Paul Mason has set up a Tumblr account.
You may like to have a look….either to try and dig some ‘dirt’ or just out of interest…..it does in fact look, from a spectator’s point of view, quite a diverting and absorbing site…just remember the Devil has the best tunes…don’t be fooled and sucked in.
One thing Mason does admit is that Orwell “…would have ripped the **** mercilessly out of Occupy. “
See. I said it might be interesting.
Congratulations Comrade Mason
Official: Newsnight Editor Paul Mason Writes Worse Sex Scenes Than J K Rowling
Newsnight’s economics editor Paul Mason has been nominated for the Literary Review’s Bad Sex Award for his debut novel, Rare Earth.
http://www.booktrade.info/index.php/showarticle/44238
50 Shades of Pinko?
50 shades of shit (I’d like to knock out of him)
Just popping in to say hello. Took me a while to realize I *had* been banned — or rather one IP address I sometimes use is blocked. Only discovered it last night.
But I really *would be* a troll if I continue to post on here, so signing off. It was fun while it lasted. I will continue to read your posts and you never know one day I might even agree with one of them.
This blog is a wasted opportunity. If you want to get things to change, you need to be a lot more fact driven — and I mean real facts, not conjecture, not speculation, not sweeping generalizations (“all Lefties think …”).
Even I am forced to admit that not everything “you lot” write is bonkers. Most of it, but not all of it … Everything Alan writes is utterly bonkers, but I think that everyone actually knows that.
However if you simply want a place to come and moan about how the world does not align with your view of what the world should be like then carry on; just don’t expect anything to change.
I could be anyone but if you actually knew the media titles I have worked for, and the one I currently work for, I think you would be appalled; or perhaps it would just confirm what you think of the media. Probably just as well you never found out.
Anyway, it has been a fun few months. Toodlepip. I am off to my lake of eternal fire.
Nicked Emus
(which was always an annoying auto correct on my iPad. It was supposed to be Nicodemus, although why I can’t remember)
PS Don’t bother blocking this IP. I am on a train — it is their WiFi.
Ah, but is that the real you?
Hmmm………..
‘Ah, but is that the real you?’
In line with my ‘feel the Vodafone money, Lucas’, theme today, to quote Yoda..
‘Fear not… another there will be’
Where there’s a budget there’s a way.
” I could be anyone but if you actually knew the media titles”
Go on! tell us what titles, you know you want to.
Don’t tease.
Well, Dez posts from behinda proxy server, he told us himself. Hope nicked will use it too.
You will probably rejoin as Sally B. I hope you do because I will miss you otherwise.
It’s a real shame.
For my freedom of conscience to mean anything even those I loath must have freedom of speech (you of course are free to think differently) so yes it is a real shame.
Nicked Emus
Obviously you haven’t been blocked….as the above demonstrates.
However you never brought much to the party…probably because as you admit in previous posts you don’t actually watch the BBC, and you only came onto the site to ‘have a little fun’ mocking the people who comment and post and to deride the site.
Well, I guess I don’t have to bite my tongue anymore with you as you have nailed your colours to the mast…so now its my turn.
From what I can tell you are a disappointed hack who never quite made it. What’s that saying? Those who can…. do, those who can’t…. teach.
And you are a lecturer aren’t you? Probably a master of media studies in a backwater ex-poly masquerading as a university.
But I suspect that’s not the main problem….you’re bitter about that but what has twisted you?
Once again a look at your posts reveals a very deep seated dislike of David Vance…and in particular the fact that he seems to be making more appearances on the BBC than you….and making more money than you….all of which seems to upset you greatly.
Taking all that into consideration I would judge that the reason you came onto this site was purely to attempt to discredit and mock it because of your own personal issues with David.
I suggest therefore that you do take yourself off. This is a site concerned with BBC bias. It is not the psychiatrist’s couch.
However any genuine comments, positive or negative about the site are always welcome.
