In the previous post, ‘Old Times’ I showed a ‘joke’ that made obvious links to the Holocaust…it was made without any comment or links to the BBC.
I wanted people’s reaction to what is a highly offensive ‘joke’, but reactions uncompromised by any commenter’s own prejudices or bias…possibly influenced by my interpretation….that especially so for the critics of this site who so often ignore the narrative of a post and attack the person posting it.
Here they had no opportunity to defend the BBC ‘right or wrong’…or to ignore the content of the post.
We got an honest reaction from Albaman….as he said any such post would discredit any organisation that posted it as a joke….and I have no doubt regardless of his pro-BBC leanings he would have been equally scathing had he known the origins of the ‘joke’.
If you had been watching the latest ‘Have I Got News For You’ (Last few minutes) you may have been confused…you thought this ‘joke’ was highly offensive and yet the audience laughed uproariously when the BBC put up the photograph and Paul Merton quipped…‘Here we are remembering old times.’
What went through the mind of the BBC person who saw that photograph and thought…’Yes, a German Chancellor with her arm raised ‘Nazi salute’ style standing next to a Jewish leader of Israel…that’ll make a great joke!’ ?
Six million Jews were killed by the Nazis in WWII…along with many other people…..Israel was raised out of the ashes of that Holocaust.
Funny…huh?
Discredits the BBC or not?
Context is everything.
A fleeting joke, made by a professional comedian, in a context that makes it apparent it’s not meant to be taken as anything other than a throwaway quip, is one thing.
Presented without any additional context by someone who’s not exactly known for having enlightened or adult views, on a site which revels in free speech only for people whose hate speech they like? Very different matter.
Ah yes Scott…Merton’s ‘Just doing his job’…as a professional…surely we’ve heard something like that before as an excuse?
As I said…our critics defend the BBC right or wrong.
Your comment, Scott, verifies my remark that some people are only on this site to attack its existence rather than provide an honest appraisal of any post.
Replace the Jewish Netanyahu with a gay man…how many homosexuals did the Nazis also kill?….and not so funny then Scott?
That’s our Alan – perpetually unable to grasp the point, and who falsely thinks that makes him the better man.
Scott what was your point?…oh yes…excusing a joke about the holocaust.
Yep…you are the better person.
You asked what the difference was. I should have known you either weren’t interested in any answers, or were unable to comprehend any given.
I relise that you think you’re an intelligent man: your behaviour online suggests the exact opposite.
Did Alan ask what the difference was?
I have to admit my head is already spinning from some work I was doing and I was trying to take in Alan’s posts and not understanding what it was really about. Now Alan’s comment above is putting it into context. Even as a Jew I had not realised how the constant repetition of the sneaky anti-Semitism by the BBC has made it acceptable – but substitute ‘homosexual’ in this instance or ‘Muslim’ in others and I realise how the constant low-level anti-Semitism has an affect on the general population.
“Your comment, Scott, verifies my remark that some people are only on this site to attack its existence rather than provide an honest appraisal of any post.”
Indeed.
Sometimes Scez actually posts intelligent comments but then completely undermines them by ad hominem.
Still, always very salutory that such a deeply unpleasant human being defends BBC bias.
Hippiepooter, I don’t care that you fling about the “ad hominem” epithet without really understanding want it means.
But bless you for doing your level best to demonstrate exactly what is wrong with Biased BBC’s attitude to people who disagree.
Where as your reaction to people who have the audacity to disagree with you is exemplary.
In context of course, in context
If people like you were as attentive to everyone’s contributions as you seem to be to mine, you wouldn’t open yourselves up to so many completely justifiable accusations of hypocrisy.
Biased BBC’s regular contributors – whether above the line or below – are aggressive towards anyone and everyone with whom they disagree. But as soon as someone is just a little bit robust in standing up to them, they start whining about “ad hominem” attacks even when no such attacks have been made.
I’ve said this all before, of course. But the guilty parties will continue going on, doing their level best to ensure that nobody who disagrees with them will ever be engaged with rationally.
Because at the end of the day, this site is not about BBC bias: this is about a few extremely vocal, and extremely anti-social, bitter old men trying to convince themselves that their lives have some sort of worth. And failing.
