Hi all. Just a quick word re the site.
I know we still seem to have some problems re access and I am passing these on to our technical people for their attention however there are a few things I wanted to say to you directly concerning the site.
Firstly, the purpose of the site is to expose and discuss BBC bias. This site does not have any political agenda and it is not right/left. Yes, I AM clearly someone with right of liberal values, you all know that, but my beef is with the bias. If the BBC was balanced, I would be less irritated by it. That said, it’s very existence bothers me!
Secondly, the genius of the site does not lie in the posts – some are very good and indeed inspired at time of course – but in the quality of the comments of you lot reading this. To that end it is really important that any comment you leave is civil and on topic if at all possible. I am aware that passions can run high and I understand your frustration at the BBC BUT there cannot be any excuse for vicious and ad hominem comments here. I want this site to be full of informed commentary and you provide it 99% of the time but I just want to stop any tendency to political ranting with no real BBC bias focus. Please remember that there are MANY people who would like to see this site characterised as “right wing hate site” ….do not offer them hostages to fortunes please.
Finally, I am aware that in recent times some of our regular writers have stopped posting. That is a shame. In some instances I know the reason, in others I do not. I have always welcomed writers here and have never interfered with them from an editorial point of view. But people do move on and that is fine, c’est la vie. My own work and media pressures have stopped me from posting with the regularity I once did but I am still keen to take the battle to the Beeb. If anyone out there thinks they would like to contribute posts, and keep the focus on the bias, please contact me.
Biased BBC site has been here for some years now and it is going to be around for many years to come, God willing. I look upon us as one big team of people, united by a deep concern as to the behaviour and agenda of the State Broadcaster. Let’s keep rolling..
I know I’m guilty of going on the odd political rant, so for that I do apologize, David; although, I would like to believe that my posts are intelligent and provoke debate around the big picture of BBC/socialist bias. But I am always civil, David, and most of the time on topic.
The problem I find is that the BBC’s existence is so entwined with the Left’s destruction of our culture that it makes the lines of debate so often blurred. But I know there are many other forums to discuss this area for debate.
I would love to have the opportunity to contribute to exposing BBC bias from time to time, if people feel that my contributions are competent enough and meet the standards of the other authors. As I have a new starting early November, I too will be signing off the site for a few months to focus on this. 🙂
That’s new ‘job’ by the way lol!
Firstly. best of luck with new job! Second, why not compose a post and send to me?
Thank you, DV! Big step up for me career-wise, so a little nervous 🙁
Re the post I’ll keep my eye out for a good catch and get back to you over the next couple of weeks!
Best wishes 🙂
You may enjoy this other site commenting on BBC bias or even the lack thereof! BBC Scotlandshire
Wasting Time from Easterhoose? More like Question (but no real answers) Time!
Brilliant and funny!
Do I agree with it?…it`s that good, I really don`t know!
That is excellent! 😀
Well said, David.
General ranting about the state of Britain, often with blatantly racist overtones, does the site no credit and plays into the hands of the BBC’s apologists.
Get rid of Alan then.
His foaming right wing rants with very tenuous connections to the BBC do this blog no favours.
Alan is a great contributor to this site, and his efforts are well appreciated.
If you have a different point of view you can feel free to argue with valid and logical points. It’s up to the reader to weigh up the different reasons for the views and select their own.
Your particular statement, considering the amount of Alan’s contributions in relation to BBC bias, does yourself no favours.
It`s a great site-a real safety valve, and there is very little that bothers me.
Even the gratuitous stuff is understandable, more often than not. Most of us are provoked by so much of what we see and hear that it`s only natural that we get excesses.
I miss my old Israel friends like Sue and Deborah, my green pals like Robin Norbury and still hold a candle for Craig and his systematic critiques of Biased BBC interviewing techniques and timings.
That said, it`s like a train-some come, some go but the destination is the same.
You`ve been kicking at an open door Mr V-and what with this Savile stuff, your “train” may yet be a ship coming in!
Hope so…a great site! Thanks for it!
Worried about that nice BBC sinecure are you?
This site does not have any political agenda and it is not right/left
That is just a plain lie. This site has a blatant far right agenda and has a blindingly obvious political agenda.
there are MANY people who would like to see this site characterised as “right wing hate site”
1. Don’t flatter yourself, it is very unbecoming. There are a FEW people — most people don’t even know this place exists.