‘you admit in previous posts you don’t actually watch the BBC,’
Really?
In which case that was already a no-no to the hall monitor wing of the Flokkers.
I sense Coventry beckoning for another from the dark side of the Farce.
There may yet be new hope though… 3 others still hold a candle.
I got the impression that the occasions when a posse from Pink News seemed to have ridden into town were down him.
should have read ‘… down to him.’
Freudean slip, there, Wal !
Alan, Nicked was blocked on one IP. He says so quite clearly. Posting from a different IP is not proof that another IP was not blocked. In fact, you can check for yourself and see that he’s telling the truth.
I agree that Nicked had a personal animus against David Vance, and tried to use this blog in a vendetta to get him removed from BBC airwaves. He more or less admitted as much. That’s abusing hospitality, not to mention just plain wrong-headed, and is the only reason I’m not very strongly protesting that banning. I can only wonder if he didn’t also try to dig up dirt on me in order to pursue a legal complaint about being involved with a hate site.
Nicked did occasionally make solid contributions about the world of reporting and making some of us think. Sometimes. Too often he was distracted by ideological comments which had nothing to do with BBC bias, and so wasted a lot of time sniping and acting as morality judge. Definitely a wasted opportunity.
It’s a shame, because if nothing else this site needs real journalists engaging in debate about reporting techniques, editorial behavior, and other details from that world.
And you did kind of psychoanalyze Nicked after telling him this site isn’t a shrink’s couch.
It is a shame. Not sure Nicked’s ‘crime’ fitted the censure. But it’s Mr Vance’s private site so he calls the shots.
No he doesn’t, the site is open to everyone without censorship. If Nicked chooses to do a flounce because he perpetually loses the argument, or can’t even make an argument, that’s his (or her) problem.
No, it is David’s site. No one has a right to freedom of speech on it. We’re all on here at his discretion. And I assume Nicked is right that he’s been blocked
‘We’re all on here at his discretion’
Or, presumably, and of course uniquely, when you decide the thread is due for closure?
Can’t imagine who may have inspired you in that process (which doesn’t seem to happen here):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/helen-boaden-director-of-bbc-news-at-the-lse
Speech is free… only when all agree it is free and support that without exclusion (esp. by FoI).
I assume you’re feeling, what now?
You could also ask a few here on how Jeremy ‘Views my brother’s’ Vine and others react to those who may have views other than theirs, to the extent of not wanting them to even gain access to them…. often expeditiously.
Hey Nicky Baby
don’t let the door hit your sorry rear on the way out !
Missing you already xxxxx
What are you talking about? If you want facts, you can find them for yourself. Must every comment be a numbers driven wibble?
In many ways, the lack of a balanced, sensible disagreement simply leads to two sides talking to one another and never having their views challenged through robust debate.
However, lefties are far harder to debate with because they don’t understand reason and refuse economics over rhetoric but without a dissenting voice there’s, well, ignorance, or, as I call it, Comment is Free.
‘If you want to get things to change, you need to be a lot more fact driven’.
Ok, Nicked, let’s take just one example. Where were you when the BBC’s role in CMEP was under discussion – you know, the secret meetings of Warmists arranged by Harrabin and the Climategate suspects at the CRU, mission being to disseminate the Warmist message through every channel of the BBC and other compliant media, plus BBC refusal to release details of attendees, were being discussed?
Big fact: loads of big fact facts. Nicked’s attempts at refuting big fact facts: zero.
Happy flouncing. You’ve lost.
I agree the blog is turning in to a wasted opportunity. The message, its intention has gotten lost along the way.
I totally disagree with banning anyone’s IP address if this is what the blog owners do. Censorship is just not on..
‘Censorship is just not on..’
Presumably with a few, inevitable, ‘unique’ exceptions?
Blog blocking.
FoI exemptions.
House Rules.
Referrals.
Expedited complaints.
Or not?
