Notice the BBC are crusading for what THEY claim are “Stateless” children who come to the UK perfectly legally but then “fall through the cracks”. Gosh, they cannot even claim welfare or housing benefit. Strikes me that the BBC and those advocacy “charities” it links to in this article are playing a bit fast and loose with the facts here.I suggest that many of the alleged “Stateless” should not BE here in the first place and the BBC might do better to investigate how they got here and WHY they travel THOUSANDS of miles to reside in our country? Is the weather that so attracts them? Might they be just one more example of the Welfare Tourism that Labour bequeathed us?
STATELESS
Bookmark the permalink.
Or more likely a bog-standard ‘shock and awe’ report manufactured out of thin air by a rent-seeking charidee. I live in London, work in London, carouse in London, how come I never see any of these hordes of abandoned waifs roamanying the streets?
See what I did there.
Send them home. No aid or visas for any country refusing to take back it’s own children. It’s not hard when you’re not ashamed to be white or British. Unfortunately the Establishment is packed with the opposite.
Chris there showing us exactly what this site is all about. David Vance, your lack of empathy is bordering on sociopathic.
I would say shocking but having had the misfortune of coming across you before it really isn’t.
‘showing us exactly what this site is all about’
No, Chris is showing people what Chris is all about, as ‘this’ is a free, unmodded site.
Not sure who this ‘us’ is again, but you Cleo, are but the latest to dip in and test a taint by association strategy that not only doesn’t work on any basis, especially logic, but also highlights that freedom of speech, and the ability to survive, thrive or be left behind by one’s words is, in the minds of some, the preserve of but a few they either belong to or approve of.
I think the BBC needs to be held to account for much in its structure that allowed Jimmy Savile to abuse his position and be protected for so long in doing so, even if by not too good people doing nothing, but I do not believe that the BBC is a hotbed of nonces because of the actions of one person… or even a few.
But thanks for bringing up the moral equivalences by which you operate and see fit to drag across to places where there are a variety of views you don’t like.
For all I know ‘Chris’ is simply another false flagger setting up a flocker, as the post/response times in such ‘you lot’ cases seems to be very close usually.
And if it’s some twerp bored at the calibre of the usual cherry brigade efforts trying to perk things up by creating another in-house Mary Riddell, please stop, as there’s plenty of debate to be had on facts without muddying waters with yet more ‘views’ spattering.
Whichever, ‘he’ can live or die by his comment, and he alone. As can you. And me.
Try and grasp that, and you may understand what ‘sites like this’ are about.
But I get the feeling you already know, and that’s what you are keen to prevent, albeit in ways that are having the exact reverse effect.
Shocking how ? are you saying charity’s don’t push their agenda by using story’s that embellish their point at the expense of all others and by happy circumstance bump up their budgets? and also are you saying there is no debate about the supposed circumstances these ‘stateless’ get here what they want and how best we can deal with them ?
If your are then it is you who are ‘shocking’ with such naivety on exhibition no wonder there is no movement in this problem !
And your lack of empathy for those who don’t hold your view is also bordering on sociopathic but with an extra hint of hypocrisy !
Ok fellas. Just chalk me off as a shill, a troll, leftist and a libtard. While I accept that I generalised I will say that there are precious few people who challenge Chris and his ilk and many more who hit the like button.
That must indicate something.
This site seems to alienate the rational person who wants to vent about the BBC’s ills. I think that is counter productive.
I will never empathise with racism or prejudice.
Nothing for me here, alas.
Ok fellas.
On behalf of Deborah, Jane, etc, I presume this is a non-gender ‘fellas’? Accepting of course that on blogs, names mean little.
Just chalk me off as a shill, a troll, leftist and a libtard.
So far, the only person to do so, or suggest it… is you.
While I accept that I generalised
Gracious in brevity.
‘I will say that there are precious few people who challenge Chris and his ilk
As is your right. Though seeing the ‘ilk’ word coming out the closet seems to be straying into generalities again.
And this ‘you are not being seen to protest’ lark is getting silly. I didn’t like Chris’ comment, so I didn’t ‘like’ it. I surely don’t have to post a clothes-rending diatribe like yours with every daft comment surely, just to get points to the nice’ vs. norty board with PC Santa?
