B-BBC guest Graeme Thompson (hippiepooter) writes:-
“It has long been patently evident that theBBCis the propaganda arm of all groups seeking to normalise homosexuality. Now they have made it official:-
The BBC & Lesbian and Gay Foundation to produce a series of podcasts (scroll down the link)
h/t to Tigeroc for this in a previous post
Calling homosexuality a ‘perversion’ isn’t going to win people over to the idea that the BBC is systematically biased towards leftist groups. In fact I suspect it will do little more than invoke a variant of Goodwin’s law which states ‘ … the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.’
Hugh, is what you’re really trying to say that you dont like homosexuality being called a perversion because you dont regard it as a perversion?
No, what he’s really trying to say is that one doesn’t have to use terms like “perversion” to convince people that the BBC takes sides on this issue, and that doing so doesn’t add anything useful to the debate.
DP, I’m sure Hugh can speak for himself. I already know that you dont like homosexuality being called a perversion.
A very large amount of people consider homosexuality to be a perversion, but the word is rarely heard on the airwaves because of BBC Thought Policing.
Hippie, we all know what you think about it was well. Using the term doesn’t add anything to the debate about BBC bias. The issue here isn’t whether or not homosexuality is good or bad or dangerous or whatever. The issue is whether or not the BBC pushes for one side or the other, and declares one viewpoint or the other to be incorrect.
Your last sentence is in my opinion perfectly acceptable, though. In that case you’re using the term as something the BBC doesn’t allow, which isn’t the same thing as simply declaring that homosexuality is a perversion. See the difference?
So DP (your reply is below for some reason), it’s alright for you to express your opinion on Obama when criticising BBC bias in his favour but not for me to express my opinion on homosexuality when criticising BBC bias in its favor?
The reply thing is whacked a bit, this is meant as a reply to Hippie’s last point that I’m acting as if it’s okay for me to criticize the President when discussing BBC bias, but not okay for him to criticize homosexuals.
Actually, I’d make the distinction that my criticisms don’t involve offensive terminology, pejoratives which tar an entire group of people. Referring to “The Obamessiah” isn’t offensive to black people in general. It may be a bit childish of me, but it’s not denigrating to all blacks. If anything, it’s an insult to a lot of BBC staff, but hardly offensive in the way “perversion” is. I realize, of course, that your opinion that it’s a perversion isn’t remotely like calling black people what Liam Stacy did. One is an opinion, the other is just name-calling. So I do understand where you’re coming from.
In any case, if I call Him a Socialist or a disaster or incompetent, in no way can that be inferred to mean that all black people are inferior to whites. There’s a difference.
DP, ‘offensive terminology’ is in the eye of the beholder. It is entirely false of you to say that I condemn homosexuals. I never have done. I reject there sexuality as a perversion, as individuals I take them as they come. It’s a straightforward smear to suggest otherwise. It’s what the BBC habitually do to shut down open debate.
You refer to President Obama as the ‘Obamamessiah’, I refer to homosexuality as a perversion. You do not use racial epithets to refer to your President, I do not use epithets to refer to homosexuals. If you’ve read all the comments here, you’ll see the exact reverse in fact when the occasion arises, regardless of the wrong a homosexual has done me. For anyone who truly holds democratic values, it’s par for the course to take this stance.
You don’t like the opinion I express that homosexuality is a perversion. Fine. We disagree, but it’s hardly democratic on your part using the smear tactics of the homobigot playbook to demonise my opinion as against homosexuals not homosexuality. It’s a real blindspot with you. You leave yourself standing shoulder to shoulder with ‘defenders of the indefensible’ playing the same game the BBC plays in the cause of bigoted homosexuals.
Just to clarify my own position on homosexuality, I don’t really care what people do in the bedroom or who they fall in love with. Nor do I excessively worry t HOW children are taught sex education, including homosexuality, at school.
They very fact that the state is teaching sex education rather than Latin, is just another sign of the dependency culture endemic in society-that it should be the parents obligation, not the state to teach their kids the “facts of life”.
Where I do take issue is the apparent demands of 2% of the population (and I suspect that it’s only the politically active involved) to change the doctrine and customs of institutions that are an integral part of the wider culture, and has been part of the bedrock of British society.
The fact that the same demands are not made on another religion with a rather more fundamentalist viewpoint, I suspect because that constituent is far more robust in asserting its views, is a more interesting aspect of multiculturalism that has yet to be explained by the high priests of that doctrine.
Burkean Outlook, have you have read an essay by contemporary Thomistic philosopher Edward Feser on ”The Metaphysics of Conservatism’?
He ably defends the necessity to frame conservative thought in essentially Realist terms. He refers to this as ‘Realist Conservatism’, Realist here referring to philosophical Realism, and defines it thus;
‘”Realist Conservatism,” as we might call it, affirms the existence of an objective order of forms or universals that define the natures of things, including human nature, and what it seeks to conserve are just those institutions reflecting a recognition and respect for this objective order. Since human nature is, on this view, objective and universal, long-standing moral and cultural traditions are bound to reflect it and thus have a presumption in their favor.’
I think it any social and cultural conservatism that can truly hold out against the forces of modernism and liberalism must ultimately be a Realist Conservatism, incorporating the key positions of Classical and Christian Realism or natural law. This means that we should not be afraid to condemn homosexuality, and not just on appeals to social utility.
Thank you for your interesting post. It is very enlightening and I will look into it further.
Without boring non conservatives on the disagreements between Conservative thought, I think you raise interesting points.