Loss-of-way-wise. [sigh]
Wearing his Marxist blinkers, PM wouldn’t know what truth was if it hit him in the face. And to think that we licence payers have to subsidise this codswallop.
WE NEED A NEW THREAD … ON MUSLIM PAEDOPHILE GANGS, AND BBC INHERRENT BIAS, NO MENTION OF
MUSLIM AT ALL … N CAMPBELL IS ALREADY BLAMING SOCIETY …
“AFTER ALL SAVILE WASN T FROM PAKISTAN”
in fact, mr campbell on the bbc 5live, your call is “shocked” by the news.
as enough to fill at least 20 secondary schools, is the latest victim count, many many 1000s, of victims a problem across many northern towns/cities?, these organised child raping gangs?
but as he states, there are so many things to consider?, so many “factors” …. is wider society to blame” ?? are we allowing our children to be “sexuallised” in “OUR society” too early ???
why are children like this being “sexuallised” is it they have access the internet perhaps? …… just what are the “root causes”?, what are “WE” letting them see? are “WE” letting them wear?
….. wait a minute … what is this CRAP!
….. and on and on and on and on he drones ….
“child exploitation happens everywhere you see”
John Humphreys was quite pressing this morning on the Today programme about the role of Pakistani men, during his interview with Sue Berelowitz. About four minutes in. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9771000/9771595.stm
Yes, I noted that. I suspect, but could never prove, that it’s because of sites like this continually pointing out the hypocrisy that Mr Humphrys felt obliged to raise the point.
Ms Berelowitz, on the other hand, came across as your standard official who has never had a proper job but mysteriously wanders from one State-sponsored post to another.
Yes, reality occasionally forces the BBC to get a grip on certain issues. If it was just them and no other outlets, it would be a sad scene.
And another old colonial on a guilt trip…very white South African or Rhodesian, I`d guess with that weird voice of hers!
Surprised to see that old bore Yasmin Alibai Brown on Sky News actually COMPLAINING how the report didn’t go far enough in highlighting the large number of Pakistani grooming gangs. She actually said the report understated the problem and conflated the gang related offences with those committed by individual white paedos. She really had a go at the Pakistani Muslim gangs (her words) and said more should be done to highlight the problem.
Our Yasmin is not one of my favourite pundits and normally mute the sound if I see her pontificating on TV, but I have to give her credit for her views on this subject – very unexcpected.
Her views were reported on Today too. There was a lot of push back about the report’s lack of focus on certain ethnic groups on Today.
To blame it on their religion though can’t be right. It’s about close knit almost tribal communities of men who get away with this because of their closenes and ties. You see the same in ethnic based gangs of alll stripes, many of whom ( eg the ‘Christian’ West Indian gangs) sexually abuse young woman.
You see this too in coherent religious groups: so the Catholic Church, Orthodox Jews in NY, the madrasses.
Perhaps bbc light entertainment in the 70s will display similar traits.
Men are the problem; empowered women a large part of the solution.
“To blame it on their religion though can’t be right.”
Unlike other religions, for various doctrinal reasons, Islam has had form for this kind of behaviour for 1350 years.
“You see this too in coherent religious groups”
And some things you don’t see……
It’s easy to play the “all religions are bonkers” game. I could easily go on a nice little rant about how religious belief (not the same thing as “religion”) makes people in a certain NY neighborhood behave in ways that I find offensive. But that’s a will-o’-the-wisp argument. Which “coherent religious groups” in “close knit almost tribal communities” are more in need of having their women empowered, and why?
Furthermore, your position means that the judge in the Bradford case was wrong (and possibly an Islamophobe), and those young men in Adil Ray’s documentary were lying for the camera. But we’ve tried to have this discussion before, and gotten nowhere, haven’t we?
The liberal’s fear of making value judgements that has lead to the imposition of multiculturalism may well have contributed to the lack of “empowered women ” in certain communities. This fear of making civilisational judgements is what will eventually do for us in the West. A modern liberal would rather perish than be seen to be judgemental.
