Is the BBC trying to make any talk about gay issues socially unacceptable….as it has with immigration?
Talk about immigration and you are labelled a racist. That silenced debate for decades….and allowed Labour unopposed to swamp Britain with immigrants.
Talk critically of homosexuality and you’re probably gay yourself….and you don’t want people thinking that do you? So you won’t discuss it.
Or that might seem to be the latest ‘trick’ in the progressive BBC’s book….bang on about the place of gays in society and you’re merely hiding your own latent homosexuality.
An irony that isn’t it?…the BBC using the apparent ‘stigma’ of gayness to stop people talking about the issues around the subject. The BBC recognising that being gay isn’t looked upon as ‘normal’ in much of society and using the embarrassment of being labelled gay to silence anyone who talks of the issues…..presumably God and his followers are all gay then if we believe the various religions which tell us homosexuality is a sin?
The Today programme brought on Stonewall’s Ben Summerskill (08:47) to talk about this:
‘Cardinal O’Brien has been accused by many of hypocrisy in his stance against gay marriage. Dr Mike Davidson, from the Core Issues Trust and Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive of Stonewall discuss whether there is evidence of a connection between homophobia and suppressed same-sex desire.’
His opponent, Dr Mike Davidson…was announced as someone who thought gayness could be ‘cured’…so immediately he was placed in the realm of ‘loony’….and therefore not worth listening to or taking seriously….why not have someone less controversial to speak against Summerskill?
The whole premise of the programme was wrong anyway…..O’Brien was articulating the Church’s views, not necessarily his own on homosexuality, therefore it was not his own ‘homophobia’ that he was expressing…so he could be gay, should he want to be, without being called a hypocrit.
You know what? I couldn’t give a flying rats arse what men do with their penises. As long as the people they do it with are consenting why should I care? I am, after all, Right Wing which means I don’t really care what others get up to as long as they don’t do it to me (and I don’t want ’em to). It is the Left who use intolerance to segregate and abuse minorities not the Right.
What I object to on the BBC is the way they want me to think like them and if I don’t I’m a monster! But then, come the revolution, we all know who the guards will be outside the showers don’t we? So who are the real monsters?
Does that make me a homophobe? WGAS!
Where silliness can cause least damage – like fatuous trolling with absurd comments.
Leave the troll alone, let him go back to playing with his tiny….
That depends, do you like show tunes and work at the BBC?
were
I was listening to the radio in the car but with the volume low as I really wasn’t that interested. But I am pretty sure that You and Yours at 12 noon on Radio 4 was carrying the same topic. They had (I think) Martin Parris on and a discussion about tests that could be done to measure how much people who think they are heterosexual are attracted to members of the same sex. The funny thing is that I have just gone to the Radio 4 You and Yours website to check the item and there is nothing mentioned. I could listen again on i-player to check my facts but would probably lose the will to live. This topic is obviously the subliminal theme for today.
Yes as Chris H explained – I really do not mind whether a person is gay or straight but what annoys is the BBC promoting a gay culture. What anybody does in bed with whom is their own affair but I dislike sexuality being flaunted – from Matthew Cain (I know he is Channel 4) mincing his way through a piece on the 7pm News to dancing in Strictly being praised as ‘sexy’ ‘dirty’ or ‘raunchy’ at 6.30 pm in the evening. What role models does this provide for young people? The tenet of the BBC is that they have to bring as many positive stories about gay people as possible to make homosexuality ‘acceptable’ – which it already is for most decent people. It is the BBC’s pushing of an agenda that I object to.
As an openly gay man myself – and a regular reader/commenter here (mainly on climate-related subjects) – I do find the general level of disapproval for homosexuality here a disappointment. As someone else has already said, as predominantly right-wing individuals in our politics here, one would imagine a lot more libertarianism might be found in these pages – live and let live, a broad church, etc. Sadly, no.
I suspect that this is why I don’t really get more involved in discussions other than those specifically concerned with the BBC and its incessant promotion of CAGW; when other discussions touch upon issues of sexuality and race I find myself hesitant, sometimes, to put my name (and it is my real name I use here) to anything that might contain some opinions and expressions I am not entirely comfortable with.
