Hi folks. I am currently on vacation in Australia but I just couldn’t let this one pass. Here is the considered view of Mark Mardell as regards our website Biased BBC, and as contained in an email shared with yours truly.
What a disgusting website ! Talk about lies and bias!
Just what irked Mark to abandon his famous impartiality…? Well, it seems that this post caused him to damn us…
Can’t see the problem myself? Can you?
Seems a fairly apposite summation, really.
Yes, this website does talk about lies and bias. That is arguably its raison d’etre.
Yes indeed: we do “Talk about lies and bias!
The BBC insist that it is a lie that most of thier online activists and forum/ social media de[artments staff are UK based and are University Graduates with degrees in English Lang/Lit as it ensures its output contains literal masterpieces simply by looking at thier use of thier abilty to inform and also make thier readers look on in awe at the endless Pulitzer Prize standard reports make you how come more people over the age of ten didn`t stick around once Childrens Books with the name Harry Potter on them started appearing with yet another 400 paged collection of crappy so called adventures such as Harry Potter and the goblet of shit in wich the reader is invited to join Harry in the swallowing of wartery shit from J.K.Rowlings overflowing tankard of truculence a by product of a 50 page toilet read being stretched into a complete series of books (I lost interest after I counted the first one) which ended up resembling a Panini football sticker publication for stupid people who like to collect books filled with shit and numbered by a Caligraphists finger using one of Rowlings two rectal cavities as an inkwell to write the number in shit on each new childish perspective standard narrative on Harrys involvement in all things Occult or of Dark Arts (used by the other annoying smallboy magician Paul Daniels who is known for thrusting his sword into her from multiple angles whilst he waits for the request for more rabbits to be forced into his Top Hat to fight with the pidgeons in cage fights hosted under its brim for about a thousand of the smallest magicians that a ten year old could imagine) Yet how ironic this all seems when you look at the post by Chris who use a description of a a type of dried fruit instead of the word reason in a sentence ending with a perfect conjugation of the verb `Etre` in the in the feminime term…… As he is indeed another Fench Riviera fagget with a keen knowledge of the current issues affecting those living around the British Isles and show how telling the truth doesn`t matter anymore…… As they are THE `BBC`!!! What a fuckin cretin eh??? 🙂
Full stops, man, full stops!
Fatty Mardell? Upset by lies and bias? You’re having a laugh…
When I saw the title of this thread, I noticed the 4 dots at the end of it. Then I realised, 4 letters were missing:
Does Mardell take the public for complete fools?
Time you spent more time in your Tardis.
Banning a whole IP address just because somebody disagrees with you? How childish.
So now we know – if you agree with David Vance, you can fling abuse at whoever you like (such as ltwf1964 calling me a cunt), and Vance or his proxies will take no action, calling it “agressive banter”.
If you disagree with Vance, he’ll take his ball away.
What a wonderfully mature attitude he has.
You Sir are a hypocrite. You accused me of being deranged for pointing out that BBC match of the day commentators rarely mention the nationality of players in the EPL.
So you questioned my sanity with your name calling. Now you come on here bleating that someone called you a c*nt.
I’m not familiar with your original comment, I wouldn’t say it was deranged, but delusional may be more accurate.
The nationality of players is mentioned all the time! As it tends to be in football commentary. I can’t think of any good reason it wouldn’t be, and it would seem highly unlikley that all the commentators or pundits used at various times have all been quietly advised not to mention something like that.
I wonder how they’ll avoid it the next time some teams lose players to the African Nations cup?
Even worse – have you noticed that in football commentary only “left wingers” are ever mentioned. All BBC commentators studiously ignore “right wingers” or merely call them “wingers”.
Worse than that, when Muslims commit a foul, are booked or red carded their religion is never mentioned.
You’re right, Albaman. It’s a good thing there’s no BBC coverage of baseball. Otherwise, they’d be talking about Left field, center field, and extreme Right, no?
Is “Alba” a pretentious reference to Scotland?
Historically, “Alba” refers to Britain as a whole and is ultimately based on the Indo-European root for “white”.
Then you’re a white supremacist with that name?
The Welsh language term for Scotland is ” Yr Alban” .