‘It’s about close knit almost tribal communities of men who get away with this because of their closenes and ties’.
Go on, Jim – ‘and (spit it out, you know you can do it)…….
….a failing of multiculturalism’?
Indeed.
I heard the R2 06.30 news, which is often very revealing, presented before the ‘suits’ get a chance to work their revisionist magic.
From memory it said that two thirds of the attackers were white – which struck me as a statisticaly about as damning as you could get, when the non-white percentage of the population is considered.
A fairly amateurish attempt at weasle words !
Yes indeed sir!
Well worth watching for how the words and priorities change once they`ve got the coffee on at 6.55a,m or so.
I too noted that one-third of all sex abuse cases like these are committed by whitey.
That means that two-thirds are committed by Muslims and the like…which given that only 10-15% of the population( as far as I can recall) is this group…is truly shocking…well, hardly I guess!
No More or Less on this one…way too “challenging” to the Lennonists at the BBC who are colourblind…as opposed to blind, because of acid being thrown in the face.
F666 the BBC!…ponderous groomers of the truth, fiddling with stats, much as Savile did with kids..their boy Jimmy!
‘And the like’
Christian Africans and West Indians?
“Christian Africans and West Indians? ”
I have read about systematic abuse of woman within some African groups,I’m not sure about west indians though
You may be right but I’m not sure how their Christianity informs it
And there lies the difference this is not within a closed group.
The perpetrators were exclusively muslim mainly Pakistani and the victims exclusively white (bar one)And the reason for that is that their (the perpetrators) faith not only allows but encourages it. You’ve have doubtless seen the evidence of this statement posted on sites like jihad watch and gatesof Vienna. as have I. so why continue this charade?
‘Christian Africans and West Indians?.
Instead of the question mark, Jim, enlighten us with the some ‘facts’ – you know, numbers or percentages.
Amazing logic: if you are not a “whitey” then you must be a Muslim.
It’s your logic that’s amazing. Verbal reasoning failure from Albaman, as usual. ‘And the like’ is the key.
Noggin How true, this industrial scale crime dwarfs all others of its type (including savilgate)by comparison.
The BBCs role in first,censoring any news of it and acting as apologists for it has disgusted many.No wonder they are keen to make it go away.
But how they can be held to account when the entire ‘liberal establishment conspires with them in this act of denial?
I am heart sick that even Harriet Harmans branding of the victims,on Question Time, as prostitutes has gone unremarked.
Hey, hey, hey it’s not ‘Mr Campbell’ it’s Nikki ‘Yerve Only Gorragoogle Thatcher And Paedophile’ Campbell. Leastwise til McAlpine catches up with him then it’ll be…
‘that creepy Scottish guy who occasionally pops up on the Jewellery Channel flogging Tanzanite’
While I’m on,
‘Thousands of children are sexually abused by gangs and groups in England each year’.
Thought the whole BBC defence case in the Savile travails was
‘that was the norm in the seventies (child abuse and rape apparently)… we’ve come a long way since then… could never happen today’.
Why are all lefties so pig-thick 😉
apparently the deliberate obfuscation, and widening of the figures to aid obviously political correctness has called this whole report into question …
BUT …. in the facts of conviction, after conviction, the now proven pattern and of course forthcoming cases … there is no doubt, over 60% of the cases, (a percentage that is set to dramatically increase) from barely 5% of the population! …. protecting, obfuscating over this is deplorable, to run an hour long phone in!, on a supposed news station!! with, ahem “experts”!!! on the same day as the report!!!! …. and no mention, well … that is a shameful indictment of why the bbc has to go, … to then attempt to apportion blame elsewhere
is just unforgivable
Reporting sexually abused children:
1.) ‘Daily Mail’:
“Anger as sex abuse report ‘turns blind eye to Asian gangs’ despite admitting that they account for a QUARTER of all cases.