But I’m a pragmatist. Nobody’s perfect (certainly not me) and I realise that it’s probably never going to be possible to align oneself with the ideas and opinions of others that might tick all the boxes. A bit like my continued support for UKIP – they aren’t perfect, by any means, but they manage (just) to tick enough of the right boxes for me to reach a compromise in my relationship with the party.
As long as this place continues to encourage free and open expression of personal opinion I will support those freedoms (within the bounds of decency and the law). But I’m not compelled to approve of everything that is said here, nor do I.
Well put Phil, coherent and obviously true as far as I can tell.
I for one don`t care about anybodys sexuality_we`ve all got our personal issues or what have you, and they`re nobodys business but you and partner.
I think that my problem is when the “gay issue” becomes a flag to wave about, with a pole being used to prod, provoke or to beat us all about the head with.
Whether you`re Graham Norton or Russell Brand…the BBC love you and exalt you, whilst sneering at the poor white trash, the decent Muslims and the immigrants who don`t cite Bonnie Greer or Anjem Choudhury as role models.
It`s that creeping culture to ensure that the civilians of this country are seen as drab conformists for sticking by wife and kids…whilst their licensed ouche decadents are seen as what kids in school need to aspire to.
We see it every day-and we`re fully sick of it!
All the best to you Phil, absolutely nothing to do with being anti-gay…just the BBC hopping the gay bandwagon to shanghai it to rub our faces in their versions of approved diversity.
Thanks Chris, your words are appreciated. I do agree with you about the ‘flag waving’ element; not something I have ever gone in for. My sexuality has defined who I am; it is merely one aspect of the person.
meant to say ‘never’ defined who I am!
I think this is a good example of where the standard ‘left-right’ political divisions break down and it’s helpful to have another axis like the political compass libertarian/ authoritarian. All of our mainstream political parties are authoritarian, and the bBBC follows suit.
I don’t much care what anyone gets up to, morally or sexually, especially when it doesn’t impinge on anyone else. But I do object to having one particular code imposed upon me or at least keep being pushed as if it’s the only way that anyone could/ should think. That’s what the bBBC does on many subjects, including homosexuality.
Phil, I’m pretty sure that most of the regulars here couldn’t care less if you are gay. It’s your business and yours alone. Sadly there will always be a minority who use abuse, but that says more about them.
Where my tolerance wears thin is being constantly told that I must approve of other people’s behaviour, whatever my opinion. The BBC is constantly doing this, sometimes in your face and sometimes with a bit more subtlety. The other day I had the misfortune to catch part of The Dumping Ground on CBBC which my kids were watching. It is about children in a home and the kids were having an argument because a lesbian couple wanted to adopt one of them. Some of them said it wasn’t right because there should be a father and some of them saw nothing wrong with it. I didn’t see the end, but said to my daughter, “I bet by the end they all realise how bigoted they were and agree that there’s nothing wrong with being adopted by two lesbians”. I won the bet. That sort of agenda-setting raises my hackles.
Please don’t think that I’m attacking you when I say that I’d prefer my children to be heterosexual. It’s my preference for them, just as you have a preference for your way of life. I’m just not prepared to be told by the BBC that I am not allowed to have that preference for my children.
BBC Childrens programming is full of left wing propaganda. I’ll bet the ones who were less than impressed with the lesbian couple were mostly boys and/or the negative characters the kids are supposed to not want to be like.
Please don’t think that I’m attacking you when I say that I’d prefer my children to be heterosexual. It’s my preference for them, just as you have a preference for your way of life. I’m just not prepared to be told by the BBC that I am not allowed to have that preference for my children.
You do realise you’re not going to have a say in the matter one way or another, don’t you?
I’m quite aware of that, thank you. I’m not quite sure what your point is.
Just that “having a preference for my children” is irrelevant. Your children may be straight, they may be gay, and there’s nothing you can do or say to influence that one way or the other. So what your preference is is really of little concern.
“So what your preference is is really of little concern. ”
I couldn’t have summed up the BBC attitude better myself.
“So what your preference is is really of little concern.”
A fathers preferance,his love for his child, is of no concern.
“O brave new world, That has such people in’t.”
A fathers preferance,his love for his child, is of no concern.
Who said anything about love not being of concern? Certainly not me.
A father’s preference for whether their child is gay or straight should be of no concern precisely because their love should be unconditional. Why have a preference about something that neither parent nor child have control over?
