards for promoting things that go on in bedrooms. For his tireless promotion of the Missionary position, The Russell Brand Heterosexual Shagger of Other People’s Daughters Award goes to….
It’s symtomatic that pressure groups want to “raise awareness”of their pet issues. Well I don’t want my awareness raised, p*ss off, I’m quite happy with my awareness as it is.
It’s like the issue of abortion. If you think abortion is wrong, don’t have one, end of story. But no, they want to interfere in other peoples lives. I say “Butt Out”.
I agree with you. I never see the point of awards ceremonies myself. But by the same token, if Sue Perkins and Evan Davies want to give out prizes for “positive contributions being made by the individuals and organisation to the lives of lesbian and gay people in Britain today” that is their business, and the fact that they are employed by the BBC is irrelevant.
Amen, LC. Live and let live. I personally have no problem whatsoever with events like the one mentioned in this thread, but they do highlight something of a contradiction. The whole idea of groups like Stonewall and any other similar advocacy group is to further the reality that gay people have only that one difference from everyone else, and are in general much the same as the rest of us. Events like this, however, seem to undermine this by suggesting that being gay is the defining aspect of their lives, by separating people entirely according to their sexuality. I can understand the reasoning behind the beginnings of a group like Stonewall, but there must eventually come a time when the divisiveness of this (and every) form of identity politics becomes counter-productive to their narrative that ‘we’re no different’.
I can certainly live with those sentiments. What I find bizarre and disquieting is the lack of accountability that Stonewall demands of it’s MP’s.
Apropos my previous post, Lynne Featherstone – like the rest of the Lib Dems and Labour – is eerily quiet about the very real suffering and persecution of gays in Tower Hamlets because of the particularly unpleasant Islamofascist preachers and their gullible acolytes.
Why isn’t Stonewall up in arms about this? Why aren’t they tearing Lynne “Rising Star” Featherstone a new one because of the self-censoring antics of the PC left? Above all, why aren’t Stonewall using every public event to push the story themselves?
The corrosiveness of endorsed multi-culturism seems to have no end. The little people just have to understand their persecution is for the greater good; they’re being ignored for progress….
http://homintern.posterous.com/anti-gay-hate-crime-up-21-in-tower-hamlets-ga-42214
**Moderator Comment***
As the Default Comments Moderator bloke I get a text and email every time someone hits the “Flag” button.
This facility is intended to catch very abusive comments, libellous ones, spam efforts that have passed the traps and anything even slightly uncomplimentary about the pure gorgeousness that is Jennifer Aniston.
A certain number of “Flag” reports [from different IPs] will automatically drop a comment into hidden Moderation and it will be reviewed by DV or me. This is a fair thing because a variety of people objecting to a particular comment is a good indication of any outrageous stupidity.
The three people who have gone through this thread Flagging, between them, almost every comment aren’t doing the system any favours.
Play nicely and use the Flag system wisely. You three know who you are…wind your necks in and enjoy the aggressive banter instead.
I’m sure these homobigots are placing calls to their sociology graduate mates at the Met’s ridiculous ‘Community Safety Unit’ as well. Thanks for reminding us just what fanatical bigots the homolobby are.
So a moderator turns up, and certain comments get ignored as “aggressive banter”.
Perhaps moderation would be better conducted by someone who has a better grasp of the concept?
Nothing had been “ignored” and every Flag has been checked.
Surely you agree that robust debate is a wonderful freedom and, short of libel or death threats, should be allowed to flow?
The art of Moderating (as elsewhere in life) is not looking for things to ban but instead knowing when to leave things alone.
Ah, I see. One eye that’s less all seeing, more blind and being turned.
Still, by endorsing the publication of the sort of comments made by lwtf1964 and his ilk, you at least ensure that the stupidity and bigotry that makes up so much of this site is seen to have the sanction of its leadership. That should help ensure that people are less likely to be taken in by any attempts to present Biased BBC as a responsible site.
ltwf did make a rather unkind yet witty comment on your pic Scez with regard to its use as a good fireguard for the kids. Normally I wouldn’t click ‘like’ for such a personal comment, but given the sheer nastiness and ad hominem you routinely indulge in here I thought I’d allow myself.