I concur. He is quick to ban any dissent, while allowing the most vile comments.
Would suggest it doesn’t matter if DV banned you…as you seem to have no credibility now…just that you aren’t aware of it.
I’ll explain…something else you don’t do with your own comments.
You complain about one post that wrongly named one of the Boston bombers.
That’s fair enough…the post was wrong…but it was corrected and not hidden away..it was an honest mistake unlike the BBC’s whose declarations that the bomber was probably a ‘domestic’..code for white, right wing, bomber, was the result of its own political ideology….it was deliberately aimed at taking the ‘heat’ off Muslims.
But you get very excited and make a lot of noise about the credibility of this site….and yet you ignore the BBC’s so called journalism…and ironically, use the mistake on this site to defend the BBC’s reporting.
That proves that you defend the BBC right or wrong…..whatever it does you will attack any criticism of it.
You have no credibility at all Scott as a critic of this site as you have no intention of looking at the BBC as an impartial, ‘disinterested’ witness.
And it might be noted that in criticising this site for wrongly naming someone as a suspect for the bombing our critic, Albaman, er, named the wrong person.
What were your words Scott?
‘Biased BBC complains of hypocrisy and a lack of self-awareness.
Too deliciously funny. ‘
A very ‘apposite summation’ of yours and Albaman’s own comments…no?
I only know that the terrorist was a Muslim because I watch Russia Today if the BBC journalists seem a bit dim witted in not asking the most obvious questions.
The BBC does not talk about what may have motivated the terrorist to bomb the type of people who like to run in marathons, but I do remember that they said it was most likely a home grown right-winger, but since then they do not ask that type of question any more.
Such as “is running in a Marathon, unpopular in Islamic nations” due to (1) Bare legs and (2) Women running without a Burqa.
“And it might be noted that in criticising this site for wrongly naming someone as a suspect for the bombing our critic, Albaman, er, named the wrong person.” …………. An error I immediately apologised for.
However, I do note that you now agree that “the post was wrong”.
You can usually rely on George R to provide the links to articles published in the Daily Mail.
No surprisingly I can find no trace of him posting this link:
‘Banning a whole IP address just because somebody disagrees with you? How childish.’
Of course the mature thing would be to not ‘ban’, but ‘expedite’, then initiate pretend secret processes that can take years, all held within BBBC locations, with ‘independent’ ‘investigations’ using ex-insiders brought in by current insiders to ask the person hiring them just how perfect their colleagues are and how beastly those not ‘onside’ can be, before redacting the bits that don’t suit and/or ‘forgetting’ to their astoundingly uncurious superiors all sorts of things that they will in any case take as gospel before deciding their minions ‘got it about right’ without a second thought. And then stick with what they decided to do all along.
That would be the mature thing all right.
And even if it was every bit as crooked and petty and hypocritical as all the actual BBC can and does concoct, there’s a teesie-weensie difference, Scott.
Biased BBC is a free blog, not a publicly funded monopoly behemoth obliged to be impartial, hiding behind its self-conjured House Rules, Editorial Guidelines (some of which even £2M of Pollard Report could not locate much less interpret), redactions or legal battalion FoI exclusions to be as transparent as the mud it flings about unaccountable at will, just because it is unique and can.
Other than that, in your now all too-familiar, blinkered, hysterical, knee jerk way, you may have a point.
And whose IP address… has been banned anyway?
If a man comes into your restaurant every day and complains that there’s a fly in his soup, and every day you find there isn’t. Its not going to be that long before you tell him you won’t be investigating his complaints anymore.
You can still have the soup though, and its usually pretty tasty!
‘..and every day you find there isn’t’
This ‘you’ being… who, Monsieur Dick?
If in this analogy the restaurant is the publicly-funded national broadcaster, and ‘you’ are speaking on their behalf, I should first point out the restaurant is not ‘yours’, or ‘theirs’, but the UK licence fee-paying public’s. That is, ‘ours’. ‘You’ are but employees.
And if there is something in one’s soup, having a collection of staff, from the waiter to the chef to the Maitre D, come out, look at it, and then profess it not to be there before refusing to allow anyone else but them and you observe before showing you the door, then forgive me, that sounds a perfect summary of how the BBC runs their establishment.
