Over the past week or so, I am sure you will have seen the BBC reporting on the street protests in Belfast and elsewhere as people register their unhappiness at the Union flag being brought down over Belfast City Hall – apart from a few days a year. Now, naturally all violence attending such protest is deplorable BUT I wonder how the BBC can get away with going to the likes of Sinn Fein Gerry Kelly so he can verbally bash those who protest and in some cases commit violent acts?
Kelly, as the BBC well knows, was one of the IRA gang who bombed the Old Bailey. He also attempted to murder a prison officer when he escaped from the Maze prison. He, along with IRA commander Martin McGuinness, sit in government and the BBC uses them to advance the absurd argument that “violence does not pay”??? The massive salaries these former IRA terrorists now command demonstrably proves violence DOES pay and yet as a faithful cheerleader for the appeasement process, the BBC never asks any TOUGH questions lest the boat be rocked. Sickening.
What’s the bias? BBC NI never asked Q in 70 years but just reports events. I’d criticise them for the almost complete lack of probing throughout its history. Dull, but not bias.
The electorate has made it very clear that they are content with the current setup. Your own election experience confirmed that.
Nobody wants a return to the 80s so why shouldn’t everyone condemn the morons?
Prole.
Do you live in NI? Have you ever visited NI? why have you ever received a postcard from NI?
I’ll put my money on the table that you haven’t and that the only link you have to the province is that some shirtlifting republican from South of the border, battered you around the ring, when you found yourself on your knees at O’reillys boxing gym.
As for the bBC reporting events, what you mean by painting the picture that the IRA and their ilk are fucking freedom fighters and that allowing them to strut their stuff on the telly. (Adams voice overs and all that shite) while promoting the Army and police as evil incarnate. (Remind me again who blew up Omagh, yer oxygen thief?) allows you to call British citizens who want to see the Union flag flying over Belfast townhall as morons.
Tell you what, take a drive around the province and take note how in the Uk, The irish tricolour is allowed to fly from lampposts, why on the Antrim coast road the so called British citizens of certain towns paint the pavement in the colours of the bankrupt country to the south, I don’t see the Irish terrorists in power in Belfast asking them to take down their little flags. (And I haven’t even mentioned the Irish enclaves in Belfast,Londonderry or Newry)
You talk about morons, yet becasue of the biased news that comes out of the back end of the bBC, pricks like you expel the shite you licked off your so called political masters pricks as they upzip the news on a friday morning.
Do us all a favour and go for a long walk on a short pier.
Nice to see Pounce exhibiting Biased BBC’s famed tolerance for alternative opinions there, I see – and so many people clicking “like”.
I thought Prole’s points were completely valid and totally undeserving of Pounce’s abuse. And before his little anger management issues cause him to start on me, I have been to Northern Ireland – most of my family are from there.
Next you’ll be saying ‘some of my best friends are Northern Irish’.
And Jim Dandy’s head will explode.
When Pounce starts his nasty little comment with questions like “Do you live in NI? Have you ever visited NI?”, I thought it was wise to pre-empt him. Not that he needs much encouragement to be childishly rude.
I don’t tend to associate much from you with wisdom.
Especially when invariably prefaced with ‘I thought..’ as if that is helping in the pre-sell of what invariably follows.
So do you think that Pounce’s comments were appropriate? If so, why?
Stick a [sigh] in front of that and ‘I’d really like to know’ at the end, and the spirit of Dr. Gregory has not left us.
The email advisories on each thread can tell an interesting tale, in volume and content.
I checked out last night for an evening in with the family, making a meal and then enjoying a movie before bed.
What happened across the BBBC active threads since then to now, with almost the entire Flokk not in the pub with mates, or enjoying the company of loved ones, but deployed here on a supposed irrelevant site that no none comes to much less reads, filling pages after page with childish, pathetic, professional victim irrelevance, unsubstantiated claims or outright lies, has been eye-opening.
It just clogs things up; which is the clear intention.
Irrelevances that are sadly still irritating.
At least, unlike the BBC, we don’t have to pay for this malign effort with more than time.