2. If the cap fits. There was one racist comment recetnly describing all Ugandan Asians as “thieving scum” (TigerOC) — and no one called him/her on it. There have been any number of racist comments on this site — often attracting large numbers of likes.
This site is blatantly racist and is clearly a hate site. Why even try to pretend otherwise?
Only the threat of losing that nice little earner at the BBC has forced David Vance to write this feeble post.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
‘….most people don’t even know this place exists’.
Bit of a giveaway Nick, old bean. And as for political bias, you are socialist through and through and do nothing to hide it. Score draw on that one, I think.
Your one specific accusation of racism is reasonable, your general accusation is more due to how far up the PC scale you are. I’d hazard a guess you are nearing the top, which is way past the point where it starts to become counter-productive – the Rio+ syndrome, I think it’s called.
And if you really want people to take you seriously, then come on defend the most blindingly obvious examples of BBC bias that have been posted on here (and there have been many) – your absence on those posts has spoken volumes.
…come on AND defend.
The great benefit of this site is it allows views such as those by Emus to be posted, Naturally he writes nonsense, that’s a given, but I allow BOTH sides of the story. Unlike the rancid biased National Broadcaster.
So how much are you paid by the BBC? And have you declared it on your tax return?
I fancy you can i be your bitch?
Nicked Emus, the Joey Barton of the blogosphere.
Joey Barton is he a member of the Islington nulabour soviet.
Are you really concerned about it???
This is where you show your true lack of integrity, much like the BBC, to just pursue an agenda regardless of morality or justness.
If you were really concerned about it we would have seen you posting about how much the BBC pays to those who avoid paying taxes. This is the place, courtesy of David, that you can do it – freely.
Nothing wrong with having no princples. I’ve made a very successful living out of it.
I believe free speech means exactly that so you and the odd racist commentator ( why exactly is racism the deadliest of deadly sins, trumping all others, by the way? ) can say whatever he or she likes as far as I am concerned.
As to “right wing” I should hope so. The left did not exactly cover itself in glory last century. Nazis and Communists managed to kill millions and both these absurd political systems were left wing by my standards.
True conservatism is something else entirely and is sadly out of fashion. It will return as the wheel turns and we may find that it produces a quite peaceful and harmonious society until the next bunch of misguided idealists set out to change the world.
Nicked, if you tar the entire site and all inhabitants with the epithet “racist”, you’ll have to similarly label Guido Fawkes, the BBC, the Guardian, the Spectator, an a host of other major sites. There are plenty of ugly comments left up in all those places and nobody “calls them on it”. The BBC only takes down certain comments if a reader flags them. And even then that’s capricious, as it relies on the mood of their readers. The BBC also broadcasts all kinds of things that would be considered hate speech by you if they were printed here. There’s a difference between allowing free speech and endorsing everything anyone says.
Would you call the Spectator and anti-Semitic publication because of the occasional anti-Semitic comments on their blogs? Is that your intent? Why, we’ve allowed a couple of your comments disparaging religious belief in general to pass without calling you on it. Do you then call this site an anti-religious blog, hating the beliefs of Jews and Christians?
You can call some people racists, and some people haters, but if you label the entire blog and smear all participants, you must equally smear the BBC and Guido and the Spectator and the Guardian, just to name a few.
You also seem to believe that your little jihad against DV is affecting him. Is it your contention that this post is a result of your contacting the BBC and telling them what you’ve just told us? Are you engaging in libel by any chance? We’d love to know.
Of course this site is racist — and I am amazed that anyone even goes through the motions of trying to pretend otherwise; racist, misogynist, homophobic — the whole suite of little England prejudices is on display here.
Now of course you are entitled to hold whatever views you like and you are entitled to express them (within reason). But don’t go bleating away if other people take exception to the odious racist comments that are posted very frequently on here. And even in this post I am not the only one to point out the frequent racism.
Jihad — I see what you did there… interesting term to use. Do I think that the fact that I complained to the BBC that they give a platform to someone who hosts a racist site and does nothing to prevent it has resulted in David Vance’s post? I am sure it is a complete and total coincidence. I am sure that the threat to his nice little earner from the organization whose very existence bothers him (but not so much that he isn’t more than happy to take its money — all of which is, of course, declared on his tax return) is total happenstance.
Your 100% right Nicked Emus. I like you do you want a job as my intern at the Guardian?
‘Little England’.
If only. Ahhhhhhh…….
I hate England nearly as much as I hate myself.
I want England to become a Islamic state.