Knowing the Food Standards guys will bust any other place in a heartbeat, but dare not enter. Either a unique exclusion or fear of getting a ‘visit’ back.
Of course ‘you’ will say the patron can dine elsewhere, but will demand that they pay anyway for Potage du Mouche Beh Beh Say, and also expect any exchanges stay in confidence. At least on the patron’s side.
‘You’ can nail the fly to the kitchen wall so all can laugh at it as they pass.
Now, this may have been how it has always been, is, and looks set always to be.
But one day someone you are not expecting may choke on the flies you leave, or catch something they’ve left behind, and generate serious consequences.
So instead of posting silly taunts from the BBC CECUTT evening shift common room, it may sink in that addressing the BBC complaints system to help improve things is a whole bunch smarter than flaunting how unaccountable you currently think you are.
Que? Meester Scott M, please! How come you still send your messages here if you been banned?
I just read your message now so I preume you maybe right it, no?
Meester Scott, Who ban you, please?
(Pleese excuse my English. I’m from Barthelona and we having pretty horrid time here, OK?)
Scotty posts from behind a proxy ( his words, not mine) so it would be no problem to switch to another.
Not being an internerd, I need to get my head around this.
Scott is bleating he’s been banned, even as he pops up with the same name and avatar like a Whack-a-mole across all the threads… all the time.
And to do this simply requires a proxy server?
The name and registering email address have no bearing?
I got to get me one of those!
But…. why do I think that things may be oddly, acceptably ‘different’ to our local Flokk, if not unique with our revered national ‘we want your views’ broadcaster, in technology as much as claimed desire to interact?
A lot of #fail right there already.
But what if things go beyond the odd referral?
The BBC reserves the right to stop making all or any part of the BBC Online Services available to you with immediate effect and without notice if:
10.1.1 in its sole reasonable opinion you are using the BBC Content, BBC Online Services and/or any other BBC service, inappropriately (for instance harassing or causing distress or inconvenience to any other person), incompetently or in any way that may constitute derogatory treatment of the BBC or might bring the BBC into disrepute or in a way that might be considered to be prejudicial to the image of the BBC (with reference to the BBC Guidelines);
10.1.2 you breach the Terms in a way that cannot be corrected, or you fail to correct a breach within a reasonable period of time if the BBC asks you to do so; or
10.1.3 there is, in the BBC’s reasonable opinion, any reason why the BBC Online Services must be withdrawn.
Have to love, of a few, that last.
If, in matters of opinion, the BBC has a different one to you, you are toast anyway, so they can toy with you any way they wish as long as they wish with the end result pre-determined..
One can see why the full force of the Farce is being deployed here in high dudgeon at a banning… that isn’t.
Not being an internet nerd myself either, but often wish I was, i do know it’s possible to use a different IP address every time you boot the PC.
As to the e-mail addresses, avatar, whatever I have no idea.
Losing 4-0 to Bayern Munich. I know, absolutely dreadful!
I am tired with your endless offence and will not allow you space on my site. Now take your ball and off you go. Being able to leave a comment here is for those who can be civil. Your pathetic name calling is just a bore so suggest you go and spend more time with Dr Who.
As you control this site it is obviously your decision, but I for one would like Scott M to be unbanned. Why? Well just think how lonely he’ll be without us. Who will he rail against without us? Just think of the kicking his cat is going to get!
It would be an act of human kindness.
Agreed. Scott’s adolescent tantrums ( of which I myself have been the target) neither disrupt the site or put it in danger of censure.
There is no need for me to rehearse my position on free speech,I would simply and respectfully ask Mr.Vance to reconsider.
And hope others will do the same.
Waves hand too.
Now there’s a flag waving some may not expect.
I recognise the frustration, especially as he seems of late to have moved from (sometimes) having a point or correcting inaccuracy with a near-inevitable snipe to simply lazy drive-bys, and not nice ones.
However I am of the view that just as an author can sway in good argument, they get damned by their own words if they go beyond debate into unfruitful areas of blogging robustness.
I must confess I am actually currently even more confused, as I thought he was banned, then wasn’t then couldn’t be for some poxy reason.
But gone currently he is… may be?… possibly leaving a few orphaned comments in reply to dangle.