Your cant Scez is world class. I would imagine, that not one of us has flagged any of the insults and bile that you frequently post, We have something called self-respect. That is why when DV posted unfounded allegations against President Obama here, everyone opposed it and DV pulled it.
Your lack of self respect and the opinions you hold go very much hand in hand. I intimated earlier that the society you and your ilk are looking to create is Sodom and Gomorrah, where any male visitor the denizens take a fancy to they see as a piece of ass they have a right to take by force.
Hell and damnation await you Scez unless you learn a bit of self-respect and personal integrity.
“ltwf did make a rather unkind yet witty comment on your pic Scez with regard to its use as a good fireguard for the kids. “
on consideration,the comment was unkind,uncalled for and unnecessary and something I do sincerely regret…..
I apologise to all manufacturers and retailers of fireplaces everywhere
if you’re offended you know what to do…..
but the masochistic tenedency in you just keeps bringing you back for more
take a hint……take a hike
All Seeing Eye,
A healthy sentiment, but what about exceptionally abusive comments? Or ‘hate speech’?
A.S.E. – “The art of Moderating (as elsewhere in life) is not looking for things to ban but instead knowing when to leave things alone.”
If only New Labour understood this concept!!!!!!!!!!
Bloody hell. What a tizzy everyone’s getting into over what doesn’t strike me as the most overwhelming piece of bias ever to come out of the BBC.
I agree. A fairly inconsequential thread seems to have generated one hell of a lot of comment! I think we’re better when we stick to the more political issues relating to BBC bias.
For those comments alone I would like to buy both you and Roland a beer.
If my phone beeps once more tonight with a ‘Flag’ message alert then I may kill someone. With a soup spoon.
I’m going to alert you for that.
Might I suggest a venue for that beer…
just throwin’ this into the mix….
I don’t get it (even if I am in the gang of three).
However, don’t do a “Martin” and alienate people who contribute and make this site what it is.
He came back – be grateful – but as for the flag “thing” – what’s that ?
Lest we forget, it is the BBC we love, and that is why we are here.
By the way, who the bloody hell is Jenifer Anniston ?
You aren’t, actually, one of the three who have clicked on “Flag” everything tonight. Free-wheeling debate on B-BBC is the name of the game and it will always remain so.
Jennifer Aniston though? Eh? Eh? Really?
A S E
Ah! So that’s who she is !
She’s Becky in Coronation Street, isn’t she ?
I’m with you ASE. I’ve enjoyed most of John’s comments on this thread, but any man who doesn’t know who Jennifer Anniston is I would seriously question his heterosexuality. ;p
Isn’t Jennifer Aniston that chubby Greek girl from Friends whose husband left her because she is so boring?
“what doesn’t strike me as the most overwhelming piece of bias ever to come out of the BBC.”
Which is rather the point.
But doesn’t the vehemence, and the length, of this thread rather give the lie to what this site is really about. This isn’t really a site about the perceived biases of the BBC; as this post shows, that is simply the transport mechanism.
Rather this site is a venue for comment of a broadly reactionary nature among like-minded people who share a particular view of the world. It is surprisingly hostile to people who do not subsctibe to that view and many posters very quickly resort to ad hominems rather than tackle the issue.
These views are then defended with the “strong and robust” argument, when of course they are nothing of the sort. They are simply ad hominems, usually used to deflect an argument.
At times this site is successful in drawing attention to unbalanced reporting, but the signal-to-noise ratio is very low, as this post evidences.
He who generalises, generally lies.
It does not follow that if one holds a specific view on one issue one must therefore hold a specific view on another issue.
Indeed on many isssues one may not hold any view one way or the other. In my own case this applies to the topic of this thread.
You appear to argue that views on one issue could be described as “reactionary” – therefore the entire site is reactionary. That is rubbish.