If you had read the words carefully you would have noticed that the writer expressed a preference. As I understand English that is correct usage.
Or are we now no longer allowed by the word facists to express a preference about anything at all even plain or milk chocolate.?
Despite Scott’s authoritarian pronouncements I think the odds are in Roland’s favour anyway – roughly 99/1.
On the matter of The Dumping Ground, it was notable that one thing the children all agrees on was that Anton who fostered Gus would have to able to provide him with the special care that he would need due to his Asperger’s. I think the point that in fostering, the needs of the child have to absolutely the top priority was a valid and strong one to raise.
As to the couple fostering him, the way they were introduced and the story wrapped up in a 25 minute story is frustrating: TDG and it’s predecessor series don’t really have ongoing storylines in the way Grange Hill and it’s ill did, so everything gets compressed in ways that aren’t really satisfying for anyone. But the message that you shouldn’t write off anyone based on some preconception of their situation – be it gay, straight, autistic, a single mum, an older relative with Alzheimer’s, anyone – is something that some adults could do well to take on board as easily as kids do.
Bah. it’s = its (sometimes); ill = ilk. Bloody autocorrect.
‘ill = ilk. Bloody autocorrect.
Rather surprised that the intended word was not default pre-programmed, as it does get used about various ‘you lots’ a… lot.
Also, that should have been “anyone who fostered Gus”. I don’t believe either of the women applying to foster him was called Anton.
But, presumably, not if you support UKIP and live in Rotherham.
Phil, although straight, I also am sometimes disappointed by some of the homophobia expressed on here, including from one long-standing contributor who is remarkably tolerant, sometimes over-tolerant, on most other issues.
However, freedom of speech should mean that, short of actual threats, most views should be allowed and anything offensive should be argued down as you have done eloquently Phil.
Most of the vilest comments at the moment are coming from the false flaggers (Mobies as I have recently heard the word).
A ‘false flagger’ writes, earlier today:
Please, is there anywhere I (we) can go to escape from “GAY”? I’m heartily pissed off with it all. Give us our English word back, with its proper, long-accepted meaning, and consign all these strange homosexual beings to their own world, where they don’t have to keep telling us all about it, and demanding to be “different” They ARE different, and quite frankly, not in a nice way. Please can they keep their weird sexuality to themselves, and leave us be.
Oh no, wait, that was Old Goat, who’s one of the regulars.
Well argued: what bothers is not homosexuals. It’s a lifestyle choice anyone should freely be allowed to make. What bothers is being constantly derided by the BBC for holding an opinion that is not theirs.
Frankly they should ignore the subject instead of promote it and let people think whatever they will.
So it’s a lifestyle choice that anybody should be allowed to make – but nobody on screen should be shown as having made it?
Gays are given a disproportionate amount of airtime I think, is the argument. Plus the BBC have their agenda, as always.
As a regular visitor to this site you should have deduced by now that the majority of contributors dislike militant and intolerant minorities. We are talking here about a militant and intolerant minority within a minority that they have a problem with, as well as having their own views on stuff like gay marriage, hunting down of Christian B and B owners and closing down of Catholic adoption agencies, which they are completely entitled to. Many will also be thinking: what next?
“the majority of contributors dislike militant and intolerant minorities”
I think the majority of contributors are themselves intolerant, and who wrongly paint people whose views they disagree with as “militant” so they can feel superior.
‘why not have someone less controversial to speak’
Even with a special remit that says they are not meant to be the driving force, the BBC pretty much prostrates itself at the altar of ratings like all the rest.
Those market rates don’t just assess themselves now.
Ask Jeremy Vine or Danny Cohen.
Guess Who’s interventions are so impenetrable that a translator might be a good idea. Or perhaps a good copy editor.
Georges… another welcome new player I do believe, if sadly again tasked with only addressing others and not the topic.
This would appear an over-duplication of effort that in these austere days can only be afforded by those with apparent access to limitless resources.
Defo not stalking though, as Flokkers cannot be capable of this on the basis of unique ‘say-so’ exemptions.
As always, I fear there is little one can do about the comprehension abilities of some who seem determined more to ‘penetrate’ than engage.
Thank you for demonstrating that point so well.
I will content myself continuing to share this site with those happy to read and simply move on or add their kind support.