I do also recognise as guests to a free ballpark the judges’ decision is final, and can be respected still.
If the issue was/is distraction/clogging/abuse that may deter some, may I again put up my suggestion for a ‘sin-bin’ sidebar (if such things are technologically possible) like the top Nav Bar call-outs, where any (of any origin) can be warned/advised they have crossed a line, been re-located and it now requires an opt-in to a new location for folk so-minded to read and if moved to do so, continue the downhill spiral.
To me that could solve the dilemma any site mod faces between being held accountable for posts by individuals over whom they have no control, and curiously-selective accusations of BBC-style over-Ruling, rough-referring or May Day balcony-style obliteration.
At risk revealing double standards, having had my wife and (on a separate occasion) daughter brought in and used in ill-disguised ‘we know who you are and where she goes to school’-style threat by some who will come to regret that avenue was explored in the way it was, I am grateful for the owners having a nuclear option to avoid outposts of naked hate to fester and attract more flies.
I tend to agree with pah and Stewart below, that Scott, once semi-respected but now frankly ridiculous, should not be kicked off unless he goes too far in his adhoms. There were a few “new” names, often German style, around a bit back that needed banning as they were just derailing threads but Scott hasn’t quite gone that far yet.
This didn’t end in the place I thought it would, therefore “stewart above”.
I agree that Scott should not be banned. He doesn’t aim to disrupt in the childish manner that some do (though does like his ad hominems occasionally), but simply chooses to speak for the BBC – officially or otherwise – and is therefore a valid adversary.
At least you show your true colours Mr Vance.
And I think you’ve completley misunerstood this phrase ‘Now take your ball and off you go’.
I will miss Scez, he was such a great example of the sheer evil mindedness that lies behind systematic BBC bias.
Just try not to be obsessed Scez, you might make yourself look a bit – ahem – ‘eccentric’.
I wonder who called his attention to it? Why, only yesterday I was talking about lurkers who like to tip off Beeboids. Are you sure he was talking about that post in particular, or others as well? Can your correspondent forward a few questions to him for me?
David, I can imagine how hurt you are! 😉 …all those well researched, well sourced, link-included posts about Mardell’s undeniable and irrefutable bias and he moans about some other post!
“Disgusting” is a very strong, emotive word, which denotes a subjective view of one or more threads on this site; with at least equal justification, I could say I was truly disgusted by the BBC’s conduct in the Savile and McAlpine affairs.
As to “bias”, all people are to some extent biased, as are all newspapers and the BBC; the best you can do is to hear a range of views, here, on the BBC, in the Independent, etc.
As to “lies”, it would be interesting if Mr Mardell could substantiate this claim, as it is a serious one.
In future anyone who wants to tell the truth will need to be licensed 😉
“Disgusting” is a very strong, emotive word
Is he related to Question Time’s Labour plant Amy rutland?
She was fond of knee-jerk shouts of ‘disgusting’.
Same M.O. – Same number of chins.
The truth hurts!
Mark Mardell gives us a consistently pro-Democrat view of the US. I’m fed up with it. I want balance. I don’t expect Mr Mardell to change his views. I do want the BBC to sack him. I suppose he will think my views disgusting. I don’t care. I pay his wages.
Speaking of lies and trust issues:
A market-moving fake tweet and Twitter’s trust issue
The addictive nature of Twitter makes it a powerful tool – and one without boundaries. Lies and truth appear without anyone trying to filter. Not that they should, but it puts a responsibility on the consumer.
I wonder if all his colleagues featured on the “In Their Own Tweets” page feel the same way, despite official BBC rules.
BBC’s ‘impartiality’ means preferential treatment for ISLAM over e.g. Christianity, at all times, especially at times of Islamic jihad murder and mayhem. Mardell is no different in his Beeboid presumptive aagenda.
Ex-D.G. Thompson, now ‘New York Times’:-
“Christianity gets less sensitive treatment than other religions admits BBC chief.”
By PAUL REVOIR
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106953/Christianity-gets-sensitive-treatment-religions-admits-BBC-chief.html#ixzz2ROX5b8fD
I would think that in the interests of fairness, it’s only right that we see all of the email correspondence, or at least that which is relevant.