You surely cannot try to deny that this site has instanced hundreds, maybe thousands of examples of obvious BBC bias to the point where the bias is obviously endemic, visceral. The fascism of the left rules at the BBC, and all we try to do here is point to its examples.
But many of us have long since given up on the idea that the BBC will adhere to its Charter requirement of impartiality.
I’d agree with nearly every word of that, Geoff – with the exception of “surprisingly” 😉
The thread doesn’t “give the lie to” what you assert it does. And not everyone here shares the same views on everything. I certainly don’t.
What the site is about is Beeboid Bias and that is what this thread was about when it was opened: Beeboids promoting one of their favourite approved special causes and pressure groups. It was then derailed by people shouting bigotry and posting agitprop, resulting in others reacting and counter arguing.
Insults fly sometimes but in two directions and those who complain about insults, oddly enough, have sometimes been the first ones to throw insults. What do you make of that?
Geoff, the ad hominem is a two way street between certain posters here. There are one or two posts aimed at Scez here that I think would have been ok to flag, but ASE informs us that there has been blanket flagging of any opinion the homobigot lobby hasn’t liked. This accounts for their hatred of this site. It is an outlet for opinions the biased BBC supresses. Quite amusing their frustration really, although a pain in the arse for ASE!
Stonewall is a lobbying organisation to push a one sided agenda. Therefore “high flyers” at the BBC openly taking a position on a controversial area can be construed as bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_%28UK%29
The BBC recognise that being a member of a lobbying group can has impartiality risks:
“Many organisations, including campaigning and lobby groups, charities, newspapers and specialist websites, maintain a public position on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or other ‘controversial subject’. Before becoming actively involved with, or offering public support to, an organisation with a partial or campaigning stance on such matters, individuals working for the BBC should give the same consideration to the impartiality risks as is required for party political activity.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-conflict-of-interest/
If the BBC can take a part in pushing for a certain lifestyle they cannot be impartial. Regardless of the law, homosexuality is still a controversial subject in religious circles.
Do the BBC “talent” give awards at Fathers for Justice meetings or Friends of Isreal gatherings? Of course not and nor should they.
“This isn’t really a site about the perceived biases of the BBC” Oh yes it it is. This is bias no matter what your stance is on the issue.
John Horne Tooke
Thank you for posting those BBC “rules”.
On any reading of them – do they not warn off the BBC “talent” from doing the Stonewall gig ?
(I laughed at your suggestion that BBC “talent” might front a function of Friends of Israel !)
I don’t deny that the site has produced evidence, but not much of real substance rather than nuanced perception. Of course bias is a notoriously difficult subject. just because the BBC does not share your view does not make them biased. However that is such a well-troden path there is nothing to be gained going down that path.
And of course my own perceptions of waht constitutes bias are no less tainted than yours.
As for this site being reactionary, I think (and it is, of course, a subjective viewpoint) that were you to show the content to people outside of the coterie of regular posters few would disagree. You all seemed surprised, and not a little upset, to be described as Right Wing. I would have thought that was an uncontroversial epithet. And clearly those people who voted certainly thought so. It seems odd that you would wish to distance yourself from that.
I do not think that everyone shares exactly the same view on everything, that would be ridiculous. But there is a very strong commonality of view point, and the reaction to those who challenge it is strong and often not conducive to debate. Ad hominems do not make for debate. Most threads comprise agreement, not debate.
“He who generalises, generally lies.”
Is that not a generalisation itself?
You obviously don’t read the replies. Not everyone disagreed with the “right wing” tag so you do seem to generalise.
On any blog their will be ad hominum attacks, this is the nature of the inerternet Scot is particulary good at ad hominium attacks on anyone who does not share his view, but he is not banned or sent to Coventry for his views (I doubt he gets “flagged” either)
For anyone at the BBC pushing any particular political viewpoint is perceived as undermining their impartilaity. That would be the case for all political viewpoints.
If you do not like ad hominums then skip passed them – I do.