I am not familiar with Edward Feser, but I am familiar with other social and cultural critiques of Conservatism. Peter Hitchens “Abolition of Britain” is a landmark book in Paleoconservatism in the UK, along with Edward Leigh, Julian Amery work in the Touchstone Group, as well as the writings of Russell Kirk
However I come from a different tradition, Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss, Norman Podhoretz, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, more recent commentators like Victor Davis Hanson, Mark Steyn, Niall Ferguson, Robert Kaplan, and of course Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher.
I am also influenced by more left leaning thinkers like Oliver Camm, Christopher Hitchens and the works of Henry “Scoop” Jackson, especially on international affairs.
Put it more simply I am more socially liberal, economically conservative, while I support the idea of interventionism and the idea that securing liberty abroad is security at home.
I certainly am interested in this debate, but I don’t know if this the forum to have it.
I am also entirely comfortable in my own sexuality not to feel threatened by men running around in skimpy white shorts, or women with shaved heads, or indeed people who can’t make up their minds what they are.
Nor am I threatened by people who want to uphold traditional norms and values either, who worry about the bedroom habits of 2% of the population.
What Mr Preiser so wonderfully encapsulated in his comments, is arguably that in his epithet of ‘Obama messiah’, a term used as a satirical device regarding the media’s uncritical observation and critique of a President, who arguably has done much to harm the United States, and by extension, the West’s, economic and geo-political future.
Let’s get down to the real nuts and bolts. When you are $15 Trillion in debt, with 10 times that in unfunded liabilities, when your debt interest is paying for the cost of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army, when you have states like California which are in effect bankrupt, when you are outspending the ability of the planet to fund your excesses, and when you are earning $2 Trillion but spending $4 Trillion, worrying about the sexual escapades of a few old queens seems to my mind and indulgence that we cannot afford.
When Greece falls of the cliff, it causes a ripple. When the United States falls off the cliff, that signals the end of Western civilization.
By 2016 China, a country run by a Communist central committee, with no human rights, no democratic means to address social or political issues, no property rights, and with a population of millions who live below the poverty line will be the world leading economic power, and there after a military power who will act against the interest of what remains of Europe and United States.
A power, which for the first time in 2000 years will not be using the Roman alphabet.
The failure of the BBC to report the implications of what this means to the West is one of almost criminal proportions, and one which B-BBC should be looking at with great interest. While I respect the editorial power of the blog owners, and it is not my place to say what should or should not be printed, I believe that issues like this serve no purpose in the light of the current economic and geo-political situation.
Great post Burkean (calling you ‘BO’ somehow didn’t seem appropriate).
We’re in financial crisis because we’re in moral crisis. I think you and I are old enough (I’m 47) to remember when banks had the moral sense to realise that if one goes handing out loans willy nilly left, right and centre in a headlong rush to ‘profit’, appealing to people’s most reckless desires to buy what they can’t afford, it would lead to societal collapse.
The huge ‘fascism creep’ of the homosexual lobby is another huge facet of this moral collapse.
If you’ve followed the links I provided to my own blog, you’ll see that my concern isn’t tolerance of homosexuals, its the rampant intolerance of the homosexual lobby that is taking our democracy out from under our feet.
There really is a need to distinguish between ‘homosexuals’ and the ‘hommosexual lobby’. The homosexual historian David Starkey was at the forefront in condemning the court decision to de facto ban Christians from fostering or adopting if they dont teach little children homosexuality is normal.
There are a good number of moderate homosexuals who wish to accommodate the Christian conscience in the pursuit of normalising their sexuality in society, but the ‘homosexual lobby’ is not moderate, it is uniformly fascistic in its contempt for democratic values.
You know, I was going to say, Hippie, you’ve done more than just express your opinion that homosexuality is a perversion. I had a whole diatribe going about your fears of society turning into some combination of Queer As Folk and the most graphic version of the Venusberg orgy scene at the beginning of Tannhaüser.
But I see what I’ve really done here is distract everyone from the real issue of BBC bias you’ve highlighted in the main post: using the license fee to promote a charity with a very narrow focus.
For this, I apologize to you and to everyone here. Even Scott expressed doubts about it, FFS, and I got carried away instead. I will try to refrain in future.
Actually Mr Preiser, I rather enjoyed your comments.
Discussing moral norms and values are part of a healthy society and that should be always ongoing.
Clearly many people find homosexuality a rather unsettling aspect of human behaviour.
It is a perfectly reasonable position to hold, but where many people go wrong, is that in commentating on these issues, it does debase itself into pure spiteful acts of name calling.
Where I do take issue with the BBC (and with the wider cultural establishment) is like on so many topics regarding social and moral values, it seeks to close down the debate, that there is nothing to discuss, and those who hold contrarian views are bigoted, simple minded and wrong-headed.
The plethora of “-phobia” and “-isms” that have become part of the lexicon of Political Correctness, which reminds me of the concept of “Newspeak”, is a label all to easily applied to large sections of the population to cow them into not speaking and participating in the wider discourse.
If you are a Conservative, as indeed I am, then by extension of the “liberal left” terms of engagement, I am a “Nazi”, “Fascist”, “Zionist”, “neo-Con” (which is indeed I actually am-but not in the way they imply), that I only “care about rich people”, “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic” and everything else you care to mention.
Seeing however that Conservatism rejects the idea of doctrine in the first place, I find it amusing to be called a fascist.
To my mind B-BBC (which I’ve been a long time reader-now you’ve sorted out your comments section, I can participate) is twofold, firstly it is to document bias within the State Broadcaster, but just as importantly it is a platform in which to express contrarian idea’s without fear or favour- a facility which the state broadcaster does not do, unless it seeks to manipulate the debate.
We’ll leave your claim that I was going beyond the word ‘perversion’ but otherwise your comments were welcome.
I would say they that you’ve let Scez bowl you a curve. Do you really think he doesn’t know why the BBC would be doing joint podcast with a vociferous ‘gay rights’ organisation? The clue I think is in him being a vociferous ‘gay rights’ campaigner and he is always trying to cover-up for BBC bias.