Onwards to revolution comrades.
you forgot little Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland too.
Little England blah blah blah.
Hate – it’s the trump card of all trump cards – a ‘get out of the need to argue your case’ card for the intellectually lazy or just plain dishonest. If you encounter an opinion with which you disagree, just label it ‘hate speech’ – job done.The next step – get those opinions censored or, even better, made illegal. I bet you consider yourself a ‘liberal’, too.
You seem to want it both ways — you want to say anything you like but deny other people the right to criticize those comments. If you exercise your freedom of speech making odious racist remarks, I exercise mine in calling attention to them and branding them as hate speech.
As for Little England — that is exactly what this site is full of; reactionaries who cannot cope with a changing world and cling to a mythical past.
Anonymous libel is so easy, isn’t it?
I don’t even know what that means.
Go ahead and criticize, I’m sure most of us have no problem with sincere disagreements – just lay off the obligatory ‘hate’ labels – it demonstrates an urge to censor.
Anonymous libel is so easy, isn’t it?
When you use the word “England” it gives you away. You have not the slightest notion of what that word means. Of what England was and is . Of it’s fine and much maligned people. I live in a river valley that my ancestors have known for generations. I know what England is without having to ask or think. So do my sons and daughters and we will outlast you and your kind as we have outlasted all those who have tried to impose themselves upon our land.
It’s alway wonderful having Gulag-Guards-in-waiting like you on here NE showing why this site exists.
Hey, Nicked, would your ego permit you to consider the possibility of another reason for DV’s post? Be very careful.
” racist, misogynist, homophobic ”
now then, doesn’t that sum up the religion of peace?
yes?
As Jim royle says: Peace my arse!
I don’t know if Ugandan Asians were ‘thieving scum’ as I wasn’t there although in 1972 they did control 90% of the Ugandan economy. They were however racist scum and here it is – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19066465 – straight from the horses mouth. So if Tiger OC is reading this, remember to refer to Ugandan Asians as racist scum, Nicked can’t exactly call you on it.
When I worked in a chip van before daddy got me a job at the guardian.
I had an asian customer who could of been from uganda.
I liked because he was exotic.
And it’s people who post like this that are dragging this site down
Funny there’s so much racism around these days. Wonder if the anti-white racist beeb makes people that way?
“There are a FEW people — most people don’t even know this place exists.”
In the great scheme of things you’re absolutely right, of course, but with this site attracting over 200,000 hits over the past six days it seems seems to be getting rather better known.
Well Nick I am going to call you on the fact that you think I am racist for making the comment that Idi thought the Asians in Uganda were thieving scum.
How long did you live in Africa pre and post colonial Africa?
I lived there 50 years in that period. The Blacks hated the Asians because they cheated, lied and screwed the Black man over. They were very lucky they were not systematically slaughtered. The Bantu of Sub-Saharan Africa are the most racist people on the planet. If you want proof I’ll make long lists for you. My commenting on this does not reflect my position only that I post a fact.
Making statements of fact is not racist unless your mind is clouded by the socialist convention that people really don’t mean to do anything wrong it just happens. Then you analyse the situation and deem that it was all societies fault anyway and move on.
Since you think my position is wrong please educate me on why kicked the Asians out.
Oh dear NE, you reflect so aptly the hatred you seek to condemn.
Since I remember DV has intermittently published these types of posts.
“This site is blatantly racist and is clearly a hate site”
If you really thought that you would make a Police Complaint. You dont because you know perfectly well what a complete berk you’re being making such comments.
The comments section of this site certainly does attract the looney right, but then it attracts the looney left as well. One of the perils of ‘internetland’.
What this site is is a ‘freedom of speech site’. DV, in my opinion, is to be highly commended in his lightness of touch in the range of opinions he allows.
People like you NE and the BNP are that proverbial opposite sides of the same coin.
If its all the same to you NE, I’d rather take the freedom DV believes in than what you believe in. If you had your way, you’d place freedom of speech in the gulag.
Wonder where Dez and Scott have got to recently?? Ah well, there ad hominems have been safely left in the hands of Nick ….
Dear Nicked emus. You have given to yourself the role of moral arbiter of everyone who comments on this site. Yet, you frequently write in a scathingly vitriolic and patronising way about those contributors who express views with which you do not agree.
In my view, the decline of democracy in Britain has left many of its citizens frustrated in the extreme.