‘and many more who hit the like button
As to who does ‘like’, who knows? If it’s a false flag, it could just be more from your office chipping in to help you make a silly point before flouncing off.
‘That must indicate something.
What, any more than the same ‘like/dislike’ nonsense on every BBC thread that allows such things, with Editors Picks’ until modded or pulled.
It simply indicates you came here to try a vague ‘you lot’, got called on it and now are backing out muttering ‘stuff’.
This site seems to alienate the rational person who wants to vent about the BBC’s ills.
Your view. Welcome to it. Based on what, so far, you think about you. So far, that is you are rational… no one else is. Perfect to excel in BBCworld. Less so outside in the real one where views are allowed to persuade, or not, on value or lack of.
I think that is counter productive.
If true, I’d agree. And the evidence suggests it’s not as true as you are claiming.
You came here to accuse, got called and now apparently are exiting stage left, making excuses and trying to salvage the debris of a poorly made point.
I will never empathise with racism or prejudice.
Nor will I. Or many here, I can state with confidence. Hence you trying to tar all by association on, to repeat… a free, unmodded blog… with those who do, is, at best, ironic.
At time of writing, you have included, by their also not signing up (yet) to your proof of negative logic, the entire cherry vulture flock too. They will not be happy to have do so now or risk censure at the staff meeting.
Nothing for me here, alas.
Depends what you were seeking. On balance, from what it appeared, to be, no.
How common it is on this site to find new posters saying, like Cleo; oh I came across this site and what a dreadful lot of posters you all are and I am never going to post here again’ flouncing out, stage left, followed by a bear (sorry misquoting Shakespeare).
What were these people looking for? If Cleo thought she saw BBC bias but from a different viewpoint – why didn’t she point it out instead of just throwing insults at DV? Well to answer my own question – because they are not genuine…I still think the likes of Redwhiteandblue, Dez and Prole and probably Cleo are employed by either the BBC or the Labour Party (they are the same) to post here.
I explained why I arrived on here. My ‘attack’ on DV stands, and I most certainly do not, nor have I ever worked for the BBC.
I have spent the afternoon looking around and it seems that when people disagree they are accused of being in the employ of BBC, branded appeasers, apologists and bizarrely and perhaps telling that it could be one person hiding behind several aliases which seems to presuppose that there couldn’t possibly be more than one person whodisagrees.
I apologize if I have offended you. By my own admission I have not got an in depth knowledge of this site. I did however poke around for a while before I posted.
Again apologies to Guest Who for dragging out my exit but for some reason I feel obliged to defend myself. Don’t fret, I will run out of patience soon.
(Sorry Deborah, last paragraph not aimed at you obviously. I just thought I would kill two birds with one stone, figuratively speaking of course)
My ‘attack’ on DV stands..
Which is what you kicked off with. Strange strategy having ‘found’ a site that shared you concerns on the BBC’s output.
‘for some reason I feel obliged to defend myself. ‘
Yet another two statements that sit uneasily together.
It does seem rather familiar, if odd that, having initiated an attack, to be crying foul if it gets resisted.
I think I have gained an insight into how Israel often feels.
‘bizarrely and perhaps telling that it could be one person hiding behind several aliases
Well, the last time a poster of the fairer sex who had never been heard of before appeared out the blue, it was some matron having a fit of the vapours who, despite an apparent deep loathing for the BBC, had suddenly had a conversion on account of some posts by individuals that she cited as reason for her turning to the unique side, whilst trashing the entire site, owners and all posters in the process.
It did not fly for her (though she may have really been a 200kg biker called Steve for all any might know) then, any more than your faux attempts are now.
I apologize if I have offended you. No need as I doubt anyone was offended, even if that is what was being attempted. It was all just daft, if distracting.
By my own admission I have not got an in depth knowledge of this site.
Getting to an assessment of borderline sociopathy beyond a poster to the thread author then being quite a feat, and rather failing the Jim Dandy ‘right of posting’ rule. Though to be fair, he just failed his own rule himself.
Again apologies to Guest Who for dragging out my exit
Again, no apology necessary. The process is painful, yes, but not to me.