Another pro-BBC homosexual we have posting here – nay, an employee no less – is David Gregory, and agree with him or not, he is on the whole a very agreeable chap. Most non-fanatics are I find.
“The clue I think is in him being a vociferous ‘gay rights’ campaigner”
Blimey. If me occasionally expressing a personal opinion is what passes for “vociferous campaigning” these days, standards must really be slipping.
Posting under my own name about my employer I do try and restrict myself to explaining programme processes and how decisions inside the BBC have been reached.
But as a man about to marry my husband I will admit being described as someone in thrall to a “perversion” and by extension being called a “pervert” does get to me just a little bit.
I genuinely think this sort of stance actually really damages what B-BBC tries to achieve. Phrases like “After Jihad, the premier evil that threatens our country is homosexual fascism” and “normalising perversion” really don’t help.
As Dorothy Parker said; “Heterosexuality is not normal, it’s just common.”
(On the plus side the new site looks great, although I’d suggest a larger box for comments is well overdue)
Except when launching personal attacks as he did once on me, for no apparent reason, or when snootily telling people they are stupid.
Yes Millie, not one of Mr G’s finest moments.
“Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words”
Dorothy Parker
Time will of course tell which category her comment on heterosexuality comes into.
She did, I believe, convert to Christianity, like Oscar Wilde did shortly before his death. There’s hope for you yet DG – even for Scez!
I believe that homosexuality is biblically condemned and also unnatural immoral according to classical natural law.
However I agree with the general need to use a respectful tone when addressing homosexuality and homosexuals. I will not apologise for the truth, but any extraneous remarks or needless aggression, particularly those that add to denial of the basic human dignity of homosexuals (though not their ‘behaviour’) is to be avoided, to say the least.
I should perhaps add that I do not think referring to homosexuality, as long as one does not refer too personally to individuals, counts being disrespectful as that is what homosexuality is. The same goes for unnatural, inhuman and immoral.
Scott, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, and showing quite a lot of ignorance of the issues at hand. You are using the term nature to refer to anything that exists in nature. However classical natural law means, by nature, the essence or nature of a thing.
Hence it is in the nature of a triangle to have three perfectly straight sides and in the nature of a foot to walk. The fact no material triangle has three perfectly straight sides does not change the nature of a triangle or triangularity, nor does the existence, in nature, of clubfeet change the nature and purpose of feet. These are simply different usages of the term nature.
Did you not think the blindingly obvious had never occurred to Aristotle or Aquinas?
Animal homosexuality, indeed.
“classical natural law”
What on earth is that supposed to be? Care to explain?
…surely something to do with reproduction Dez.
Span, “surely something to do with reproduction”
Possibly, but “natural law” is an oxymoron. Not sure where the “classical” comes from. I’m hoping John of Dorset can explain it to me.
Classical natural law here is referring to one of the traditional Realist or Essentialist views, Platonic, Aristotelian, or Christian (for example.), that, as contemporary Thomistic philosopher Edward Feser puts, ‘affirms the existence of an objective order of forms or universals that define the natures of things, including human nature,’ and the morality that extends from this, and which long dominated Western thought (and I believe, in various forms, that of all the great civilisations of the world).
I’m not sure, unless one assumes some sort of post-Cartesian position from the beginning, how the term natural law is an. oxymoron?
Span ows, well classical natural law positions look to the nature and ends, final or formal causes, of humanity and human faculties to see how they act for the good, or act morally.
When it comes to human sexuality, reproduction is obviously one of its major aspects and ends. Our sexual faculties and desires naturally, when healthy, will tend to work for the production of children, children who are best brought up, in general, by their parents in a monogamous relationship. This is not the only properties and ends of our sexuality and relations though. Another is the reunification of the basic poles, or genders, of humanity in a way that is balanced and healthy, through the experience of a shared intimate, monogamous relationship.
This all, by the way, means that marriage, or the monogamous, permanent heterosexual relationship , is a natural institution; the natural outcome of human sexuality and relationships. ‘Gay marriage’ is therefore a contradiction in terms, like a square circle. The state may try and pretend to give homosexuals a marriage, but all it can do is try and subvert the true nature of man, which will not end well. The same also goes for ‘civil unions’ and such like, that parody marriage and try and grant much of its status.
Dez: “Natural law is an oxymoron”
Do explain.
“When it comes to human sexuality, reproduction is obviously one of its major aspects and ends.”
The same could be said of sexuality in the animal world, surely. Yet, same-sex sexual behaviour has been observed in over 1500 species.
Natural law, indeed.
I like the new site, but does anyone apart from me find it increasingly dfficult to read large numbers of replies as the page gets narrower and narrower…..?
@HP. The principal thrust of this blog is, as I understand it, to expose the way the BBC has a systematic left or liberal bias in all that it does from CBeebies onwards. And I think the principal contributors and those who comment are successful in laying this bare, and in calling for the BBC to provide balanced view of events.
In respect of your use of the word perversion, gay men and women are free to do what the law allows and I don’t think it does our cause any good, if we use derogatory language to describe people going about their lives in a law abiding manner. At its most basic this about liberty. Gay men and women are free to do what they want, provided doesn’t negatively impact on the freedoms of others.
In respect of your challenge to DP to distinguish between your use of the word perversion and his criticisms of what Obama is doing. I think the difference is that DP is saying that the President is only free to do what he does, provided it is legal and it doesn’t negatively impact on the freedoms of US citizens. (The caveat here is that natural disasters, wars and disease require special measures). As far as can tell DP believes that much of what Obama does is neither legal nor beneficial, and it has a negative impact on the lives of US citizens.