One hopes. Who knows what can be uniquely funded from a special projects petty cash account below a set limit?
The overnight volume of dross from you and your colleagues has at least made bothering with the wells you have poisoned easy to pass over.
Sadly for you, the Internet has no boundaries, so when you take pause, normal service can simply resume.
On the BBC of course, that is not the case, as even with claimed public views, propaganda ensures what is broadcast is run though a filter and censorship is there to tidy up after that.
Yet you choose to come to a free, independent site comprised of individuals to demand collective Borg behaviour to suit your narrow senses of what matters, while apparently feeling a vast, unelected, unaccountable corporate monopoly riven with hypocrisy and exclusion excuses should not be held to account.
You are worse than a waste of space; you are drain on it.
Blimey “Guest Who” do you ever give up being a pompous twit and become a human being occasionally?
So I take it that you DO think Pounce’s vile comments were acceptable, but you’re too much of a coward to say so in writing?
Dez – the numbers of standards you embrace make each comment you contribute adding another a real treasure.
Scott – On occasion you can make a valid comment. However, most of the time you are a sad contrarian Flokker in every sense of that term.
As has been pointed out here before, this is a forum of free individuals. Hence associated responsibilities for others and their statements is a guilt-trip fantasy only such as you can try and impose to see gain traction. Especially when making demands of others on a site where you are but a (very perverse, and pervasive – these last few days must have played havoc with your grasp on reality, along with the others’ volume bonusses) guest.
You can take what you want from the BBC, including their trend for projection. Like much else however, it then can stay with you both.
As to accusations of cowardice, it has been clear you are most comfortable with discussion at schoolyard level, but this latest facile taunt moves you into remedial kindergarden class.
What next… ‘your brother is bigger than mine’?
So do you think Pounce’s comments were acceptable or not?
A simple yes or no will do.
Scott wrote:
I thought Prole’s points were completely valid and totally undeserving of Pounce’s abuse.
Oh please, dickspalshes like Prole come on this board simply to take the sting out of any post and promote the view that the bBC is actually impartial.
Which even a blindman wearing dark glasses in a dark room at Midnight can see is a joke.
As for for having family who live in Northern Ireland good for you. I was last over in Oct, even managed to grab fish and chips in at my fav chippie in Ballycastle. (Mortons).
Scott,
Pounce is exhibiting *his* opinions, as are you and Prole. You would be correct if this were a BBC site because the moderation there usually means that surviving comments only reflect the views of the publicly financed yet “left leaning” broadcaster. However this site is free and unmodded which is why even your ill thought out comments live on for eternity.
No, Pounce is using homosexual rape fantasies in his response. Do You think that’s legitimate? Do you think that’s disturbing?
Jim Dandy:
No, Pounce is using homosexual rape fantasies in his response.
Well I suppose that puts me in line for a good management job at the bBC then.
What on earth has the contents of Pounce’s post got to do with me or, what I posted above, about this site being unmodded? Haven’t we been through this before? Was it you or Nick, or Prole or Dez, who thought that if someone posted a link to something “inappropriate” we were all supposed to post a comment to deny that we agree?
I repeat once more, for clarity: Pounce, like everyone here has offered his opinion, to which he is entitled.
Your (and Scott’s) opinion appears to be that any opinion offered, on this site, is the opinion of B-BBC…oh except any opinion from you, Prole, Dez etc…..and furthermore that any opinion offered here is supported by everyone who reads this site unless they immediately post some sort of disclaimer. That seems rather unreasonable.
By the way, I “liked” Pounce’s post but now that you’ve pointed out that it contains a “homosexual rape fantasy”, even though I still can’t see it (not being familiar with the genre), I would like to unlike it – just in case people think that I am a shirt lifter.
“I’ll put my money on the table that you haven’t and that the only link you have to the province is that some shirtlifting republican from South of the border, battered you around the ring, when you found yourself on your knees at O’reillys boxing gym.”
Oh…I get it “battered around the ring”. That’s pretty good! I though that it was about boxing. You obviously have a dirtier mind than me…naughty Jim!.