I will run out of patience soon.
Now, at risk of harking to an attitude that slips out that seems oddly familiar, where have I heard that before? I think you are mistaking patience for credibility and humility for arrogance.
Again, a trait that has been on display by hit and runners before.
Some here are touchingly keen to see new folk on site to discuss issues of contention with, and I understand that given the paucity in calibre of what is usually deployed.
I too would love to see some sensible debate engaged upon by any finding inaccuracy or even poorly structured views.
But 99% is drive-by snarks, ducking and weaving, cherry-picking, ad homs , strawmen and even the odd [sigh] in place of reasoned input, and when the facts or counters put a flea in their ear, the toys go out the pram and the ism accusations start before a bolt for the bunker.
Grow a pair and admit you tried, failed, and were seen off by getting back no more than you brought in first.
Whoever you may be, and with what intention.
If you do not work for the BBC, fine, I have no way of knowing. If not your contribution has certainly not worked for their interests.
How that works for you and your professed aims may be tricky to get your head around.
Or alternatively we could say that I respectfully engaged with those who did with me.
Whilst I admire your tenacity in dissecting my word for word. There really is no real need. You have already summarily accused, tried, and convicted me. It is clear we have nothing at all constructive to say to one another.
‘we could say that I respectfully engaged’
Well, I suppose you could and indeed have ‘said’ that.
But looking at what you actually have said thus far, especially from the off, may make getting it to stick with any other than such as rwb a smidge tricky, as I don’t think BBC ‘story evolving’ stealth edits are possible here.
I decided to look at what you wrote and offered some views. It is for others to judge their merits as I have no powers save the persuasiveness of my arguments, though really all I have done is cite the incompatibilities between what you have written on one line with that on another.
Hence I fear I must take issue with your last line as well. My criticisms seem well founded and constructive, and you appear unable to respond with anything rational, as the long farewell still continues.
After dealing with BBC CECUTT for a while, I am familiar with answering unasked questions, distractions, beliefs and much else in service of attrition-based techniques when closing for comments is not an option.
Handling these takes fortitude, a full stomach and a well-rested demeanour. Hence, until tomorrow, I suspect, I bid you goodnight.
That’s one way of looking at it. The other, sensible, way is to abandon your weird conspiracy theories and wonder why so many visitors feel unwelcome, and whether the regular posters can do something about it.
‘why so many visitors feel unwelcome, ‘
These being this who arrive writing, by way of an introductory greeting: ‘Chris there showing us exactly what this site is all about. David Vance, your lack of empathy is bordering on sociopathic.
I would say shocking but having had the misfortune of coming across you before it really isn’t.’, whilst going on to claim arrival later as ‘the rational person who wants to vent about the BBC’s ills.’
That suggests a level of credulity at a level that should fast track you to the highest echelons of BBC marketratedom.
Personally, visitors who bring a 6 pack and are ready to make the party fun are welcome. Those who kick in the back door and then barf over the carpet… less so.
There’s a metaphor to the thread topic in there somewhere too, if you think about it.
But good to know where ‘you’ stand, though this attempted policing of the site by those who don’t like what it’s about, invoking ‘regular posters’ does seem pretty bizarre to me.
If their first post asserts that this site is “all about” the promotion of racism, and the person who set it up is a “borderline” sociopath, it is perhaps understandable if some people view their attempts to portray themselves as a moral educator somewhat risible,
“Nothing for me here, alas. ”
One wonders what you are doing here, then.
Other than stirring.
Some people object to the BBC editorial policy and the arbitrary tax to fund it.
Some people may research this online.
Some people may encounter racism and bigotry on their way.
Some people may feel compelled (foolishly in this instance, I grant you) to voice that objection.
One may wonder no longer.
I will now flounce off suitably chastised and you can enjoy your ‘moral’ victory.
I do not object to “BBC editorial policy” I object to BBC editors abusing their (tax funded) position to pursue Party political agendas – agendas which I am pretty sure are contrary to BBC editorial policy guidelines about political neutrality.
The BBC tax is not “arbitrary” it is uniform and mandatory. If the BBC was not funded by a compulsory tax it would be just one broadcaster amongst many , instead of the Stalinist public sector gravy train behemoth it is today – most of whose Current Affairs editors (if their programmes are anything to go by) seem to crave a one Party State.