Where do I stand? Perversion in this context implies a change in the natural order sexual behavior. It implies that some sex is natural and some not. I think a couple of thousand years of history have taught us that the natural order is very broad, and includes many ways of expressing our sexuality – including homosexual behavior.
Thanks for that Hugh. I’m sure you’ll agree that the points you’ve raised I’ve already covered elsewhere.
Oh yeah, I used your name below instead of Reed.
I hope ASE can tweek the posts so we can delete and correct our SNAFUs.
I am wary of allowing Edits because people can then change the context and even the whole meaning of post. The entire thread then becomes a mess.
What do you think? What do other readers think?
This is a work-in-progress blog now. Talk to us!
All Seeing Eye says:
March 30, 2012 at 4:01 am
I am wary of allowing Edits …Talk to us!
—
I am responding via the post you replied to as your post did not have a reply button for some reason?
Hence adding the segment being replied to in my post, which may be one ‘sort of’ indicator.
I tend to agree that edits are not a great idea. That can really drop the person replying right in it… which is why the BBC loves doing it on their main stories. I find it risible that they do it so often, and po-faced claim a ‘last updated’ tag hidden at the top covers what is often a complete shift in story sense. Again, why I make the point of capturing what I am replying to on BBC threads so they end up trying to explain why what is in my post, from them, is no longer there. I once had an attempt to have me referred for being ‘off topic’ because they changed the story to remove the topic I was replying to. It did not end well for them, though sadly before I got in the habit of capturing pages at the same time as posting.
The Telegraph does allow edits, but they are flagged as such. Not sure that helps the sense aspect, but that is true of a delete.
Not sure how the sequence thing can be addressed, but again popping a line from the one being responded to can cover that.
“Calling homosexuality a ‘perversion’ isn’t going to win people over to the idea that the BBC is systematically biased towards leftist groups.”
Agreed.
I agree. As someone who certainly doesn’t see homosexuals as ‘perverts’ and has no problem with gay marriage, I don’t think this is helpful language to use.
One doesn’t have to have a problem with a particular minority in order to acknowledge a bias in BBC coverage of issues relating to that group.
Thank you Hugh for raising your objection in an honest and reasonable way. You may have a point, but they ‘huffy’ and partial way it had been raised previously certainly doesn’t contribute to the debate on this particular point.
While I understand the point you’re making on balance, as someone squarely on the other side of the fence to the Correctnick BBC, I’ll use the word owing to the ‘prohibited’ status the BBC has given it in relation to homosexuality.
No problem, HP. I certainly wouldn’t wish to silence or censor others’ differing views on any subject, or place rules on how they should express those views. There’s far too much of that going on in this country, with the left taking the lead. With the increasing push for proscribing language, we’re becoming a distinctly illiberal nation, at the behest of the so-called ‘liberal’ left.
There’s a good article here on this…
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1039/jailings_for_racism_on_twitter_britain_s_forgotten_fight_for_free_speech
That may be true but the same could be said of a variety of other comments and types of language used. However, as I understand it, this blog is run on the principle of allowing freedom of expression and freedom of views regardless of whether various forms of unpleasant expression may appeal to or convince anyone else of bias.
…calling it a perversion maybe tough for some to take but the BBC has – on occasion – not been able to think of other words either: from just over a year ago:
http://owsblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/odd-onomatomania.html
“within only nine short sentences there are FOUR appearances of the phrase “men who have sex with men”! WTF is all that about?”
The reason they use the term ‘men who have sex with men’ is because that covers bisexuals & gays (obviously), but it also cover those for whom it’s not their norm, eg/rape, prison &c…
Homosexuality refers to sexual preference not sexual practice.
(“,)
Fisk and loose with the facts.
The BBC and Guardian like minded employee of the Independent, Robert Fisk, is in trouble:
‘ a remark made in the Guardian by Ian Black, the paper’s diplomatic editor, who was reviewing the memoirs of Hugh Pope, a distinguished Middle East correspondent, which strongly criticise Fisk’s style of reporting. According to Black, Pope was “not the first journalist to wonder with envy and irritation how Fisk ‘managed to get an amazing sounding story from a dull day’.” Black was choosing his words carefully (as am I) but read between the lines.’
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100148094/i-do-not-make-stories-up-says-an-embattled-robert-fisk/
and Fisk fisked by Private Eye
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=street_of_shame
Fisk Works for the Independent
So what, Mr Dandy, the Indie is right out of the same stable as the Guardian/Beeb. This is the the sort of nitpicking I associate with Dez&Scott – not worthy of your previous posts.
May be its just me but lately there seems to be a rush to the left and not just in the BBC but coming from the highest levels as well.
Being a semi-geek I visit some of the science/tech sites everyday. Now most of these guys are left of left and off the scale. Yesterday there was mention of the Laim Stacy’s jailing. The majority of the visitors are American and they were horrified at this turn of events obviously because they have freedom of speech guaranteed in the 1st amendment.
The vast majority of comments were in the vein of “if you don’t have free speech then you don’t have democracy”
Other comments were how can a judge sentence someone on the basis of “public opinion”.
So what is going on here. We have/had Governments that are hell bent to accommodate every minority under the sun and go even further and make sure that no one critises it by making it a crime.
Democracy I have always assumed to be elected by the majority of the people for the benefit of that majority. In a civilised society if you are outside of the majority beliefs you lump it or leave it. Have done it twice myself (leave it, I mean).
So are the Conservatives giving the Libs some rope to hang themselves or are we rushing headlong into some kind of Stalinist State?
Under Cameron’s leadership the (ex) Conservative Party has bought in wholesale to cultural Marxism.
I’ve got a lot of time for Cameron, I think he’s an excellent leader and on the whole doing a great job, but if there is ever a serious political option providing a judeo/christian alternative to the kulturkampf triumvarite we have I would jump at it.