‘it’s only right that we see all’
We wrote and posted basically the same thing at the same time, so are in complement there.
However, as so often happens in these febrile times, the story appears to be ‘unfolding’ and who knows what more may ‘evolve’.
As we wait, as a matter of precedent (with a dash of #2wrongs) do you think a £4Bpa global news broadcaster should be held to the same standards and demands as a small, free, niche blog? Or higher… lower?
Because if the site owners felt like it, they may decide the sources and content we seek are privileged and ‘held for the purposes of… etc.’, or issued with redactions on parchment by runner, as some bigger cousins do… all the time.
And then we’d be stumped, would we not?
In the meantime, in my dealings with the BBC elsewhere, I must run ‘the interests of fairness’ by them, and see where that gets me.
May I mention you as a reference?
My comment wasnt about the BBC. I just don’t think we can be invited to comment on something when we have only been given a snippet without any context. (I appreciate I’m setting you up here for a comparsion to the BBC’s reporting!)
Who was sent the email? for what reason?
I’m glad we agree though, first time for everything.
‘I’m setting you up here’
The very idea.
I think you have set things up all on your own quite well anyway.
As we are now repeating, we have asked the same questions with the same point.
And it’s always nice to be agreeable.
I was not aware we had differed in the past, as civilised exchanges even in the negative tend to strike a chord by their rarity.
I wonder why the name does not ring a bell?
‘What a disgusting website ! Talk about lies and bias!’
What was the context?
Shared with you? How? Via another source (remember the dark mutterings that lie at the end of BBC emails about sharing matters of public interest? Only they can do that) he had emailed, presumably. Hence ‘sources say’ still? (Nick Robinson can advise on how that works).
Was that all he said?
The first part is an opinion, and his to hold.
However, if he ‘talks about’ lies, does he go on to specify them and offer why?
As to bias…. just copy and paste the BBC CECUTT cookie cutter response to that accusation and see how he deals with it.
At least a BBC Editor can see what it may be like for those they ‘report’ on or ‘for’.
Without the censorship bit.
Brilliant idea! 🙂
Just an honest query. What is BBC CECUTT?
Tried Google but it only throws up links to other posts on this site.
‘ What is BBC CECUTT?’
Happy to oblige, if the kids may go hungry a while longer.
It is an acronym I coined to describe the grave to grave process that is BBC Complaints.
Starting with ‘C…omplaints’, through ECU to T…he T…rust’.
Happy to explain in more detail how the precise labyrinth has been designed, and with what intention, another time.
Did he say which posts offended him? I haven’t re-read them all but on a quick run through there didn’t seem any which were particularly divisive ( a good BBC word that ) or provocative. On this site we are able to say much of what we think and we don’t have a DUTY to be impartial , unlike the state funded BBC.
Of course we can’t say exactly what we think because of laws designed to suppress free speech which have been introduced into this bastion of democracy in the past 20 years.
I suppose that the BBC and Mr Mardell want us to live in a country were only the view of the establishment , the liberal left establishment of course, spouted by the BBC, are the only ones allowed to be voiced.
Now where I have I heard of that idea before?
Leveson and its “leading beyond authority” cheerleaders is part of a process designed to ensure that thought crime can never be communicated.
Was anybody surprised by the breathless excitement of the BBC as it reported daily on the activities of the enquiry – when they had so much to gain?
Impartiality, the BBC had so many conflicts of interest which somehow couldn’t be recognised* The BBC lives in the fallacy of false alternatives: Bob’s Country Bunker (The Blues Brothers) thought it offered a comprehensive choice of music – they played both kinds Country AND Western…. The BBC caters for all thought, opinion and taste as long as it is word perfect repetition of the left-liberal extablishment’s new orthodoxy.
Give it a few years and this site will be banned. At which point there will be no abuse of Scott (his complaints are quite reasonable and legitimate by the way) so at least he will be happy. As will be every BBC social engineer; any dissent, even that on a tiny unfashionable and ‘badly regarded’ blog, will not be tolerated. (17 million hits though!)