“Fury at result of Deputy children’s commissioner Sue Berelowitz’s study.
“Said figures on Asian gangs weren’t enough to conclude particular issue.
“NSPCC says there is danger of ‘turning a blind eye’ to abusers’ ethnicity.”
By MATT CHORLEY and DANIEL MARTIN.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236045/Anger-sex-abuse-report-Sue-Berelowitz-turns-blind-eye-Asian-gangs.html
2. BBC:
“‘Thousands’ of children sexually exploited by gangs”
By Judith Burns
BBC News family reporter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20409229
Nicky Campbell to BBC selected expert interviewee:
‘Isn’t this (sexual abuse of children) a probelm in all cultures?’
Expert: ‘Well, I don’t want to talk about other cultures’
Nicky Campbell: ‘That’s ok, I’m just asking, I don’t want to involve you in any international incident’
Calling all Beeboids and expert interviewees…..get yourselves back on message luvs…the mask’s slipping!
Given how shy of mentioning ethnicity the ‘authorities ‘ are, it is possible that in quite a high % of the reports that don’t mention it, ethnicity was a factor. No doubt the BBC are grateful for the omission and the way in which Ms Berelowitz avoiding answering Humphrey’s question.
If JH keeps on asking these impertinent questions of the left/liberal establishment he will be on his way out of the BBC. I’m sure he will have got a yellow card for this morning’s effort, which was both unexpected and refreshing.
There’s a whole load of questions that ought to be answered, but are unlikely to be asked because they reflect badly on the loony leftie immoral idea of ‘society’.
How many abused children were related to the abuser?
How many children were abused by the latest boyfriend of their unmarried mother?
How many children were abused by a lone ‘predator’?
How many children were abused by gangs?
Do any of us REALLY believe that CEOPS or whoever don`t receive stats on “ethnicity” or “faith” (…Pakistani Muslims will do)…in the case of child abusing grooms and gangs( or worshippers in Moques,as they can also be called).
God knows-ANY type of transaction with the State seems to involve ticking those boxes these days…and that criminal data does NOT mention this is surely untrue.
Maybe…just maybe…Berlowitz, Atkinson and the other Savilloys don`t want to know-or simply don`t like what the police are telling them.
Men…Sue, Maggie etc seem to think that we all look the same…and this suits the Colourblind tendency.
If not the white girls in care up north…oh dear!..how sad…never mind!
The police in some areas have previously admitted to keeping quiet about the ethnicity factor in these cases for fear of harming social cohesion, no? So maybe it’s not such a stretch to claim that they don’t provide ethnic or religious data in 6 out of 10 cases.
Now Today needs to bring in police reps to explain why they don’t provide proper data for these reports. Can’t see that happening any time soon, though, since they’re not part of the Tory Government.
thats very true david,
in this report 6/10 of the perpetrators, had no ethnicity, or faith attributed to them, although this was such an important factor, … to me it just smacks of deliberate obfuscation,
“the might get called racist”, factor
so to speak.
It’s odd, to say the least. Maybe some precincts report this data and some just don’t? If not, why not, eh?
This is the kind of obfuscation and basically lying to the public that causes unrest in the first place, and certainly does no favors to the Mohammedan community they’re ostensibly trying to protect from discrimination.
David Preiser;
“It’s odd, to say the least.”
Forgive me, but this is classic “conspiracy theory” fodder. Just under 50% of the data gathered for this report came from the police. The rest came from care homes, health workers, voluntary organisations etc..
Noggin;
“in this report 6/10 of the perpetrators, had no ethnicity, or faith attributed to them, although this was such an important factor”
That’s called “begging the question”.
“Oh, how | look forward to the day when I witness a crime and the Police ask me; “So do you think he was Christian, Muslim or Jewish?“
‘Details on perpetrators were harder to obtain unless they had actually been arrested, so it is difficult to be sure of their ethnicity, notes the report’.