But even for you, with one like on top so far, it seems misery does like company.
I’m just fed up at the BBC promoting the homosexual act above other ways of sexuality in living together. As I said in an earlier posting they showed a man kissing another man and in bed together in a lunch time soap “The doctors” in 2003 and when I complained the reply came back (much quicker than usual for the BBC) accusing me of homophobia. I wrote back that they would not put a married couple over 50 in bed together kissing in day time TV so why should they put in front of us two men in bed together.
In that previous thread, you also said “When last did you hear a drama on Radio 4 that didnot include a homosexual or lebian realationship.? – a claim which was patently false.
And in that post, you said that the men were kissing, and then shown in bed. Here you say they were kissing in bed. I realise that this incident is ten years old and your memory may be a little hazy, but wouldn’t a little consistency help your case just a tad?
Lynettethey showed a man kissing another man and in bed together in a lunch time soap
Suckot Here you say they were kissing in bed
Little pissant – do you need help understanding English? Besides, even if it were true – do you understand why you attract negativity?
Yup, sorry, I picked up “in bed together kissing in day time TV” from later on in Lynette’s post. Thanks for showing that her inconsistent views on such matters exist within the same post.
“Dr Mike Davidson…was announced as someone who thought gayness could be ‘cured’…so immediately he was placed in the realm of ‘loony’….and therefore not worth listening to or taking seriously”
You are right that the BBC has an agenda (and I despise anybody who denies it) but ridiculing those who argue that homosexuality is something which ought to be cured is fair enough in my eyes.
I object to not being given a choice if I want to fund BBC propaganda, and I object to them air brushing their own greed and bigotry, and a lot of what the BBC preaches is bunk, but when it draws attention to absurd attitudes about homosexuality the BBC is at its best not its worst.
I recall a BBC programme where they invited a man in his 70’s whose only son had committed suicide because he was homosexual. The father was a Christian and the interviewer asked him if he preferred his son to be dead rather than gay, and the father replied that he preferred him dead. It was not hard to see why the son committed suicide. It was a sad moment. It was the BBC at its best.
I also recall watching a BBC programme about an STD clinic in Manchester (as you do) and it showed a young American who was HIV positive who was a regular at the clinic because of all the unprotected sex he was having with his pickups.
The BBC interviewer never uttered a word of criticism but (as is always the case with the BBC) their view was clear. They rightly exposed him as an immoral jerk – completely self-absorbed.
If only the BBC was consistent. If they made a programme about Islam which drew attention to its evil views on (amongst other things) homosexuality I might respect them more.
They don’t of course. If I had to chose a single word to describe the BBC I would say “cowards”. Ridiculing the views of the Catholic Church is hardly an act of bravery. In the Middle Ages the BBC would be amongst those lighting fires burning those heretics who disputed the authority of the church.
It is not the fact that it is full of gays that the BBC is so repellant, it is because they “arselicks” whoever is the establishment.
‘You are right that the BBC has an agenda (and I despise anybody who denies it) but ridiculing those who argue that homosexuality is something which ought to be cured is fair enough in my eyes’.
They are supposed to be impartial.
They should have a bias towards civilized behavior – that is what civilized people do – if the BBC were value neutral you would (rightly) not like it.
My point is their choice of ‘values’ reflects their innate left-liberal bias, so they do not mock the sillier or even more sinister extremes we associate with the Leftist agenda. Might they, for example, cover the ‘LGBT Scrutiny Committee’ on Brighton council through whom all things must pass and who have recommended the removal of ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ from all official forms because it discriminates against the ‘LGBT community’? I think not.
As you say: ‘If only the BBC was consistent. If they made a programme about Islam which drew attention to its evil views on (amongst other things) homosexuality I might respect them more’.
So I think we’re arguing the same point, really.
My objection to the BBC is that it is not “liberal” enough. It does not believe in freedom or competition. It is totalitarian. It is the broadcasting equivalent of a boot stamping on your face forever. They corrupt our national life.
It took a Reformation to get rid of the power of the Catholic Church. Many of our ancestors fought wars against those who sought to replace our liberties with a European Super-State.
How are we going to get rid of the corporate Stalinists/Fascists at the BBC? Only by taking away their competition destroying tax funded megaphone and shifting power back to the people they are supposed to be serving.