The Christian Party and Christian People’s Alliance might lead the way in providing this option, but they need to broaden. Any party that carries the the name of religion automatically carries with it the suggestion it wants to create a theocracy and all it’s policies are based on ‘because God says so’. When standing for election a party’s platform needs to convince on the basis of argument and reason. If the Christian Parties broadened into say an ‘Independent Democratic Party’ and carried Jewish support like the likes of Melanie Phillips, it might go somewhere. As it is, we are slouching remorselessly to Gomorrah and there’s no sign anyone’s going to be able to put the brakes on.
It’s one thing to be outside the majority and expect to have the same rights and freedoms as the majority, it’s quite another to say that an individual isn’t allowed to express an opinion or say something ugly that offends another individual or group, even if that group is the majority.
The jailing of Stacy is unreal to me, and seems outside the boundaries of a free society.
I didn’t know much about the Liam Stacey case. I’ve just looked it up
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121003/Liam-Stacey-jail-tweeting-abuse-Fabrice-Muamba.html
and it does seem something to me that should be referred to the Police, albeit the Judge seems to have gone completely over the top. If this guy had a track record as an ‘RIP troll’ that might be a different thing but I’m not aware of that.
The question is though, how do we compare Stacey being jailed for 56 days for what is deemed ‘racially aggravated harrassment’ on Twitter, for apparently a one off act of stupidity and raising little public concern it seems, but Jihadists can burn the poppy and chant insults to our war dead at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, and the worse that happens to them is a 50 pound fine. And we’re supposed to be at war against them?
Why should it have been referred to the police? Have you seen the actual tweets for which he was arrested and convicted?
If you are going to refer that to the police, there is a whole lot more that needs to be referred also. And the Islamic fanatics getting away with their shenanigans towards soldiers is one such instance that has been mentioned on another thread by me.
In this case of the footballer, there seems to have been an extraordinary reaction to his falling ill in the first place and the judge appears to have gone with the prevailing mood of that reaction. I am not sure why, because judges are supposed to reflect soberly and act in a more measured way, taking account of all considerations and circumstances and not just some public mood of the moment. The result seems to be out of kilter and unfair to the individual, when you consider the sorts of cases and offences which get off without a jail term, even though from another point of view, he is a vile and repellent individual to post the sort of venom, threats and hatred that he did and deserves whatever he gets as a result. Overall, though, I would say that fairness, by reference to other sentencing practice and the nature and medium of his offence, would seem to dictate a suspended sentence or a community service order. I can’t help thinking he was made an example of but not for the right reasons; more because of the media storm and mood of the moment than anything else.
I think this element of the BBC agenda makes the appropriate term Bi-assed bbc
New website, same tired old prejudices, I see.
I’m not entirely sure why the BBC would be co-producing a series of podcasts for a charity’s website – regardless of what the charity is. But at least hippiepooter and David Vance show that Biased BBC is more concerned with showing their own bigotries towards gay people than actually asking the right questions regarding issues of possible BBC bias.
Ah Scez, bless. Playing the homo-bigot playbook with such well loved monotony.
If there’s one thing a homosexual fascist like you hates more than anything its someone like me not hating homosexuals. Still, you stick to the playbook Scez, truth and reason will never aid your cause.
Ah, still using “Scez” because you’re unable to comprehend that Dez and I are different people. Still calling me a “homo-bigot” as if that means anything.
And still have not adequately explained why you have previously accused me of being anti-Semitic, and have not apologised for doing so.
Go you. You must be so proud of yourself.
Scott, if other people discussed why the BBC is using the license fee to promote a group with a specific social activist agenda – regardless of what that agenda is – would that be acceptable? This site is capable of doing so.
As for prejudices, the BBC has exhibited some recently: anti-Mormon, anti-Right, anti-Jew. Yet you don’t sigh at the BBC for it.
“Yet you don’t sigh at the BBC for it.”
You seem to be assuming that if it doesn’t happen on Biased BBC, it doesn’t happen. That may be true for you: it’s not for me.
In that case, it would be nice if you’d share a sigh or two with us. It would make a difference in the way people interpret your presence here.
I like having Scott back here because it avoids an echo chamber and makes us double check our arguments.
That being said…everyone play nicely please. Great banter and real debate is the way forward. Abuse will not be allowed and there is a line. Enjoy!
Well Scott – Nice to see you on our brand new site. As regards your allegation about my alleged “bigotry” towards gay people, might I ask you to email me your full name and address so I may address this? Thanks.
What an odd request. It’s almost as if you’re trying to be intimidating, but are being spectacularly rubbish at it.
It’s a straightforward one. You make an allegation, be prepared to stand over it or withdraw it. Full name and address…
It’s absolutely hilarious the playbook tactics of these homo-bigots.
On the HP thread I pointed out a little fact in my life of standing up for a homosexual who was being bullied at work by a manager (not because he was homosexual) but for Scez’s homo-bigot chums on HP I was still a ‘homophobe’.
More recently, a few years ago a team I was on had to take measures against a new homosexual manager we had because he was utterly appalling in ever sense (according to another homosexual member of our team too) and I reproved a colleague for referring to him as a ‘poof’.
The playbook of homosexual fascism is dedicated to the pathological desire to do evil.
Ah, bless. The man who always claims that Biased BBC is in favour of free speech cries another tune when he perceives his particular glass house of being under threat.
Thanks for demonstrating, for the umpteenth time, what a shameless hypocrite you are.
Hippy,
“a little fact in my life of standing up for a homosexual who was being bullied at work by a manager…”
Wow! You stood up for someone *even though* they were a homosexual!