And how long did it take to arrest the Rochdale gang? 15 years? Bit of a backlog there, maybe, which just might just give us a more accurate picture in a non-PC Britain.
From the Judith Burns report:
Analysis of the reported ethnicity of more than 1,500 alleged perpetrators showed that about a third were white, the largest ethnic group.
The word “Pakistani” was censored out. How curious that this report claims that 1/3 were white, while Humphrys is worried about the 1/3 who were Pakistani.
So the website and Campbell play it down, while Humphrys on his own brings it up for “balance”. How many other BBC reports across the spectrum of their broadcasting will take Campbell’s and Burns’ agenda, and how many will push the disproportionate contribution of Pakistani men?
Worth keeping an eye on, since the BBC’s first line of defense against bias on a given issue is that one must consider all of their coverage over time. So far, they’re not doing well. Or maybe Today just doesn’t set the agenda in all cases?
‘…about a third were white, the largest ethnic group’.
And that is assuming we trust these people, with their readiness to report stats in a way that obfuscates the percentage involvement of certain ethnic minorities, to get that particular figure right.
Off topic but worth a new thread IMHO.
Immediately after PMQs today this passed it’s first reading and will have second reading in January.
“Ten Minute Rule Motion – Alun Cairns
BBC (Audit arrangements and publication of invoices)”
This bill will seek new law to require BBC to publish all financials, and invoices over £500, and to submit to National Audit Office inspection on demand.
No doubt will cause some puckering at the BBC.
cue myriads of taxi bills for £499.99.
That’s how these people do things.
I’m sure there will be. But at least the BBC defending against FOI requests and having to be given twelve month’s notice of an audit will be debated in Parliament. (Can you visualise a commercial enterprise being given a year to get the paperwork shredded and the books amended pre-audit?)
And the MPs who blindly support the BBC will be flushed out if and when they speak against the motion. It should be good telly on the Parliament channel for a cold January day.
Just popped up elsewhere…
http://order-order.com/2012/11/21/bbc-transparency-briefing-in-full/
Utterly predictable.
One minor and temporary set back in the ever onward ratchet toward liberal nirvana and the BBC cheerleads a meltdown of disapproval as though this were a grade one national disaster.
I’m talking of course about a handful of women who are in hurry for a pay rise and a chance to wear purple.
If anything wants diestablishing it’s the BBC
I haven’t heard them grumbling about the role of females in other religions: eg. Islam?
That would-of course-be an ecumenical matter.
Time to pack the Cof E in its hippie VW van for Katamndu eh?
Humphries must have been in a subversive mood this morning: he put it to the woman who was quietly fanatical about the cause of woman bishops that the only section of the church that was growing, rather than shrinking, were the conservative evangelicals and they were against it.
The mood on R4 PM is shock, mourning, quiet outrage and mumblings about parliamentary intervention. How dare the CoE not ‘get with the program’ as Cameron put it, and turn into the PCoE.
Twenty minutes at the start of Eddie Mairs P.M.
Poor little dears in tears, and seeking BBC hacks to weep and wail with.
keening and lots of sad frowny faces…oh dear!
How dare the Church do this to us-and here`s Frank Field(Methodist…so what`s it to him?) to tell us that Parliament must act. Oh…Eddie liked this VERY much!
Do these plonkers ever read their Gideons?…or just use the paper to roll their joints.
I`ll not give `em any scriptures-why help them learn, for this is not the thing?…but I reckon Paul has a few things somewhere about not being “yoked with the heathen”…this is being charitable to the BBC and the liberal elite of PM….who, to be “Frank” are much more Baal, Belial and Satanist.
You can choose the kind of reduced pumpkins in frocks we have that lead the Cof E these days…much more savvy in the BBC studio than they`ll ever be in a pulpit.
A hollowed-out joke of a church…God will be removing the franchise very soon, and let them join Lambeth Social Services under Commissar Fraser!
Real Christianity will go the Chinese way…and will turn this country upside down!
Are you not outraged? Most people are.