I hereby withdraw my previously expressed desire to un-like Pounces post.
Your (and Scott’s) opinion appears to be that any opinion offered, on this site, is the opinion of B-BBC…
Did I say that? No, I did not. But I would marvel that anyone, on any site, would think his comments formed a constructive contribution, regardless of whether he was one of the site’s most prolific commenters or whether this was his first visit. That his attitude is seen as acceptable by some speaks volumes about the mindset of those who would seek to defend him.
It is noticeably consistent that, if people who disagree with the prevailing stream of opinion on Biased BBC post anything that cam be construed as even slightly combative, the regulars start shouting about ad hominem attacks. But when a regular starts using graphic content that is sexual and violent in nature in lieu of a constructive contribution to an issue, other regulars click “like” and think that the language is okay.
If you want Biased BBC to be taken seriously, do you really think that sort of attitude is going to be seen as acceptable? Do you not think that Pounce – whose contributions appear on most comment threads – reduces any attempt by this site to be seen as anything other than a joke by his actions on this one?
You really don’t like it when people take the Michael out of the BBC and their cronies. During the Cold War the dissidents always said that the totalitarian mindset could never deal with being mocked at any level. What is it like to be a crony?
Do you think the imagery pounce used is appropriate? If so, why?
People have difficulty answering that question, choosing instead to insult others. I wonder why that is?
I’m sat in my nice house with my beautiful Swedish wife next to me, just had a nice cup of glögg and I’m looking out at 18inches of crispy snow. Why on earth would I give a shit about whatever it is you are getting all enraged about?
Scott, my old fruit, this is an unmodded site on a thing called the internet. Who cares what the “regulars” shout about or whether anyone “takes this site seriously”? This is not reality Scott, it’s the internet. There are several posters who make special visits here to tell all and sundry that no one takes this site seriously or even looks at it, so why are you so upset? I, myself, will probably post entirely contrary opinions tomorrow or something but that is the internet. Strange isn’t it? Well, at least until some the thought police gain complete control.
I really don’t care what Pounce or anyone else posts, I don’t care if it offends you or anyone else and it really is nothing to do with me.
I realise that being of a liberal persuasion is hard work, having to constantly wind yourself up into a faux lather of victimhood, so the best advice I can give you is don’t visit web sites that you find offensive otherwise your self appointed moral policing role is going to take up a hell of a lot of your time and probably drive you into an early grave.
Why on earth would I give a shit about whatever it is you are getting all enraged about?
Why indeed. But you clearly are.
Is it perhaps because the hypocrisy in Biased BBC commenters’ attitudes to personal abuse is becoming so blatantly hypocritical that even the site’s densest contributors are beginning to realise that there’s something amiss?
Just trying to help you out mate! I worry about you. Chill out.
‘BBC NI never asked Q in 70 years but just reports events’
It may be time to dust of any remaining Enigma machines to sort that one out.
BBc NI never ONCE reported on the blatant discrimination in Ulster before the Civil Rights movement nor after. It just ignored it. No bias, just pure reporting, the type you seem to want.
The type that covers over what’s really happening by ignoring it.
Yes, it seems like nonsense doesn’t it? All this fuss over a flag? It’s not like they are never going to fly it is it?
But if you had any knowledge of that benighted province you would know that such things are of the utmost importance. They are symbols with real power. Just look here at the fuckwittery over which flag NI should fly. There is a huge effort put out by republicans to expunge all outward signs of Britishness in NI. They do this because they know what power these petty symbols have. And thats just one page on one neutral site (NB over time the flags disappear, change, burn …)
To Loyalists the flag is important. It is not about offending republicans (as is often said on the BBC) it is about belonging. To try and take it away, even for a day, is to spit in their faces. That’s not hyperbole by the way; just look at how angry Pounce got.
Outside of NI people may well raise their eyebrows and tut but they don’t understand the issue.
You have a limited definition of “the electorate”.
“….the 90% of respondents to the council’s public consultation who favoured flying the flag all year?”