“reactionary” has connotations of ‘far right’. I think a good many contributers here would not recognise that description of them. Were we ‘reactionary’ en masse to call for the unfounded post on Obama to be brought down?
As stated elsewhere, as the BBC bias is against the right its going to predominantly feature comments from the right. This is not to say that there aren’t people on the left and centre willing to put democracy first and oppose the anti-democratic BBC bias against the right, its just that, like ‘moderate moslems’, they’re not terribly vocal.
When I was a tribunite member of the Labour Party from the age of 15, the only real bias I perceived at the BBC was towards the left, and I was against it as it was bad for democracy. In the last 25 years or so it has been endemic.
My comrades at the time were shocked when I said I thought the BBC was biased towards the left. They were adamant it is biased against the left. When they gave examples it transpired there idea of ‘bias’ was if the BBC did not report left wing opinions as fact. There is a certain amount of that here from the opposite end of things, but that notwithstanding the BBC is an anti-democratic organisation that urgently needs to be purged of subversives like Humphrys, Paxman, Wark and editorial staff as well.
I love the BBC which is why it pains me so much to see it hijacked by propagandists.
Geoff, you say:
‘But doesn’t the vehemence, and the length, of this thread rather give the lie to what this site is really about.’
And:
‘But there is a very strong commonality of view point, and the reaction to those who challenge it is strong and often not conducive to debate. Ad hominems do not make for debate.’
This is a perfect contradiction. The length of the thread can only be evidence of the strength of debate and proof that those with opposing views are able to represent them here.
I guess that you don’t really like any debate, full-stop, but if it must take place it must be within certain parameters; or even better, you’d prefer it if everyone subscribed to a relativist world-view where there was nothing to argue about at all…
you use the term “right wing” like it is a bad thing and something to be ashamed of……
You’ve just twisted the statistic anomaly round, Geoff Watts. This outlier is more like the exception that proves the rule. The majority of posts may come from an ideological angle which is abhorrent to you, but that doesn’t mean the BBC items discusses aren’t biased. Separate the message from the messenger(s).
Well, it’s been interesting to say the least. Moderator comment had me laughing. What a gay day! as I believe someone mentioned earlier.
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.”
Dr Seuss
…But which is better…gays or muslims………..FIGHT! 🙂
Sorry..but it all got a bit too heated…needed some levity.
Heated? Levity?
‘wild’ described Jennifer Aniston as “chubby” and That Is War.
You’re gonna need to nuke Brad, then…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8767255/Brad-Pitt-suggests-marriage-to-Jennifer-Aniston-was-boring.html
A S E
No, she is still Becky in Coronation Street, I too like Wild, have noticed she has become “of weight” and “not of husband” recently.
Geoff Watts
Here’s the thing. I remember when the BBC genuinely was pretty balanced – but that was a long long time ago, when it simply reported news in a factual manner rather than adding commentary to everything.
Then it swung left. I happened to have been fairly left at that time – but I still recognised the shift. But when people like Norman Tebbit had to keep complaining to the BBC about its leftie bias, the BBC always denied it.
But lo and behold, a short while ago the current Director General declared that 20 to 30 years ago when he was working at the BBC there was endemic leftie bias. So, the BBC was consistently lying back then when it kept denying its bias.
But the D-G claims to have fixed all that – and we have arrogant nonsense statements like Helen Boaden claiming that impartiality is in their genes.
And the BBC carries on parrot-fashion denying any bias on anything.
The BBC was in denial way back then, why isn’t in denial now ?
Once a serial liar, always a serial liar ?
I regard the BBC as exhibiting far more bias now than 20 or so years ago – because it mixes comment with reporting much more.
And this site has documented hundreds if not thousands of items of SPECIFIC bias, as well as the overall trend. On a whole list of issues, you can predict what the BBC line will be – favouring the left, hostility to the right. Craig and others have documented issue by issue, programme by programme, the bias both by omission and by commission.
Worse – the BBC complaints procedures are useless to the point of being corrupt.