Ah now we know. If you want to show your progressive credentials you have to be outraged by such things.
a la Jacqui Smith. She’s a progressive. Frankly I was more outraged by her expenses fiddles.
Jim my friend.
Beauty of being a Christian is that you live in a spiritual world, not one you`d expect to be promoted by “bien-pensant” thinkers-inevitably of the liberal left and well-upholstered by the BBC.
Even as your possible secular saint Keith Richards might say-“your laws don`t apply to me!”
And the BBC seem to think that`s OK…when its a licensed state sponsored sulk and rebellion.
Why the hell should the church be yoked with the diversity, human rights and equality commissars who want the church dead…and this is an obvious way to seed the wormwood.
Come on Jim…get your old Gideon out…2Cor 6:14-18 for your first text.
Might just supplant the Radio Times one day!
It’s the established church. It has responsibilities. If it is disestablished, then it can readily operate outside societal and legal norms of female equality
This isn’t a left wing issue.
As Humphries pointed out this morning and the Beeb does not seem to have mentioned all day, the only growth area in what appears to be a dying institution is where people who do not believe in women bishops are joining the church. Had it ever occurred to you that the onward and upward march of middle class utopianism may, in fact, be a pendulum that has reached the highest point in its trajectory and be starting to swing back? Perhaps there are more people around whose instincts are more in accord with those of Edmund Burke than those of Germaine Greer. I don’t have to point out which group the Beeb cheerleads for.
Interesting thought. It was heartening to hear the sheer disbelief that every BBC commentator had re the Synod decision. All the lefty bishops agreed, the laical ‘masses’ were the ones that voted it down.
The pendulum always swings back. This is what makes human history so fascinating.
I agree with THAT Jim.
The Church is either Christs or it is nobodys.
The Cof E has long given up any pretence to a religious voice…just a social affairs unit.
To hear wet types on PM openly hoping that Parliament will rid them of the right to set their own rules was as craven and God defying as anything I`ve heard.
If you love something…set it free…the church is an unloved runt as evidenced by Fraser, Williams etc…and needs to be cut adrift to grow a pair…principles would be a start!
it is hard to be outraged and rather silly. I wonder what the Catholic Church makes of it? it does rather regard the C of E as a Church temporarily in schism and presumably is taking a long view- something idealistic liberals are wont not to do.
No like most people the CoE is an irrelevance to me.
What does disgust me and most people I know is the lefts continued obfuscation and down right denial of the scale and nature of the ongoing sexuall abuse of young vunerable exclusively white working class girls by muslim pakistanis
on an industrial scale
Often I her at work it would be different if were their own daughters
When I reply that they would sacrifice
even their own on the alta of their
ersatz religion of multiculturalism
They are even more horrified
Who are “Most people” Jim?
“Moist people in the press bubble” is what you actually mean.
Everyone else is bothered about what the hell happened to all the money this nation once had, NOT about women Bishops.
I agree, Jim (genuinely). It is totally illogical to me, too.
But let’s have some balance at the BBC – get them to address the inequalities in Islam, too (of which there are many, many more).
Do you agree?
No, it’s a separate issue. And was covered yesterday in the article about the Arab woman who de-hijabed and put her photo on Facebook yesterday.
Less whataboutery.
No, it’s a wider issue of lack of balance from the BBC when it is reporting on perceived inequalities – and prejudice – in religion. Christianity is constantly under scrutiny by the BBC but not Islam. Can you point to even one broadcast discussion on Islam’s stance on gay marriage, for example?
Yes I can
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12486003
No thats the BBCs stance
on multiculturalism.
Official State Broadcaster goes after Official State Church. What a country.
The common thread seems to be the word ‘state’. As in one.
Luckily, last time a Vicar tried to drag me into through the gates, preach at me and take my money for doing so… it turned out he, at least, couldn’t.
It’s simple to say that when you live in a state that was designed by a committee. The CoE was around when what is now the US was the sole preserve of native Americans.