* Some advice for BBC journalists here – how to identify an elephant
I’ve said things which he may have found offensive, and I’ve also claimed that he’s told lies, not just getting things wrong based on bad information or bias or misunderstanding. I hope I’ve kept it to situations where I know he knows something but reports differently, like the time he tried to claim that it was uncertain who offered the Sequester deal, when the White House admitted it was the President’s offer and it was already public knowledge, or when I’ve referred to the time he claimed that there was “very little to suggest” that the Ft. Hood killer was driven by religious ideology, when the report that he was shouting “Allah Akbar” while shooting people was all over the news.
If Mardell would like to explain that he honestly knew none of this at the time he made his statements, I’d like to hear it, and I’d apologize if convinced. Then I’d like to know how he can justify keeping his job while being so uninformed about major issues.
On the specific issues you list – plus many many more – Mardell is either blinkered/biased in what he researches and the US views he looks at – or he is deliberately biased.
Either way, he is not worth his cost – must be way over £1 million p.a including overheads and expenses. –
You could cut the size and cost of the BBC’s US operation by 80% and not see any appreciable difference in quality. They are inaccurate, incomplete and will always stay that way.
The entire bureau could be shut down and easily replaced with a news aggregator. You’d be better informed and get a wider variety of viewpoints. If they want to keep doing the lightweight, human interest, “bespoke” video magazine pieces with the intent to attract more US eyeballs and ad revenue, then maybe they need to re-examine the reason for the BBC’s existence, and for the license fee.
Anybody remember the Navy chucking the BBC off the Aircraft Carrier (Invincible) having counted the aircraft in and out – for the Argies. I guess they were tuned in then ?
Loose mouthed idiots !
That would be the Falklands War of course…but I did not really want to give the game away here ?
Does anyone actually take Mardell seriously?
Yes, the BBC does, as do lots of other media people. I’ve seen former colleagues praise him on Digital Spy, although one did say that, while he was good back in the LBC days, he’s not good at the US gig.
What’s worse over here, though, is that many people in the US media respect Katty Kay. She’s much worse than Mardell when it comes to being openly partisan. She’s the one who appears regularly on MSNBC and other talking heads shows, and she’s a regular guest host on NPR. Plus she does well on the public speaking circuit, callously and possibly hypocritically contributing to what she herself sees as the serious problem of income inequality at $15-30K a throw.
Forgot to add the link to Katty’s speaker profile, which lists her fees.
Yes, I can see why anyone from the BBC would be a regular on MSNBC,
Haven’t watched that since Maddow’s last hysterical breakdown.
I’m occasionally forced to watch some of the prime time MSNBC fare. Their demeanor makes Brian Blessed seem like a church mouse by comparison.
MSNBC output is like some paranoid science fiction movie on a dark and scarey future, only it’s now!
And that’s without that truly disturbing Olbermann character!
Only himself, I would imagine.
I quite liked him in a comical sort of way when he used to cover the EU for This Week. But Quentin Letts he ain’t.
BBC defenders out in force, I see.
Coincidence or magic? – you decide.
Mardell always comes across as a pompous prat.
Through sheer ignorance, bad research or personal bias, Mardell has presented a very slanted view of US politics. He actually has little to be pompous about.
This seems to be a common trait of BBC North America staff.
Well said! I hope he is reading this. His bias and lies DISGUST me.
“This seems to be a common trait of BBC staff.”
Corrected your last sentence. 😉
The fact that Fatty Lardel pays attention to this site gives me great hope for the future.
If it gets right up his nose, I love it.
I remain convinced the inbbc runs a concerted, organised campaign against the site. If I was running a £4 billion PA protection racket ( that’s the licence fee to the trolls) I’d make bloody sure i tried to discredit a site like this.
So good on yer Fatty, thank you for letting us know it gets right up your corrupted, biased nose.
Mark, why is it that in order to get a top BBC job you need to have gone to a private school like Epsom College?
P.S . Lets all pretend we are all “black” & then the Axis of Evil (bbc) would be constantly grovelling & Hero worshiping us !
Amen Brother….erm…shit, can’t use the “A” word…might upset Muslims.
Some local reading for Mardell and BBC-Democrats:-
BOSTON BOMBERS AND THEIR FAMILY WERE ON LIVING ON US TAXPAYERS’ DIME.”
ading for Mardell and BBC-Democrats:-
welfare bums was the phrase, I believe.