And meanwhile the BBC denies that it has major dominance in the news arena in the UK. Now THAT is a good measure of how easily the BBC lies. That old devil Murdoch would never deny that he has major effect through his newspapers – even though the Times and Sunday Times are pretty balanced. He was therefore willing to float off Sky News to avoid the sense that News International would have too much overall effect on news and opinion. The BBC appears aghast that anyone should even suggest that it is too damn big, too dominant.
(I gather that the BBC contingent at the Liberal Party conference in Birmingham outnumbers all the other UK news providers combined)
The BBC is an “over-mighty subject”, and needs to be radically pruned.
Funny aint it the friends of the BBC say this is a place where we all think the same lol funny they=
All love the bbc
They all believe in AGW
They all hate Palin
They all love obie
They all wish to protect public sector thieving
They all vote Labour [pretend they don’t]
They think BBC contract comedians are the best in the world no matter what they do or say !
They think the army of Islam is totally peaceful
And think any who does not hold these views is evil and a right wing bigot who should be purged from their internet !!!
Look BBC boys I know you want to be a individual but why are you all trying to be the same one?
This thread is not Biased BBC’s finest hour that is for sure. It is no surprise that BBC apologist Geoff Watts jumps in and tries to portray himself as the voice of moderation. A apologist for manifest and widespread abuses of power by the BBC would be my characterization, but then again politeness (as you may have noticed) was never my strong point.
I attack threats to a free society from whatever quarter they come, and in my opinion the BBC is by FAR the biggest threat to freedom of thought in contemporary Britain, a claim which even if it is moderated into a “concern” about the political bias of the BBC, still makes this site an important contribution to public debate in our country.
As for some of the “shit for brains” comments. In any open forum disagreement is inevitable. As is agreement. I rather agree with your point that there is not enough disagreement on this site.
200 comments or bust!
There’s an important point here though. This is a great example of how the BBC does it. They not only seek to distort the debate on particular issues, they try and shut down any debate at all on some issues.
That’s how we end up with absurdity of senior BBC staff endorsing a campaign group, but it’s alright becuase the campaigns they campaign for are just common sense, init, and if you disagree, you sir are worse than Hitler.
I see that readers have allowed Scott/Dez to hijack this thread and divert it from its original intended course. They seem to be unaware that their sarcastic comments and polemical rants show them to be every bit as bigoted as the people they denounce. The truth is EVERYONE is prejudiced in one way or another. It’s a fact of life that our views are formed by experience, whether good or bad. Those views are,in the main, sincerely held, whether others agree or not.
I have a very open mind and like a good discourse, sometimes even being persuaded by argument to look in a different way at a subject. The way Scott/Dez form their arguments (sarcasm and abuse, and deliberate misinterpretation of others’ comments) looks to be intended to browbeat those who think differently to them. Demonising opponents is a well known leftist practice.
To get back to this subject, I have no particular axe to grind with homosexuals. Those gay couples I have known in the past have been very pleasant and friendly people (hope Scott/Dez don’t accuse me of being patronising).
Because there’s always been some form of publicity by gay pressure groups, the subject regularly came up in conversation. The gay couples and individuals with whom I was acquainted invariably wished the gay pressure groups weren’t so militant. They felt that militant gays pushed their agendas in such a way as to guarantee prejudice against them. The individuals I knew just wanted to be treated like anyone else, didn’t want preferential treatment or be treated like special cases. They just wanted to be able to live like everyone else.
I found it fascinating they hated militant gays as much as any homophobic bigot did, mainly because the militants made people believe that all gays behaved like Tatchell and some of the more extreme members of Stonewall.
By the way, I am straight and atheist. I just don’t like anyone telling me what to believe and how to think. That’s probably why I’m not keen on left wingers.
thank goodness……i was beginning to think a comment column from the star had slipped in
Ditto from halfway through your first paragraph down. I’ve known a fair share of homosexuals just as fair minded and objective as you could hope anyone to be. In the public sphere we have to think of the homosexual historian David Starkey, who perversely enough attacked the blacklisting of Christians as foster parents because they dont accept homosexuality as normal, while the Christian conservative Iain Duncan Smith supported it. I’ve also known homosexuals who are serious bigots who call anyone who does not accept their sexuality as normal ‘homophobe’.