Tragic.
well his name is Scott Matthewman for a start David
linkedin says-
Scott Matthewman’s Summary
Professionally, I have bounced between the production side (including design and production for both print and online formats) to editorial and journalism.
As a blogger, I was awarded Political Weblog of The Year in 2004 by The Guardian for my (now defunct) LGBT campaigning blog, The Gay Vote. I now regularly blog about TV programmes, broadcasting technologies and the television industry in general at TV Today, one of The Stage’s suite of blogs.
political blog of the year award from the guardian
FFS!!! 🙂
Scez March 30, 2012 at 2:40 am
“Wow! You stood up for someone *even though* they were a homosexual!
Tragic. ”
Thank you Scez for illustrating my point that there’s nothing that a homo-hater hates more than someone like me who doesn’t hate homosexuals.
Outside of the twisted world of homo-hate any fair-minded person would see that my view of homosexuality in no way interferes with the way I treated homosexuals as individuals, whether they be people I like or dont like. A fair number of these fair minded people will be homosexuals themselves. Not all homosexuals are haters like Scez.
I note that both the ids of Scott and ‘Dez’ have globalised their ids with gravatar, but on Dez’s gravatar page it doesn’t show what his globalised ids are. I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation.
The odd thing David, and I’m really genuinely confused about this – you and I have both put our names forward for election.
Our names are both up for public scrutiny – we both put our heads above the sandbags and took the shrapnel – why are others afraid to do the same thing?
Name names. I’m not shy and neither are you DV. I’m a poker player Scott so seriously…show me your cards or fold.
A.S.E.,
Internet anonymity is not necessarily cowardly. It expedites self expression unconstrained by all sorts of personal circumstances.
One can have perfectly good reasons for protecting ones ID.
A consistent ‘web persona’ is enough. You don’t need political or career-related ambitions to make valid arguments.
My contributions are solely motivated by the desire to ‘make a difference.’
If that sounds pompous or self regarding so be it.
Scott, although you accuse me of being economical with the truth from time to time (I have no idea why) I admire your fortitude and I respect your Weltanschauung. (Got that from the thesaurus looking for another word for ‘position.’ If it comes across as a double entendre it’s unintended.)
D.V. and A.S.E., please desist. In the absence of John Reith, Sarah Jane, Hillhunt, assorted Bens and someone who called himself something like pea and a chip, Scott is our most lucid opponent.
(We need a delete button.)
Sue, you are as usual the voice of common sense here. Names and telephone numbers to blog is not the way forward. And you’ll already have seen on this thread that I’ve welcomed Scott back as someone who keeps us focused and asks us the difficult questions we need to hear. Without people like Scott this becomes an echo chamber.
Equally, though, I’m happy with “Scott”s privacy and I respect it. Good call. DV and myself have chosen a more open path and that’s our call too. Not sure about David but my local voters will have at least one more chance to judge my potential.
We need an “ignore” button.;)
I disagree. Scott is a troll who comes on here to hurl insults and throw out smears and wild accusations of lying, bigotry and whatever else he can summon irrationally and spitefully to target individuals or a perceived collective here. He doesn’t merit the status or accolade of opponent or of lucidity. There have been such individuals on here from time to time who have argued a position lucidly and cogently who have not been treated with as much courtesy consideration or leeway as this troll and have been chased off in short order so I don’t see the reason for advocacy for this troll and elevating him to something he is not. Maybe it is the particular single-issue cause he espouses that appeals to some and gets him a pass which others don’t get. In any case, he is the one who needs to desist.
Yes, we all know DV’s name but ASE is hardly the same thing. I have no idea what your name is.
Yes ASE, did you change your name by deed poll? Does it feature on the ballots? I’m confused too!
Millie Tant,
“I disagree”
It’s unclear who or what you disagree with but it looks like it’s something in my comment March 30th 2:09 am.
Unless you’re really called Millie Tant, it can’t be my defence of internet anonymity, surely. Later, you and ‘hippiepooter’ seem to be making a point, which eludes me, from the fact that you have no idea what A.S.E.’s name is.
I’ll assume that what you’re disagreeing with is my request that people stop insisting on knowing Scott’s address.
If Scott has hurled insults, they have been hurled back in more than equal measure. See hippiepooter’s and your comments at 4:03 and 5:01 respectively.
I don’t particularly like being called a liar either, especially if it’s not fleshed out with specifics. But Scott pursues his criticisms unlike the type of coward who merely snipes, shoots and leaves.
Sue, Millie disagrees with ASE’s comment “Scott back as someone who keeps us focused and asks us the difficult questions we need to hear.” saying that she thinks he is a troll.
I happen to agree with ASE becasue Scott often provides source and link to specific points/news as a rebuttal to what he thinks is erroneous. He may get ‘troll like’ but I haven’t seen it. Jim Dandy is another. Constructive criticism is always welcome.
hippie and Millie, the ‘real’ ASE can be found via his blog which is linked (and has been for years) in the side bar. As can other contributors that DV often refers to.
Span, I had a shufty around ASE’s blog, assuming that would be the case, but couldn’t find it. Nice to know my assumption is correct all the same!
Cheers hippie. Ooops, for some reason I could have sworn I’d seen the name there but you’re right. That said, I also think he has ‘been named’ a couple of times when posting here (i.e. in the same way you have done on this post)
Well, I’ve never hidden behind a persona on here – I’ve only ever posted under my real name, with links that clearly state who I am. Doing so has enabled people like DB to devote whole posts to me for no reason other than to be petty and vindictive – something which he admitted to.
There was no reason for Vance to ask for my address, especially as if he wanted to take a comment offline he would, as an administrator of this site, have easy access to the email address which we must all submit as part of the commenting process.