This raises an interesting ‘liberal’ dichotomy.
which I came across on the excellent ‘zonation’ video blog recently.
If homsexuality is genetic does that modify a womans right to choose?
If I had to chose a single word to describe the BBC I would say “cowards”.
I like the word SCUM = SUCCUMB with reference to the BBC
Vanessa Feltz,, standing in for Jeremy Vine on Radio2, opened with the same theme.
Independent, free-thinking, programme makers or co-ordinated and targeted?
No need for deliberate coordination or conspiracy when they all think the same way already.
I don’t like the tax man, does that mean that I secretly want to be a tax man?
I must secretly want to be a married Gay radical Islamic immigrant.
This is one of those cases where I sometimes think there’s a secret – closeted, even – conservative setting this stuff up.
Consider this: we’re meant to hate the guy who claims he can turn gays straight, even while the BBC is discussing in all seriousness whether or not critics of the gay lifestyle are just one Margarita and a couple of show tunes away from being rogered up the a$$ in a children’s playground while snorting a line of coke.
Why not ask if perma-whiner queens like Ben are just over-compensating for their secret longing to bang a large breasted lap dancer called Nadia?
But no, that would never happen, just like we weren’t going to hear any more from the designated fall guy once he revealed himself not to be a ranting redneck, so much as a guy asking a serious question: why assume some guy with gay tendencies is necessarily a volunteer to serve under Captain Ben on the SS Drama Queen?
The main problem is that although some homosexuals are born with these tendencies , there are others where these tendencies are not in their natural make up and can be encouraged by promotion by the BBC and others in society to feel that it is a perfectly acceptable way to behave .
An interesting assertion, but one with a singular lack of evidence to back it up.
Out of all my gay friends, I don’t know any if them who say they would be straight were it not for “promotion” by the media.
There may not be evidence but surely there are bound to be those who do not have strong tendencies who will see that this as acceptable and opt for this way of life. People are definately influenced by what is promoted in the media. On the other hand if monogomous hetrosexual behaviour was promoted in the same way, people would also feel happier in these relationships.
There may not be evidence but […]
that won’t stop you making the assertion.
I’m not sure it is possible to be a little bit gay. Homosexuals exist and those that aren’t just have to live with it.
As to the media making homosexuality acceptable, well, it is acceptable. All the media is really achieving is allowing those who weren’t bothered about it to say so without being castigated by the hate squad. Of course the BBC always goes too far and now the hate squad is out for anyone not following the new authodoxy but that doesn’t make being gay wrong.
You are right that the media is very influential on what we all think and believe, which is why the BBCs cavalier attitude to the truth is so dangerous. But believe me seeing a man another man kiss does not make anyone adult rush out and copy him!
Evacuating one’s bowels is natural and could be called acceptable, but I wouldn’t want to watch it filmed in high definition.
Not to me it ain’t sunshine. That’s why toilets have lockable doors because the vast majority of people don’t want to watch.
I’ll tell you something Scott in all seriousness. Given the mentality you display, and the level of logic you use throughout this site, and one can imagine continues in your daily life, your life choices are not surprising.
I’m glad for humanity’s sake that it is this way.
“the level of logic you use throughout this site”
Not accepting your “if you’re rude, you’re being hypocritical, but if I’m rude, I’m not” statements, you mean?
Bless.
Had nothing to do with being rude. Just that your so fixed in your mind about certain things you appear unable to consider any alternatives, without any credible reason.
Or in other words:
Scott M = ‘this is how I think and because I think this way it must be true and world you will not change me’.
Had nothing to do with being rude. Just that your so fixed in your mind about certain things you appear unable to consider any alternatives, without any credible reason.
What next, David Preiser claiming I’m American?
You have friends?
The above reply was directed at Scott.
Nice to see that your level of maturity is consistent, Andy, no matter how low it is.
So let me get the BBC line right. If you’re straight, right wing, don’t believe in global warming, don’t like Europe much and male, then you must be mentally ill. Bloody hell! Book me into Stafford Hospital for a gassing.
Mavis is another false flag troll.
Rather proving my point above, although someone pointed out an exception to the rule.
Do wonder if Scott etal even KNOW the perpetual ongoing bias that is steeping nearly everything that the BBC put out ?