Instead of raising the issues that ordinary people are concerned with, the BBC has shown its bias on numerous documented occasions. In recent times so eager is it to pursue what it, (like you) perceives to be the correct agenda, it even quickly closes down any comments on HYS or other blogs when the commentators disagree with the BBC agenda.
I am a libertarian and am with Voltaire when he said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it.” This view does not seem to be popular amongst the political classes, the chattering classes and the media, particularly the BBC.
As far as I can tell, this site does not censor comments and provides an important platform for everyone, including you nicked emus, to air their views, even if they are expressed clumsily and crudely. However, in the world outside the blogosphere, passionate views like those are expressed even more forcefully by people of all colours, religion and ethnicity and for the sake of each community and our nation, it is extremely important, that everyone should feel free to express their views and opinions.
You have often complained about posted views, especially if you consider them to be racist, but there are laws in place to cover any offensive posting. Would it shock you if I said there are times when I consider your views to be offensive, inaccurate and potentially libellous?
I think it is particularly offensive of you to suggest that the provider of this site has only written his comments about keeping the focus on BBC bias, because you have made an official complaint to the BBC. It would be very easy for a moderator to block any postings by you, but if that was done, it would go against the whole spirit of this site.
Your nom de plume, is presumably taken from Nicodemus, the Pharisee who wanted to talk with Jesus, but was too scared to be seen associating with him so came to him in the darkness of the night. Read the story again and you will see that Jesus was able to help Nicodemus come out of the darkness into the light. I do hope that you will be able to feel some gratitude for being able to express your views on Biased BBC and show some politeness and patience to those with whom you disagree so much.
When the SHTF and BBC and its fellow leftys end up hanging from lamposts they will have no one to blame but themselves.
Bad day at Savile Towers then, Mr Emus?
I promise you that only the likes of you would caricature it as a racist hate site…I just find it a safe spittoon to heave up the continual BBC slime and smears that I am expected to swallow whole.
You may well be surprised about our roots and why we come here…your mind is made up, but it`s not an issue to me.
There are excesses, but so what?…the BBC and its Guardian bag carriers can provoke all manner of apoplexies at times.
Writing here does not mean that you`d be right wing at all-very lazy, sir!
It just means that you`re sick of the perpetual bias against the likes of Israel, the USA, the Christian Church, Murdoch, impartial science and the (albeit useless) Tories…amongst others.
Do stop and think will you?…read each point and try to work out why we say what we do.
I don`t regard myself as any wing, or any party…just a Christian who sees plenty on how the country is going, and who set the compasses in 2007, 1997 and beforehand.
You don’t like people with different opinions do you? Your characterization of this site as racist means it can be demeaned and insulted. Yet the BBC demeans and insults thousands if not millions of us daily who are forced on pain of prison to fund its snide’ pernicious and underhand propaganda in favour of a left wing, eco-fundamentalist agenda when its charter states it is impartial. It is the single biggest abuse of public funds in our country seeping its poison and bias into news, political programmes, daytime TV and even brainwashing our children. Are w surprised by the latest cover-up – not at all – It is typical of an arrogant organization that thinks itself above the rest of us. So please go post your sneer somewhere else.
I fancy you
Jimmy Savile fix it for me when I was young.
I don’t think it affected me in any way.
Hello sailor coming my way?
The comments on this site have always been one of the main reasons I like it. I have learned a lot that the BBC would rather I didn’t know. However the standard has dropped of late, with too many political rants of little direct relevance to the BBC and I am glad David has highlighted this. Like Alex above I can be guilty of this as well but would say it is inevitable given the huge influence (adverse in my view) that the BBC has had over political life in this country for far too long now. Lately though this has gone too far.
There is also a nastiness in a number of the comments which until recently was relatively rare. I’m not sure why that should be. Perhaps it’s the increasing number of trolls, which says to me that this site is having an effect more than they’d like to admit, which is leading to more robust replies. Trolls are best put in their place by reasoned argument, wit or simply by ignoring them. Perhaps it’s a side effect of the BBC’s attitude which has been to attempt to portray anyone with a right-wing attitude as nasty, evil or just stupid. Witness their long attacks on Rupert Murdoch, so when the boot is on the other foot with Jimmy Savile there is an understandable, if perhaps regrettable element of glee in the Beeb’s discomfort. Perhaps it’s a reaction to the BBC’s own racism of expecting lower standards of behaviour from those who react to book damage by murdering people, or of covering up the community from which most trouble-makers appear to come. They don’t seem to realise that this encourages others from those communities to believe they can get away with impunity and that it stokes up resentment in the host community. Whatever the reasons, the reaction here has on occasion been well out of order.