He hasn’t explained why he wanted it, nor has he apologised for doing so. I’d prefer he do the latter, but doing the former would at the very least be a good start.
@ Millie Tant March 30, 2012 at 10:39 am
Agreed Millie. To avoid mealy-mouthedness, Scott is every inch a piece of scum as someone like Nick Griffin. They’re both crimes against humanity waiting to happen.
Still, let’s be fair though. We’re nearly 4 months into 2012 and Scott still hasn’t mentioned DV lost an election in Belfast last year. It seemed to be in every post of his before.
Yes, that’s the sort of thing I mean: coming on here deliberately to taunt and hurl insults at DV, the owner of the blog. If I had a blog and he behaved like that, he would be booted out pronto. DV must be very tolerant to put up with it.
I’m glad DV did let him come back.
If nothing else, it shows the sort of person who supports BBC bias.
For what possible reason do you need Scott’s full name and address?
Wow. Both Scott and Dez have unified identities on Gravatar, although the ‘Dez’ identity doesn’t list any unified identities.
I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation.
“Wow. Both Scott and Dez have unified identities on Gravatar…”
As does: Guest Who, Charlie, Span Ows, Alphie Pacino, Pounce_Uk, Teddy Bear, Jarwill101, etc.
“I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation.”
Well done you.
dez March 30, 2012 at 3:16 am
But curiously none of them are taking such a parochial interest in DV’s request to Scott. Maybe you’re just his long lost twin brother :D.
I might add that BBC sees fit to do this series with our money to promote social justice towards a very small portion of the population.
There are some very pressing social issues in this country that desperately need attention and need the public and politicians to address.
There are tens of thousands of old people dying during the winter months of cold and cold related illness.
There are thousands of soldiers injured(both physically and mentally) in the service of this country that need our help to integrate back into our society as normal people.
We have serious social care problems with the elderly. We have old people neglected, starved and abused in state and non state institutions.
These are all causes the national broadcaster could and should get their teeth into to ensure that these issues are addressed with compassion and humility. Do we really need a series that relates to the perceived perceptions of a minority group who already have more than their fair share of support in law and tolerance?
In relation to homosexuals and other liminal groups (2% of the total population or less would be a reasonable proportion to make the cut) we really ARE the 99%- and the real 1% is most certainly the George Bernard Shaw type socialist fabian scum who seem literally hell bent on destroying Anglo-Saxon civilisation, the first civilisation since Rome to so foolishly relax its boundaries.
The textbook definition of a sociopath is one who cannot or will not respect boundaries and the BBC is one large aspect of the lapdog media which is totally abandoning itself to the erosion and eventual destruction of normative behaviour, seeking to supplant societal norms with a new standard of perpetual adolescence and what would once have clearly been seen as a fascist system of values.
All the decadence and entitlement thinking promulgated by the BBC and the rest is nothing more than the first part of the classic Hegelian triangle.
From Evidence of Revision to the Engineering of Consent to a new paradigm where a vast underclass has its internal weakness exploited by setting group against group.
‘normalising perversion’
Hang your head in shame.
If this site aspires to be taken seriously it has to drop this extreme garbage.
That is not extreme. It is the basic position of traditional Christianity and classical natural law. Only if these are extreme is it extreme.
The ends and nature of human sexuality and relationships is to bring up healthy children in the broadest sense and reunite the two poles, or genders, of humanity in a balanced and healthy way. Homosexuality does none of these, and its uses the faculties and aspects of man of which these two outcomes are their ends, but subverts these ends. It is a perversion.
If social and cultural conservatives will not argue according to a basic position anchored in classical natural law or one of its close variants, then they might as well give up now.
Jim, what you have to realise is that at B-BBC the dictates of the BBC Thought Police do not prevail. There is freedom of speech whether you like it or not. Your extreme abreaction as a BBC apologist – presumably a BBC employee as well – to the exercise of free speech on this issue says a lot about the anti-democratic nature of the BBC you defend.
What is extreme to you is par for the course for a huge amount of people, but most are far too cowed to express it due to the Great Correctnick Terror engendered by the BBC.
The day B-BBC lets itself fall victim to BBC Thought Policing from correctnicks like you will be the day it can no longer be taken seriously.
Scott
For clarity. Are you talking to me?
All these accusations of homophobia, much like Islamophobia, simply obstructing a genuine open debate about the ins and outs (no pun intended) of those themes.
Would anybody like to claim that homosexual couples should be extended the same rights and benefits as that afforded married heterosexual couples?
If so why?
I may be misunderstanding your question, Teddy, but I believe when homosexuals enter a civil partnership, they are granted the rights and benefits that married people have.
I know they do Millie, my question is whether they should be extended the same rights when for a society they don’t have the same value.
Seems to me the serious debate that should have taken place on this subject was avoided by accusing any dissenters of homophobia. This way the decision was rammed through (again no pun intended).
We see a similar tactic with Islam, Global Warming, EU, etc.
Yes, I agree the question needs to be considered in terms of the interests of the whole of society, not just of a few homosexual militant activists. Nobody wants to be unkind to them, which is admirable, but it is the nonsensical charge of an invented phobia that does the damage to any prospect of a proper discussion and consideration of the issues.
For this reason society should not be rewarding same sex couples by regarding them as equal to heterosexual couples.
Makes a mockery to common sense.
I notice that Mille Tant has worked out which parts of the thread he can comment on with no possibility of having anybody respond directly to his attempts at character assassination.
Rather than responding to each individual slur, I’ll just say that he’s far from an honest, impartial commentator on what I may or may not have said in the past.
Typical of the troll, making up accusations again. I have no idea how this system of replies works or whether and when someone can reply to a comment of mine or not. I simply reply to comments as and when I can, as I choose.