“Some people may feel compelled (foolishly in this instance, I grant you) to voice…[a racism and bigotry] objection. I will now flounce off suitably chastised.”
I very much doubt you are chastised. You do not seem to grasp the concept of free speech, and so while you may indeed flounce off (this I can believe), the chances that you have comprehended anything about how a free society works is (I suggest) very remote.
“enjoy your ‘moral’ victory.”
You headed for what you thought was the moral high ground, (making a passing attack on David Vance claiming he was a borderline “sociopath”) but people are free to make up their mind about what they consider to be moral behavior.
Unless if course you believe that in a properly regulated State people will be required to apply to you for certificates of correct thinking.
Help me understand one little thing here please.
At what point did I question the concept of free speech?
I stated my objection to a post and indeed a pervading tone. There is nothing here to imply my opposition to anyones right to hold whatever views they see fit. Merely my OWN disdain for that kind of rhetoric. In a society that holds free speech dear, I too am entitled to exercise that right.
“Chris….showing us exactly what this site is all about.”
Actually it was a poster taking advantage of the freedom of speech offered by this site to express his opinion.
Your inability to grasp this point demonstrates your failure to understand how a free society works.
“I stated my objection to a post …There is nothing here to imply my opposition to anyone’s right to hold whatever views they see fit.”
I’ll need to get my head around those two statements.
Also this flouncing off seems to be taking a while. Like a 70’s rock group final tour.. or Drs. Scezandymanus from Oslo’s ‘everybody I know says they don’t bother reading, again, today’ daily missive of joy that this site makes no difference.
Some people, eh?
Some people new to a party full of folk they had not been introduced to yet, would probably pop over, say hi, get to know them, share a few common interests, and then maybe, in due course, ask if the guy over the other side of the room, who no one may know or even is gatecrasher, and most are ignoring, is maybe being a bit ‘off message’.
That way you win friends and even influence people.
Some people, on the other hand, may barge in and start accusing everyone of being like said person, yet then still go on to demand everyone stop what they are doing, grab the pitchforks and eject another because they don’t happen to like what they’ve said.
A bit like what happens in BBC Green Rooms.
Other people may, when permitted, opt for one or the other depending on whether the intent is to make a point in heat, vs. share more light around.
The cherry picking and attempted straw man ‘question’ in your last.. latest ‘and another thing’ rather suggests you are more guided by the former than latter, especially when sidestepping also calling the host a borderline sociopath.
Yet you still seem to be here demanding your rights to be heard, and… it seems, are granted them freely. What do you imagine your debut would have resulted in at HYS or CiF? ‘Yay… a boorish, PC dogmatist telling us we’re all just beastly… come on in and join the fun!’.
To me it appears you can’t quite grasp the odd fact that other people are not agreeing with everything you want, and reacting poorly to your efforts at bullying them into conforming with your world view.
That… is life. Tough.
Some people disagree with you. Tough. Sorry my flounce was not prompt enough for you. I let you get under my skin, I suppose.
More fool me.
I thought that you had “flounced off”?
Cleo Don’t go Really don’t
At first I though ” another self righteous foot soldier of the the self appointed liberal inquisition,seeking out heresy where ever it is found” But if you are truly prepared to concede a point,at least in part (as I hope I am) then there is no victory moral or otherwise,save for freedom of conscience.
This site does need more plurality of view,the problem is most of those who dissent from consensus view on here do it be simply denouncing or denigrating in the usually ‘liberal inquisition’ way
I my self do not believe that the thought crime of ‘racism’ is the worst of all possible sins.And,to paraphrase Orwell Bigot has simply come to mean some one who’s views you don’t like.
You of course are free to believe differently and I am am willing to to be convinced if you can make the argument.
Cheers, Stewart.
I am unapologetically squeamish about racist language and I do agree that there are worse crimes.
On my first day at Manchester Uni many moons ago we were told that all views expressed where valid as long as they were supported by relevant research. Except for racism which would result in expulsion.
I objected. In fact I was the only one who did. I am anti-censorship whether or not I agree with the views.