Just listening now to some Radio 4 thing abot “Shipbuilding”…a fine song by Elvis Costello back in 1982/3.
The likes of Alan Johnson hold forth, kids not even born like Rachel Unthanks drivel over Maggie Thatcher. Utter biased crap written and promulgated by weekend warriors who were at SWP/Union meetings whilst the white trash squaddies went off to The Falklands with the bloody Clash on their Sony Walkmans in Portsmouth.
I despise this rewriting of history from a stupid lazy reflex lefty point of view…I myself was at F-Beat at this time, knew Graham Parker and the like…this was NOT what happened!
Yet the softheaded lazy lefties like Johnson get a free ride-hard left victims(self-harming) like Wyatt get their two quids worth…not a Scruton, or Tebbit….no balance!
Looking forward to your apologising and caviling Scottie boy…and none of that “queen abuse” either this time eh?
Good example, Chris, but sadly one of many (as this site proves, unchallenged, time and again).
Unchallenged, and ultimately undefended by the likes of Scott. Undoubted proof of bias with no low-hanging fruit; so no chance of seeing them responding to it.
If I can recognise some of the (obvious) virtues of the BBC he should be able to acknowledge some of its (obvious) problems.
He is either 1) Not interested – but why then post here 2) Too stupid to notice – but he is capable of articulating a defence of the BBC or 3) The abuse of power and Leftist ideological bigotry of the BBC is something he approves of – in which case why should people who are not middle class Socialists be forced to pay for it?
Oh he`s just being shy!
If we were nicer to him, and embraced his inner chimp maybe he`d not hibernate at the first whiff of grapeshot.
The kind of lad who`d spit his Gitane over the school wall after school on Fridays, but then say he`s a rebel…but only once the teachers had gone home.
Does the NHS do spine grafts?
Or 4) He is employed by the BBC. I think he has denied it in the past but then if he did, he would, wouldn’t he?
The flokkers on here never acknowledge any bias on the BBC, even when it’s bleeding obvious e.g. 28gate, so I’ll continue to be suspicious of the lot of ’em.
BBC = LGT (Leftist Gravy Train)
“I think he has denied it in the past but then if he did, he would, wouldn’t he?”
I have never worked for the BBC. I do not work for the BBC now. I would not lie about it if I did.
But nor am I a pseudonymous idiot who thinks that people choosing not to engage with them all the time validates their crackpot conspiracy theories.
Rolling your eyes at someone’s lunacy and walking away tends not to leave many footprints on the web.
This site is so plagued by gay trolls it’s reached the point that I assume a troll is gay unless proven otherwise. Why this should be the case I have no idea but their firm belief that he BBC is an impartial and objective reporter of current affairs seems to have very little, if anything, to do with it. It could be that they feel they need to combat homophobia wherever and whenever it appears on the web – some of them have certainly gone in for calling up reinforcements when they think something like that is going on. Whether they call together these posses at Pink News or Stonewall I’ve no idea. It’s rather creepy – and slightly sinister – to be permanently monitored by such people. They have completely alienated me by their constant attempts to discredit this site and I wish they would all collectively go and stick their heads in a hot chip pan. One of them seems to get a particular kick out of engaging people in lengthy exchanges – stop indulging his little kink.
I think people who obsess about gay men are usually hidlng a problem as per the Cardinal. Maybe better if you don’t draw attention to your personal issues. Or open the lock on your closet.
Typical of the bizarre comments the subject brings out – and gays come out with. Gays are a tiny percentage of the population yet at least two out of three of the tossers who troll this site turn out to be gay. To find this weird is not obsessing about it, it is to express irritation with a genuine nuisance. But of course, you are just attempting to salvage some dignity after, having your backside handed you on a plate in the Chavez thread.
“One of them seems to get a particular kick out of engaging people in lengthy exchanges – stop indulging his little kink.
Yes. Far better that people should make statements on here without that pesky business of debating them. If you don’t like aving your views challenged, fling some personal insults their way and call them a troll.
It’s little wonder there is no actual debate going on on Biased BBC: at the first sign of any contrary views, the regulars jerk their knees in unison in a way that would rival the Tiller Girls.
Cambridge SatchelCambridge Satchel fnds Cambridge Satchel SaleCambridge Satchel tkzp