BBC still running the NHS “Big Oidea” of Dame Sally Evans all day.
The Olympic legacy never made it to turning the clocks back then…for we`re a bunch of lardarses with crap livers!…oh, God!
Body fascism…self-esteem-don`t feel good about myself….who do I sue for all this, as well as Savile of course?
These NHS Nazis are forever getting at we boozehounds or Big Mac lovers…but simply don`t have the courage to do other than mither on.
Start with Precott you arses!..then come back and tell us how we can learn!
As for crap jobs, family breakdown due to overwork, kids in cars with no insurance causing accidents etc , etc…TB, asylum gangs and thugs, crims getting off scot-free…ah, beyond our ken…outside the parameters etc.
No to booze, fast food-yes to windmills and compulsory funding of the Guardian…now stuff THAT in your livers and let`s make that foie gras of the heretics, that hate the likes of Dame Sally Davis…
An extra glass of wine tonight!
Bit tenuous, but surely Will Gompertz and Paul Mason have met over canapes at the BBC some time.
Poor Will was devasted this morning..turns out that the “Yellowist Berk” who scrawled his black marker pen , had not only “scarred” Rothkos block of paint…but “wounded it too”.
Still-no mention of the cost to stick a bit of Airfix matt black onto Marks “masterpiece” with a bit of egg as Mark himself did…oh, what would I know? Got to see it up close, you Philistine…you “pleb”!
Actually I have…and it`s still a hyped up block of black paint in any language!
But pity poor Will-for this Yellowist is a rebel…tomorrows punk retro perhaps…and he`d hate to be the conservative traditionalist we all laught at!
Poor Will-poor BBC…only wish I has HIS problems!
Any go-to musts of arty retrospectives being held in Aleppo or Gaza I wonder…I know for a fact that the Taliban are holding a poetry reading…so go there Will!
What a plonker!…wounded?…pah!
Michael Fabricant tweeted the other day that Mason was among his favourite journos at Auntie. He seemed surprised when a reply pointed out Mason’s Spartist credentials.
When was this?
About 8 days ago. He was full of love for Auntie on its 90th birthday.
That’s Mason completely exonerated, then?
Pity, Jim, you have chosen not to ‘engage’ in the fact-based threads on here which have shown Mason up for the Occupy-supporting, union-supporting, Brown-idolising, Labour-supporting, Marxist anti-marketeer that he is.
Where were you then, Jim?
(When the going gets tough, Jim goes shopping….)
Just pointing it out for your amusement. No need to get arsey.
Still, your absence on key threads is always noted – unable to put up a defence and all that.
(Call that arsey? Oh, heck.)
Which ones? I try to cover all the ground where I have something to say.
Selection here, posted for Dez’s benefit:
Talking of which, still not had your views on the BBC’s involvement in CMEP or its refusal to release the Balen report.
Or your refutation of BBC bias in this little gem:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/bbcs-kirby-admission-to-phil-jones-on-impartiality/
Oh, and here’s another which I seem to recall slipped past your beady eye:
http://www.kentishtowner.co.uk/2012/11/13/ich-bin-kentishtowner-martin-plaut-bbc-journalist-author/
But also recall you never explained how the BBC arrived at its view that the ‘overwhelming’ majority of scientists support the AGW hypothesis, or even that ‘the science is settled’ (looking at the remit of CMEP).
Now found the link
https://mobile.twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/statuses/267931510823350272
lan, I can never really understand what your writing about. Im not a political junkie analyst absorbing political nuances over the last 20 years but I do consider my self reasonably well informed.
How on earth is what you write going to influence any casual visitor to this site and open their eyes to what the BBC is all about. BBC bias is what your trying to expose or am I missing something here?
Yes, im suggesting you dumb it down a little, use more facts, and a bit less opinion – even if your opinions are correct.
A bowl of petunias has asked me to ask you who Ian is.