I do not think my blood pressure would stand being on this site too often. 😉
Try the bt/yahoo news comments pages,where multicultural fundamentalists and unrepentant ‘race warriors’ press nose to bloody nose.
Democracy raw and unfettered-fantastic
Cleo – a) please could you explain your accusations of racism and prejudice and b) do you think the BBC piece in question was balanced.
I will never empathise with racism or prejudice. ?
Great then don’t! even though it means you are not able to see how others [you claim are this and that?] think if it disagrees with your world view therefore you make assumptions based only on your mindset no matter right or wrong and means your use of the word is invalid!
I will never empathise with racism or prejudice.
So you must be from another planet then because both racism (in either the correct or silly new leftie definition) and prejudice are hard wired and unavoidable human traits.
I’ve travelled around the world, and in many countries found that racism is accepted as a fact of life, and most people rub along and don’t worry too much about the labels assigned to them by other races.
Without wishing to over generalise, in the UK the native Brits seem to walk on eggshells, while certain immigrant “communities” game the system for all they’re worth.
Not much to do with BBC bias:
Cleo, I respect your right to ‘compassion’ etc, respect my right to ask you – if you feel strongly enough – to invite these these ‘stateless’ individuals to move in with you and support them yourself, because I don’t want to either directly or by proxy through taxation. This whole stateless person issue is a notorious route into the country – why do you think that Hounslow and Crawley have have have large social services childrens units: look after the thousands of unaccompanied minors who turn up on flights from the 3rd world, it is simply another route for bogus immigration. The lack of compassion I feel is brought on by a massive fatigue; this ‘compassion, and ‘tolerance’ (both using the disingenuous New Labour definitions forced into the dictionary by the BBC) has been thoroughly exhausted by the gross lies and selfishness of literally millions of bogus refugees whom we unwillingly accommodated in the country. No one asked me if I wanted the population living on Great Britiain to be between 75 and 80 million in 20 years time. stories there.
Before you conclude anything this is not because I am a racist, it is simply that I am sick of people putting their hands into mu pocket and extracting cash to look after every one who makes it through our non existent border controls: why should I be expected keep the door open and weep for every hard luck story manufactured by a charity with a single issue agenda? I really object to the BBC ALWAYS turning to self appointed self interested ‘experts’ on every matter where they want to change our society – it happens on every issue from Windmills to street crime.
I accept that I may be ranting and I may not have an entirely reasonable opinion, but it is entirely fair to object to ‘charities’ that do nothing at all but ‘campaign’ shrilly rather than deliver any effective amelioration of the problems they highlight.
Having said all that, I do agree that this site does have a fair leavening of the distasteful – from the extreme homo-phobes to borderline racists. I don’t like this and have posted so from time to time as I do think it undermines the site, but so what? Here is a bit of news – these opinions are very common and do reflect the British population (most certainly unlike the BBC!), most of whom are now so shit scared of modern orthodoxy that they cannot and dare not express themselves in anything other than this quasi anonymous way.
Thanks.
There is clearly an issue to be addressed and we can not afford to be so altruistic as to finance those who have no right to be here.
I believe every instance must be dealt with individually not in a unilateral way. I support peoples right to seek asylum for instance. The system in place is open to all kinds of abuse but ‘iron borders’ are not the answer.
I work in child protection so I suppose my views are coloured somewhat by my direct experiences. But to be absolutely clear the immigration system as it stands is not fit for purpose. Only a fool would suggest otherwise.
Spot on. No one ever asked the British people if they wanted all these immigrants who are/have changed the culture of the country. If we had been asked we would have given a resounding NO.
I too heard the report on ‘Today’ and it sounded exceptionally thin and lacking in actual facts or details. Like most ‘charity’ surveys, the numbers seemed conjured out of thin air. A bog-standard BBC exclusive, I reckoned, much like a push-poll.
What countries do these youngsters come from? Which agencies ‘turned them away’ and why? What are their ages?
Empathy costs, so we borrow money to be seen as good. That is unsustainable.