“Perhaps it’s a side effect of the BBC’s attitude which has been to attempt to portray anyone with a right-wing attitude as nasty, evil or just stupid.”
I’m sure this is the case, and not just with the BBC – it’s a lazy stereotype that it applied quite broadly across many outlets. The best way to counter these labels is to always stick to the rational. Factual points of view, calmly argued, will always triumph, provided the audience is open-minded (thus disqualifying the majority of Question Time crowds).
‘is applied’
As the BBC’s bias is against the right it goes with the territory that posters will seek to get over the conservative viewpoint that the BBC tries to suppress or demonise.
I find the ‘boorish right’ expressions of conservative opinion here very regrettable, and welcome those rare snippets of ‘democracy first’ lefties sharing in the condemnation of BBC bias, but by definition, no matter how much commenters here are on ‘best behaviour’, the Gramscian subversives are always going to label this a ‘hate site’. Still, we can all do our best to avoid hostages to fortune.
One thing, perhaps echoing Daphne’s post above, that I find extremely disturbing, is the often casual attitude Griffin’s neo-Nazi BNP.
Like you and the majority, I find Nick Griffin odious, an absolute twit and the BNP, quite frankly, a horrid and bigoted lot. BUT, they are whether you like it or not, along with the likes of Sinn Fein and the anti-English SNP, a democratic party; thus their views must be heard if democracy is to mean anything in the UK.
The BBC’s treatment of Nick Griffin has been an UTTER DISGRACE to democracy – this tells us more about the Left’s refusal to provide a platform to others’ views than it does Griffins foul idiocy. If Choudry’s views are acceptable than so must Nick Griffin’s be. PS, you want real racism, you try being an Englishman in Scotland…. makes Nick Griffin look like director of Hope Not Hate!
OK, I retract the Sinn Fein aspect above. They are terrorists with blood on their hands!
A Nazi, like a Communist, by definition is not a democrat.
The BBC has a duty to impartiality to facilitate democratic debate, which in my view gives it a democratic duty of bias against totalitarians who would end democracy.
I’m all for BBC bias against the BNP, unfortunately it’s left wing bias, not a democratic one.
Hang on, you forget that over a million people voted for the BNP… That, I’m afraid, is democracy. The BNP, unlike Hitler and his jack-boots, have not intimidated anyone into voting for them. They, however vile and racist, have received votes from the ballot box fair and square. They might hold ideological views which are Nazi in tone, but they have not undertaken the violence and intimidation which got Hitler into power.
‘… which in my view gives it a democratic duty of bias against totalitarians who would end democracy… ‘ Dangerous territory, you;re treading , there, my friend. Anyway, how are they doing in relation to Muslims on this democratic score?
Hippie, you say, ‘The BBC has a duty to impartiality to facilitate democratic debate, which in my view gives it a democratic duty of bias against totalitarians who would end democracy’.
The BBC cannot choose to censor one lot of totalitarians and give unequivocal support to another. I’m referring to their shamelessly biased endorsement of man-made ‘climate change’ and those behind its thinly-disguised eco-socialist totalitarian agenda.
If you want another example, there’s also the EU.
You seemed to have overlooked my point that its bias against the BNP is a left wing one, not a democratic one. Clearly, am I not suggesting, the BBC as a whole as an anti-democratic sympathy for left wing extremists?
Alex, for someone who finds the BNP to be odious, you do a good job of apologetics for them. How many BNP candidates have convictions, especially for violence?
Hippie – point taken.
Hippiepooter, and you obviously have a difficulty in grasping democracy.
I would say I have a very good grasp of what it takes to defend democracy. You recognise totalitarian threats and stigmatise them. British democracy is crippled by Political Correctness because the BBC has promoted it. If the BBC was the servant of British democracy that it should be, it would have exposed it for the Marxist totalitarian threat that it is, with the same vigour with which it rightly exposes the BNP for the racist, Nazi threat that it is.
David
I have been a long time ‘lurker’ here since around the time when Blair was getting ready to hand over to Brown, which was probably the longest handover in British political history. Until today it has never occurred to me to actually post a comment but your post made me stop and think just how much I value this site.
My background is one of growing up in a family where my father was a long time council worker and staunch Labour man whereas my mother being the daughter of a shopkeeper (my grandmother) was a staunch Tory. I heard many a heated debate particularly around election time as to the pros and cons of voting Labour or Tory.