David V, while your down under, will you be taking in any Aussie Rules games?
Interesting how Internet shows up patterns in lines of attack -to attack an object by venting feelings of disgust
“Disgusting” web site (Mardell); People/political party “disgusting” (Labour employee on UKIP) “Feeling dirty” from reading comments (recent bBC poster); journalists work described “disgusting” (G Broon on News Intl)
No argument, no proof required, it must be true, look how I feel. Disgusted. And it all seems to vent from one side – Left on Right . Have they all been on the same course?
How does watching the BBC make us feel Mr Mardell? Well come and listen to us shouting back, you pompous middle class left wing prick. Disgusted isn’t the half of it.
Another odd thing about trigger words are how they can apply unilaterally, depending on who is articulating them, and about whom.
Hence I rather suspect, as perceptions of an ‘ism will get treated very differently based on factors beyond how the person making them ‘feels’, such as ‘irrelevance’ or ‘disgust’ will only serve to apply if uttered by those with ‘unique’ dispensations.
If he does not like the forensic way David Preiser exposes his bias Mark Mardell knows what to do about it i.e. make more of an effort to be a better reporter. If he can’t up his game I am sure there are plenty of reporters who would be happy to have his job.
Scott do the BBC pay you. Obviously not enough when confronted by the truth.
There are some who deride those who seek to help the BBC improve, for the sake of those compelled to pay and in whose name it presumes to speak.
A few would, along with the BBC, see any means of concern being expressed get erased, leaving them free to weave their unaccountable magic from the homes of aged Tory Lords further afield.
This may not be the best course.
So it is good there are those not prepared to take what is served and lump it. And, though rare, this resistance can be rewarded.
Baby steps. If gnat bites on a Kraken. I was interested to note this:
‘It would of course be useful to members of the general public considering making a complaint – and hence help to conserve publicly funded BBC resources – were such corrections routinely published on a dedicated page on the BBC News website. Currently, the BBC’s ‘Corrections and Clarifications‘ page does not fill that function.’
Now, who could one ask at the BBC why this is? And how long before a reply? Or, if one deemed cheeky enough to hold them accountable for things they don’t like to deal with, what are the chances of a banning?
Which just goes to show that there is absolutely no point whatsoever in arguing with these people.
Taking the BBC ‘s usual rhetoric at face value, for the sake of argument, surely the BBC should be taking time out to ask ‘why do they hate us’?
Ignore it all. The era of the 68ers is coming to a swift end. They all jumped on the illusion express and it is about to derail.
As usual it will be money that does it- or the lack of- as they only ponced about for so long because dodgy finance and looting the private sector made it possible. The BBC is one of the last of the looters. It’s business model is a fantasy built on extorting a regressive tax from the people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the staff and executives. it has no reason to continue to exist and probably in their 4am moments the beeboids know it.
Of course they would love to shut blogs like this down. Bureaucrats by inclination .Tyrants by necessity. That is what happens to the liberal in the end.
Well, I find his sycophantic idolatry of Left-wing politcs disgusting, biased and full of lies. He and the rest of the BBC socialists (Paul Mason etc) really are living in an ivory tower if they deem the majority of views on this site as disgusting. But anger is what happens when state-funded machines like the BBC suppress debate on immigration and the fact that we’ve let too many Muslim terrorists into this once great country. When they stop giving special treatment to ethnic minorities over those who fund their existence then they might see a different tone amongst the real workers of this country (and I mean the REAL workers – not the spoiled middle class brats that go round with dreads singing Bob Marley songs waving red flags the history of which they know very little about). Mark Mardell, if you’re reading this then I say you have very little in common with those from any other background than Left-wing poltics and I cannot wait to see your employer fund itself in the free market. It would be filing for bankruptcy within 24 hours.
Odd that you would assume that we are all white, in a non-Barrymore way. At least some of us are not.
Inky splash – what’s your Pantone number, bro? If you are going to make a point of it, we should be told.
360! what’s yours?
My comment is out of sequence so it’s not me making a fuss about colour. WTF it matter to you anyway?
For Mardell and BBC-Democrats:-
“The Price of Obama’s Islamophilia”
By GEORGE NEUMAYR.