For years Kent has struggled to find the funds to house and educate the thousands of children, mostly from African countries who turn up without documentation (lost just as they were coming across the Channel) all trained and coached as to what to say. In nearly all cases, a ‘phone call is made ”back home’ to confirm safe arrival and enable the parents to pay the fee to the people traffickers. As with so many illegals the parents would have been told that the UK would welcome their child and look after him, and it almost invariably is a him.
What to do about this while showing humanity to a child pawn? We could fund a school or two back in Africa and send them back there-we could make it a condition of aid.
Leaving them to become a drain on and danger to society should not be an option.
Same story in southern Belgium, according to a first-hand report from someone I know there who works with them.
There doesn’t actually seem to be any information available online apart from a few ‘news’ reports quoting the bBBC Inside Out programme.
But the bBBC doesn’t seem to be getting the reaction it wanted from the sheeple.
The three top-rated comments (at 14:00 today)
1. There are no wars on our borders and yet we have millions of refugees here. Some of whom have gone through 23 safe countries to get here. I don’t recall any manifesto from the last 40 years saying if elected they’d allow millions of people into the country to live on benefits, and yet here we have it.
2. ‘Many of London’s stateless youths came to the UK legally, but were never officially registered.’ What the hell is happening in government? We’ve got ‘anti terror’ laws coming out of our ears, CCTV everywhere for our ‘safety’, I am taxed to my eyeballs and yet we’ve got a load of people here who aren’t officially registered and living rough? The shocking thing is – I’m not surprised.
3. Errr how did they get here in the first place? Surely not another consequence of open door mass immigration? Well, OK. Yes it is. Pity the children. But place the blame where it belongs. On feckless parents and the politically correct multicultural dogma of the 2000s.
It must be about time for them to close the comments. Unless they’re going round the canteen to round up a ‘better balance’ to show that they’ve got it ‘about right’.
Funny how 17 is the age of children only when it suits.
Never listened to this anchovy in the radiator.
Desperate pish-so East Europeans, Africans and Muslims sometimes choose to trash their certificates and documents, then leave their kids by Luna House is hardly news….will someone tell the BBC, that their Big-Issueing scum of parents/uncles/ minders make them stateless and vulnerable for a reason-to screw us over for money, and get the mimsy BBC to weep into their lattes.
It`s a scam Beeboids….don`t fret yourselves…see it in terms of a Savile or a Carr…it`s a wheeze to make you look even more creepy and venal than you are BBC!
Tell you what?…why not take all these youngsters with grey hair and nine kids of their own, and take them into protective care there at your James Savile Custody Protection Suite for a while, so we can avoid the knifings.
Put that useless World Service of ours to some use-Family Favourites for bogus asylum seekers to call home to their warlord clan chiefs!
The BBC’s Corporation-wide open borders agenda is evident in their reporting on the US as well. Viz:
Latino’s immigration issue brings mixed feelings towards Obama
They brought one of their Brazilian correspondents up here to talk about this because, presumably, he’s from a Latin country and so more qualified and trustworthy to talk about Latinos. Never mind that there’s a difference between Portuguese and Spanish: this is the racialist BBC we’re talking about, where all of them get lumped together into one happy monolith.
We’re treated to a teenage girl who was brought into the US illegally by her parents complaining about how calling illegal immigrants “illegal” dehumanizes them. Facts are now verboten, apparently. Was Jeremy Paxman wrongly dehumanizing Conrad Black when he kept calling him a convicted felon, then?
After a bit more sob story about how people are not harmed by their own actions but by laws apparently deciding arbitrarily and cruelly to make their actions illegal, we’re told by the Brazilian Beeboid that these innocent lambs now have to fear the very same police who are supposed to “make them feel safe”.
The Beeboid doing the voice-over as well as the accompanying blurb use the disingenuous activist’s term, “undocumented”. There’s a reason why they’re undocumented, and that reason is the crux of the entire issue. By using activist, misleading language, the BBC is taking sides, or at the very least, supporting one side of the argument.
But the BBC is too big and disorganized for there to be any institutional bias, right? Wrong. There is an institutional bias and agenda because they all think the same thing. When all reports on an issue come from the same angle across the spectrum of broadcasting, it’s institutional whether it’s a top-down directive or not.
For their next report, the BBC will show a US border agent holding a gun to a puppy’s head as a metaphor.