It’s quite evident from his history here that Scez is a deeply unpleasant individual who would have anyone who caused him displeasure in the Gulag if he had the opportunity. I have to say that his claims over not sharing the views of Peter Tatchell having avoided addressing the issue in the first place do leave me with my doubts.
I dont’ like people telling me what to think and believe either. But apparently, if your name is hippiepooter, ltwf1964 or one of the other hangers-on of their ilk, it’s perfectly alright. And if you can slag off gay people – in general, or in particular, and preferably using language that most people would deem offensive – then it’s perfectly acceptable. Because the people who claim to moderate this site, but really just try and stamp on any opinion they don’t agree with, try and pass it off as “robust argument”. They know it’s abusive, they know it’s immature. But they don’t care.
I’d call it double standards, but in order for standards to be doubled there’d have to be some in the first place.
So you don’t agree with freedom of speech then, Scott?
In your case Scott you can say what you like – people will argue with you and maybe call you names because they do not belive what you say .But you will not be prosecuted, unlike the people who may not agree with other ‘lifestyle’ choices.
In this country today you can say what you like about the Bible, white men, hetrosexuals, insult them as much as you like. But dare to say that you do not think Islam is good or that you would rather children were adopted by married couples and you will reported to the police for ‘hate speech’
‘..but really just try and stamp on any opinion they don’t agree with..’ But they do not ruin your livelyhood or your liberty do they?
They don’t even stamp on it! He hasn’t been censored, has he?
Scez knows very well how hypocritical he is being but people of ill-will do not have the shame to care about such things. It’s good to have him here so all of B-BBC’s readers can see exactly what type of person supports BBC bias. People with Scez’s pathology are crimes against humanity waiting to happen.
Quite extraordinary this continual obsession the British have with sex of whatever ilk. There are serious problems facing our world. The usual four horsemen of the apocalypse problems.
It is a form of escapism this obsession and being of an old conservative temperament I regard sex as purely a private matter in which the state should play no part other than to protect, as nearly all civilised societies have done, the young and vulnerable until such time as they are old enough to understand what it is all about.
As for “gay marriage” I thought that this was covered by civil partnerships which status should be quite enough for any reasonable man or woman .
Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is what the word means or has in the vast majority of societies for millenia.
The few gays I know live quiet, ordinary lives. They acknowledge that tolerance of their ‘sexual orientation’ has greatly improved. They are content with that. They, & the majority of the population, just don’t happen to think that strident, exhibitionist, Gay Pride marches are the pinnacle of Western civilisation.
I think this thread highlights the need for all to accept that everyone has views or opinions that others might find offensive or even ‘bigoted’, and that there is a real need for people to develope a thicker skin and not assume that they have a right never to be offended. However, the ability to offend shouldn’t become compulsory when replying to opposing views. I really enjoy this blog, and would be extremely disappointed if it degenerated into the kind of aggressive slanging match of petty insults that is the natural way of many other sites I’ve visited – not that I expect it to. Moderation should be a last port of call, but we contributors should also make an effort not to put the hosts of this site in the position of having to block comments. The general good natured and humorous banter on this blog is what keeps me reading and posting regularly. Long may it continue.
The general good natured and humorous banter on this blog is what keeps me reading and posting regularly.
Spot on. I usually try to read most comments on this blog, and find they are of a much higher standard than the rammy of obnoxious comments and innuendo you find on, say, Guido’s site. Or the heavily censored variety, where only approved thoughts are allowed, to be found at good old Auntie.
For possibly the first time I have simply not bothered to view whole pages of comments on a thread. People are allowed to disagree with others’ points of view. It doesn’t make them the spawn of Satan. Remember that offence cannot be given, only taken.