My profession is that of an accountant and to start with my mother’s arguments appeared to make the most sense. However, I became increasingly dissatisfied by the Tories mainly due to the mounting allegations of sleaze which were around at the time. So finally convinced by Tony Blair’s promises of a new start, I voted Labour for the first time in 1997 and voted for them again as Blair gained his second term of office. I did not make the same mistake the third time around as the Labour party seemed to become more extreme in the intervening period. The promises of a ‘Liberal’ society seemed to dissolve as more and more laws, rules and regulations came into force. The thing that finally did it for me was Jacqui Smith’s attempts at imposing a national identity card which virtually nobody seemed to want other than those who wanted to watch our every move.
At the same time during that third term of office, as the scales fell from my eyes, I became more and more aware of something that really disturbed me. The source of that unease was the fact that the BBC, our national broadcaster, seemed only to carry pro Labour political ‘news’ stories with virtually nothing on the views of either the Tories or the Lib Dems. Finally in frustration at this apparently partisan output, I googled “is the BBC biased?” It was at that point that I came across this site and felt a great sense of relief that others were likeminded.
At the present time, following the best part of two years of pompous and sanctimonious coverage of Leveson by the BBC, through the Savile affair, it has been exposed as being no better or worse than the rest of the crowd. It has most certainly lost its image of the ‘most trusted national treasure’. I am with you that at this time more than ever it is vitally important that this site maintains a reputation of integrity whilst the BBC fights to cling onto its own.
Finally, a message of thanks to all of those who take the time to post articles for the rest of us to read and comment on, particularly Alan who has produced some insightful and thought provoking articles. You must be getting something right Alan as the ones opposed to you are having to resort to insults and accusations of ‘right wing extremism’. They would not need to do that if you were not ruffling a few feathers!
Welcome!
Thanks Alex
Sir Throcken, I know it’s ancient history but much of that Tory sleaze (the tsunami of stories that flowed out, much in the way the Savile story is unfolding with more and more abuse) that turned you (and the rest of the country into New Labour’s arms) came from the BBC news political unit, many of the leaders of which went immediately and worked for New Labour in 1997/98. It was a coordinated and intentional attack. Note that in New Labours 1st term the sleaze was greater than 18 years of Conservatives but it hardly made any headlines or when it actually did was soon hidden/forgotten/removed/buried. Mind you, in all honesty it wasn’t just the BBC, all the country’s media are to blame for their shallow and cowardly refusal to show what New Labour really were.
“…all the country’s media are to blame for their shallow and cowardly refusal to show what New Labour really were.”
-Span Ows
All pushing the same agenda, but I’m forced to subsidise only one – the BBC.
When I have used my tv to receive broadcasts I complied with the law and bought a tv licence. In the months/years I don’t receive broadcasts I am sent, for my neighbours to see, envelopes boldly marked implying I must be a criminal.
There are more informative sources on the web than on UK broadcast tv, and they have demonstrated just how partisan the
impartially supporting New Labour,
science-is-settled,
racist-‘antiracist’,
truth-speaking-apart-from-Islam
BBC is.
Given DV’s original post on not getting too hot and bothered about the politics of it all, I find it revealing that nicked emus should start stirring people up so quickly, and in so furious a manner – with a little help from the similarly censorious hippiepooter.
Pretty clear proof that this site succeeds in provoking the forces of intolerance and repression – the kind who would work for the beeb if they had the connections or talent. Well done everyone for winkling them out.
The BBC is not biased to the Left, because as Nicked Emus points out its critics are bigoted white, right-wing, sexist, Christian, homophobic, Little Englander racist reactionaries, who openly admit to reading the Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Times, Daily Telegraph, and The Spectator.
The supporters of the BBC on the other hand are kind-hearted left-wing, anti-Christian, multi-culturalist, patriotism loathing, Labour supporters, who read the Guardian, Independent, and New Statesman.
Isn’t it obvious that the first group should be prevented from expressing their odious opinions.
Nicked Emus was entirely correct to write to the BBC suggesting that David Vance should not be allowed to broadcast. I think it is outrageous Vance seeks to give a platform for free speech. It just encourages people to express their opinions.
It is claimed (as if it is a criticism) that a tax funded television/radio dominant BBC produces a monoculture which undermines competition, innovation, and diversity, but how else is a Fascist like Nicked Emus going to impose ideological conformity?