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/alliances-position-puts-the-union-flag-at-risk-16241469.html
It’s taken you a while to make any comment on the fleg issue Mr Vance, which in some ways doesn’t surprise me.
The people protesting are morons, for the most part they are poorly educated, unemployed thugs, the dregs of our society. They are suffering from an identity crisis, because they don’t know what they’re ‘loyal’ to anymore. Not when the British don’t want them, and their Queen is willing to visit ROI, Croke Park and apologise for Britian’s role there.
The kind of people DV would have appealed to in the electorate. Hence why your electoral reports were so embarrassing. And the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland think so, and want them to go away and stop dragging our country back into the mire.
It seems to me these people aren’t much different from effigy burning mobs in Pakistan. They tried to break into the City Hall to disrupt the democratic protest, and are no issuing death threats against politicians of all hues.
Gerry Kelly, whether you like it or not, is an elected representative, the MLA for north Belfast, its right and proper he’s interviewed, you don’t have an argument, this is a simple assertion of your own oft-repeated bias.
On the other hand, you repeatedly appear on the BBC, and have much less of a valid reason for doing so. Are we ever going to hear how much they’ve paid you over the years, or don’t want to tell us? You are the worst kind of hypocrite.
And Pounce, it was the Real IRA who bombed Omagh.
The Queen was trying to mend fences and quite right too. Do you want peace or not in Ireland? Are you going to allow discord to forment just for the sake of, well what exactly?
Perhaps you could enlighten me on when the Teashop is going to visit Belfast, Manchester, Warrington, London and sundry other British towns to apologise for Irish atrocities?
As to Armagh, how convenient to have a dissident group to keep the pressure on. What proof is there that the Real IRA is not just another cell rather than mere splitters?
BTW ever notice that the BBC always refers to republican crimes as the actions of ‘dissidents’ whilst any protestant actor is always a Loyalist? Are there no dissidents on the Loyalist side?
That’s when they bother to report republican crimes.
James T Kirk wrote:
And Pounce, it was the Real IRA who bombed Omagh.
If you are going to try and nit-pick at least learn to read what I actually wrote which was:
the IRA and their ilk
Noun
ilk (plural ilks)
A type, race or category; a group of entities that have common characteristics such that they may be grouped together.
In my best apu voice
“Please come again”
Perhaps Pounce should have just called the Irish Republican Murderers to cover all the various names they hide behind so they can pretend it isn’t really them involved in terrorism whilst they play at being pretend politicians. Whatever lable they stick on themselves from time to time they all, ultimately, dance to the same tune dictated by the same band leaders however much they pretend differently.
Nothing to say on Pat Finucane?
How about: ‘if you sup with the devil … ‘?
James T Kirk wrote:
Nothing to say on Pat Finucane?
I have much to say on the subject as the bBC has on Gerry Adams and his drinking partner. Oh but hang on correct me if I am wrong but didn’t the peace agreement say let bygones be begones and anybody found guilty of crimes be given a get out of jail card. So why do all the left want to talk about justice, when their heroes are out and about playing the victim card.
What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander
Well, since you ask, how did the BBC decide that the best description for the consigliere of a bunch of murderous Hiberno-fascists was ‘human rights lawyer’?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ruthdudleyedwards/100193952/pat-finucane-was-shockingly-murdered-but-that-doesnt-make-him-a-human-rights-lawyer/
I noticed that the main IRA apologist in the comments section called himself after Gunter Prien, the U-boat captain that sunk the battleship Royal Oak costing 800 British lives. What a c***.
How come his family were all in the IRA, that he represented IRA members in court proceedings, but that he (supposedly) wasn’t in the IRA?
Also please advise on what MacGuinness was doing with a sub-machine gun on Bloody Sunday, and why his civil rights protesters were throwing nail and petrol bombs at our troops?
he was known as “the provie solicitor” by some
Yes: How about robert nairac!
I thought what the Queen did visiting Ireland was fantastic. I’m saying that the people who called themselves ‘loyalist’ are supposed to be ‘loyal’ to Q