Your victim act is wearing extremely thin and you don’t have a leg to stand on when you complain or demand apologies from individuals here, given your well established habit of coming on here and insulting DV and others (including maliciously and stupidly calling me and others liars, for which you have never apologised) is well known and verifiable. If you want to insult people go and get your own blog on which you can post what you like without bothering someone else on his own blog which, like it or not, does have a serious purpose and a point to it, beyond taunting and insulting people.
You have proved him wrong by replying several times; however, what I think Dez means is nothing to do with you really: I believe that on some comments there is no reply button and I think that is a system thing to stop too much indenting to the right hand side (to avoid what you see on some fora where the replies are about a metre long and one letter wide!)
Span Ows,
I cannot work out how to reply to comments by you and others further upthread where I see you correctly understood what I disagreed with, which, unsurprisingly, was nothing to do with the subject of anonymity or who ASE is.
Not sure how hippiepooter managed to reply to you further above as there is no Reply button under your comment which hippie replied to!
Don’t know why you haven’t seen the trolling or why you think the latest malicious accusation has nothing to do with me, when it is clearly directed at me!
As far as I know, Dandy is nothing like the troll. I haven’t seen him come on and taunt DV or others or call people here liars and stupid, which are the familiar troll ploys. Well, if he did, I can’t recall it. I do recall thinking that some of his arguments were reminiscent of Dez’s.
Millie, if, for the reasons Span suggests, there’s no reply option, scroll up to the next reply option you see and use that. It normally plonks your post where you want it to be. As a precaution I also copy and paste the time of the post and person I’m replying too.
I think you hit the nail on the head over why so much indulgence here is shown to Scez. He is the epitome of a hit and run merchant. He usually only turns up if some low hanging fruit presents itself, but if he ‘faux pas’ and his mistake is pointed out, you dont hear further from him.
In the open thread a the other week someone mentioned about Lyse Doucet once referring to ‘The humanity of the Taliban’. He accused them of lying a quoted Doucet as saying “Whats lacking in the coverage iof the Afghans is the sense of humanity of the Afghans’. She did indeed say that, but when I pointed out she went on to say in response to a question on what was missing from the coverage she said “It may sound odd, but the humanity of the Taliban …”
After falsely accusing someone of being a liar Scez, as ever, went missing in action.
As you implied, I think a lot of regulars here do delude themselves about his patent unpleasantness because a lot of B-BBC regulars are very sympathetic to ‘gay rights’, yet Scez is always fond of accusing B-BBC of being ‘homphobe’!
Hip, why you continue with your ‘Scez’ delusion is beyond me, but never mind.
“In the open thread a the other week someone mentioned about Lyse Doucet once referring to ‘The humanity of the Taliban’. He accused them of lying”
The original comment came from George R and I didn’t accuse him of lying.
“After falsely accusing someone of being a liar Scez, as ever, went missing in action.”
Actually, no. I admitted I had missed that quote (as Reed said: “Dez’s most popular comment so far!”)
You, on the other hand, said;
“Yet more routine deceit from Scez… …The day you stop lying Scez and learn to value self-respect is the day you will enhance your feeling of self-worth.”
Perhaps you should “Cast the beam out of thine own eye”. :p
Well Scez, if that is the case, and I’m willing to accept your word for it because I couldn’t find it, then I apologise unreservedly for my comment.
Millie apologies, I haven’t seen some of the things you mention but I do recall the slagging of DV on various posts a while back (with reference to NI politics etc)
I also see the accusation here re ‘selective replying’ so again I apologise for seeming to take sides, that certainly not my intention.
I also think the blog appears differently in the different browsers available so maybe that is something to do with the difficulty you have had (e-mail ASE)
“Making up accusations again”?
Ah, so the time when you told everybody that I had admitted posting under multiple personas, as a means of attempting to discredit someone else, never happened?
The truth was that, as I’ve again done here, I’d stated quite categorically that I have only ever posted as myself. You told everybody the exact opposite as if it were a stated fact.
And when your deception was exposed, you get all uppity and defensive, claiming that you couldn’t possibly be described as having lied, since your complete inaccuracy was instead a result of laziness and a prejudice that led you to make someng up.
I know you have an opinion of yourself that you are some sort of victim. Unfortunately, the facts don’t support that view.
In practical terms how should the BBC relate to homosexuality issues?
1. By promoting GENUINE debate on the subject regarding the rights that should be afforded to that section of society.
a) What do individuals think about the reasons certain individuals become homosexual? (Allowed to express it without being branded as homophobic)
b) What might be the real underlying causes?
2. What are the issues surrounding homosexuality that the public should be aware of.
a. diseases specific to this practice.
Just ran a search of the web to see examples of this and found this. Then searched the BBC website to see what they had on it. The most recent article was this one from July 2011
Row after India minister calls homosexuality a disease You can tell from the article how the BBC portrayed this Indian Minister to see the BBC POV. Contrast this with a search of the BBC website for smoking related diseases
This would be a good start.
“Allowed to express it without being branded as homophobic”
Teddy, you say you want a “genuine debate” but then you say that no one should be allowed to mention homophobia.
Haven’t you just contradicted yourself?
So following your logic Scez, referring to homosexuality as a “perversion” in this debate should get as equally a free ride from the BBC as homo-activists referring to their opponents as ‘homo-phobes’?
I’d be perfectly happy for the BBC to end its double standards.
Dez – if you take the trouble to copy a portion of what I wrote, then perhaps you might also take the time to read it properly.
I write ‘Branded Homophobe’.
You write ‘Mention homophobia’.
Ask somebody to explain the difference if you don’t understand it, and as ever – the meaning of my post.
I want you to know I can understand why somebody of your intellect tries so hard to appear clever, and the Catch 22 involved.
It shouldn’t take sides.