Think of the children.
Well said. The irony is lost on Nick, as it is to most on the Left who cannot see the hypocrisy in their ‘fascist’ accusations.
A simple definition of fascism is ‘suppression of opposition views and criticism’. Nick gets angry with us because we catch the BBC doing this, time and again, whilst promoting its own world view through carefully-selected interviewess, guests and even its own commentators. Nick, as we have seen, demonstrates the same tendencies, for the same reasons.
Careful with that ‘racism’ axe, Nicked. The last time you used it the damn thing stuck in your foot. Accusing Pounce of ‘racism’ for his comments on Islam was akin to castigating a white man for criticising the Ku Klux Klan. Perhaps you were being assertoric? A word you bandy about but seem to have difficulty spelling. Perhaps you were so high on your morally superior horse you neglected to check your facts: isn’t that a cardinal sin amongst the all-knowing newsroom elite? Never mind, pop it into one of your ‘case-studies’ (mmmm, feel the pomposity), you could show it to journalism students & let them see what happens when a censorious, self-righteous prig, puffed-up on overweening arrogance, has the freedom to drop a clanger. Is the Great Multi-Culti Swindle/unselective immigration really beyond criticism? As a believer in free speech, I certainly hope not.
Many of the defenders of this site seem curiously oblivious to its problems. David simply points out precisely the thing that puts me, and presumably many people like me, off it. I enjoy David Preiser’s incisive postings and many of DV’s observations are right on the mark. But much of the time the comment threads are pervaded by a poisonous atmosphere characterised by violent dislike of immigrants or Muslims. There have been comments about Muslim pogroms and ‘the evil Muslim mind’. There was a post a few days ago defending Tommy Robinson. These are not terribly attractive things if you happen to be a common-or-garden moderate Tory who believes that the national broadcaster does not adequately reflect the range of political opinion held by the populace. Many of the posters also seem to hold a visceral loathing for liberals which I find worrying. There are many things wrong with liberalism. But why the bile? It is most off-putting. If these unpleasant aspects of the site were to disappear, its support would grow exponentially. At the moment some posters are handing their opponents a gun and inviting them to do their worst.
As a fellow moderate Tory I know what you mean and agree with you. However I try to balance that with my belief in freedom of speech. My interests are in the general political and generally pro-environmentalist bias at the BBC. I am not an expert on, or interested in the Israel & Islam topics and just dont read them. And that is the difference, I exercise my freedom to choose which opinions to read, which to agree with, but unlike Nicked, I dont want to censor those I disagree with.
In my view it all comes down to the old adage taught to me by my (socialist) parents : I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the last your right to say it.
In applying that principle to this site, i wouldnt want to censor. A simple statement on the front page should suffice to state that opinions are the authors own and this is a place for free speech and debate connected to this topic.
In applying this principle to the BBC, my belief is that it habitually censors and biases views. It does not defend the right of british citizens, to whom it has a charter responsibility, to free speech. On a range of topics, diverse opinions are NOT heard. And that is wrong, especially in such a large, influential and PUBLICLY FUNDED organisation.
Agree with this wholeheartedly.
“There was a post a few days ago defending Tommy Robinson”
That is not in itself wrong. It depends what was being defended, not who was being defended. For instance, I have no time for Nick Griffin, but I would defend him against the treatment he got on Question Time, which was nothing more than a lynch mob and totally unproductive.
But I would agree with you about some of the anti-muslim rhetoric that appears here and have made comment on that in the past. Equally reprehensible though is a pretence that we do not have a problem with some of the Muslim community. It is plain to anyone who does not close their eyes and ears that there is a problem and you can’t keep sweeping that under the carpet. Sooner or later someone will trip over the bump.
Well said Roland, the irony and hypocrisy missed by nicked emus et al and mentioned by johnny and others above is that the comment “There was a post a few days ago defending Tommy Robinson” oozes bigotry.
Yes I agree with your general point – for instance I’d defend Robinson’s civil liberties or right to free speech. What I was pointing to was the fact that some on these message boards have expressed sympathy with the views of the EDL. The leader of the BFP has posted links to blog postings supporting him. The Daily Mail has described Robinson as ‘far-right’ and ‘extremist’ – it is not ‘bigoted’ to concur with that view.
If you think anything was being done about the problem of the many Muslim gangs grooming and raping underage girls before the EDL started their completely lawful protests please provide links or point towards some evidence.
P.S. If you’re searching the BBC website for related items I think you’ll find Beeboids using the euphemism ‘Asians’, thus smearing many law-abiding people to protect a ‘favoured group’.
Thank you for proving my point. All I was observing is that the EDL is a far right wing organisation, and that it has defenders on this site. Which does its reputation no good at all.
Feel free to answer the question I posed – please use BBC links as that will prove the bias of their reporting.
But maybe you support the UAF, which by their violent unlawful counter-demos show they approve of those sex crimes?
Your efforts to drive away anybody new and politically reasonable from this site are truly heroic. So you’re an EDL supporter are you? I can’t stand UAF. Believe it or not, the reasonable standpoint lies somewhere between the views of these organisations.
The problem with the EDL is their tactics, they are too confrontation. If the EDL is anti Islam and marches through Muslim areas and there is trouble they have no to blame but themselves.
Flash demos against illegal Mosques etc is the way to go.
The EDL lawfully protested against the grooming and raping by Muslim gangs. I am sympathetic to such a protest.
I am sympathetic because until they non-violently raised the issue in public the BBC and other PC-infected institutions which should have been addressing this issue instead ignored it (‘community cohesion’, don’cha know), or made smears about racism and ‘lifestyle choices’.
I think it’s racist to smear all Asians with a criminal practice from one particular group who definitely do not represent all Asians.
I’ve invited you to show that anything was done before the EDL protests. If you choose to re-state that as ‘driving you away’ I’ll take that as an inability to refute what I’m saying.
I’m not going to answer your question because I don’t know enough about it. However I do know know enough about the EDL and Mr Robinson to know that I despise their politics and their methods, and that I would rather not hang around with their supporters.
” So you’re an EDL supporter are you? ”
Oh dear! don’t throw your toys out of the pram, we here will support whoever we want. We don’t need your permission.
It’s a free country still.
You’re very welcome to support who you like. But I wonder how many newbies will read this page and conclude that this site *isn’t* populated by far right wing nutters?
Let me tell you all a story from an outsiders point of view.
I first found this site after a google search “BBC Bias” over 3 years ago. I was at the time pursuing a complaint about presenters on radio relentlessly saying iPhone insteadf smart phone. Richard Bacon et al were clearly getting iee products for nada, and boy did we had to hear about it.
So imagine my surprise when I thought I
Let me tell you all a story from an outsiders point of view.
I first found this site after a google search “BBC Bias” over 3 years ago. I was at the time pursuing a complaint about presenters on radio relentlessly saying iPhone instead of Smart phone. Richard Bacon et al were clearly getting their product for nada, and boy did we had to hear about how great those gadgets were.
So it was a boon to me to find like minded people. Thank Jehovah somebody else gets it but oh… hang on… Oh I see, this is a site to expose the beeb but most involved seem more at home painting all Muslims as fundamentalist, most Irish Catholics as Sinn Fein, most Gay people as promiscuous sinners.
Therefore, I have never engaged until now.
Also ‘be very careful’ to the dissenter above? Is that a threat to them? I mean to say you KNOW the libel laws so…Please clarify.
Well, DaliLlama, I appreciate your comments. Experiences like yours are in fact the reason for DV’s post.
My telling Nicked to be very careful was an instruction, not a threat. Not even remotely, and it’s rather insulting for you to suggest such a thing. I’m instructing Nicked to be careful about presuming to know why DV said what he said. There is another impetus for his post, one which has nothing to do with Nicked’s angry finger-wagging. Nicked in his arrogance assumes credit for it, and I was asking if he would consider the possibility of another reason. I think people should indeed be careful before presuming to read other people’s minds and claim intimate knowledge.
You might instead want to talk to Nicked about the laws regarding libel and defamation.
OK, David. I totally accept that.no malice was involved. I am not a lefty. I am a centrist.
‘Centrist’? Forgive me, Holy One, but, given the nature of this site, that sounds like a copout! (no offence intended, just trying to understand where you’re coming from)
There you have it in a nutshell.
Ignore first message, browser had timed out. Apologies for clogging the board.
Can DV refute Mr.Emus’ claims? I have it on pretty good authority that a certain Ms Boaden has intervened and curtailed his BBC media appearances. Hence this post.
That is also non libelous. If it is then my IP will give me away. I await the knock on the door.
Are you all so daft as to follow a guy who is on the Beeb payroll?
More fool you, I say
Marvellous stuff. A breath of fresh air. Will be looking in more often.