“justifiable accusations of hypocrisy.?”
Example
Oh and
“a few extremely vocal, and extremely anti-social, bitter old men trying to convince themselves that their lives have some sort of worth. And failing.”
makes the point for me
can you give an example of one Scott please: just one will do, someone that you know is extremely vocal, anti-social, bitter, male and old. We can leave how you know what their life is worth etc for later.
Hi Scott M.
“Because at the end of the day, this site is not about BBC bias: this is about a few extremely vocal, and extremely anti-social, bitter old men trying to convince themselves that their lives have some sort of worth. And failing”. The above is not, of course, ‘ad hominem’. Thanks for the lesson in rational debate.
“this is about a few extremely vocal, and extremely anti-social, bitter old men trying to convince themselves that their lives have some sort of worth”
Excuse me Scott, the clue is in my name – although my age is my own business. Whilst I realise this site cannot change the BBC mindset for the majority of people who find this site it can indicate the many forms of bias that the BBC uses everyday and allows them to have real knowledge of the world about them.
Sorry Alan but he Nazi’s did not select homosexuals as a category for extermination. Their attitude was some what ambivalent with regard to homosexuality. I have just watched the relevant HIGNFY episode. Having watched it I think that the Paul Merton quip was par for the course on HIGNFY. The two regular panelist are utterly smug, sad, has been’s. Merton’s persona is that of a detached observer of the antics of ‘lesser mortals’. The quip was a throw away line about a monstrous crime and infantile in its callousness. What is pertinent here is that Merton could not get away with such a casual quip about the civil rights movement in the USA, Slavery, the Sharpeville Massacre, the Rwanda genocide, etc. It is this selective sensitivity that is truly grotesque. Most of all Merton’s knows what is and what is not permissible and steers his course with the benefit of this insight. I have no ideal what his personal views are, but what ever the are he plays to the prejudices of his audience.
Jim Davidson has been, all but in writing, banned by the BBC for “Throwaway Quips” as have many others.
The again, the “Throwaway Quips”(tm) were against the wrong victim groups for the BBC.
I’ll ask you Scott, what is the difference?…should we expect Merton to be banned from the BBC for making inappropriate “Quips”?
Great point. Step forward Carol Thatcher.
I’m looking forward to Russel Howard calling Paul Merton a “Fat, Anti-Semetic bigot” on his good news show, as he used to call Bernard Manning a “Fat, racist bigot” every week on Mock the week.
It’s all about context.
And her remarks were made off-air and where only a handful of Beeboids could hear them. The only reason the remark became known to the public was because of the B-BBCs delight in being able to attack a “Thatcher”.
Scott, if the late Bernard Manning had made that “joke” on the BBC he would have been banned from ever appearing again (come to think of it, the BBC did ban him) and you would have been at the forefront of those complaining at his “disgusting” joke. Context has F***-all to do with it. It’s a joke in very bad taste, but you seem to think it’s O.K. because it was uttered by one of the BBC’s Favourite “comics”.
Then again, Bernard Manning used to say that if a joke was funny it would automatically raise a laugh, whether in bad taste or not. I think political correctness has reduced the laughter quotient of jokes by around 75% (based on my own enjoyment of “stand-up” )which probably colours my thinking that today’s “comedians” are pretty piss-poor and about as funny as a heart attack.
‘A fleeting joke, made by a professional comedian,’
Could you let me know when this theocratic or caste system was established.
However, I believe it must be the former as it is not fully hereditary. Also what would you call the ‘church’ functionaries who bolster egos of their senior ‘prelates’?
a) It wasn’t without comment. You wrote the caption below it.
Alan’s reply: You mean by ‘caption’ Merton’s comment….kind of necessary to complete the BBC’s little joke…no?
b) No-one actually seemed to know what you were referring to. That’s understandable without any context. (Personally when I saw you were the author, I wasn’t suprised….another nonsenical Alan post)
Alan’s reply: Usual ad hom from you….the point was not to have a reference…for people to judge the ‘joke’ for themselves and comment on whether it was offensive or not.
c) Albaman’s comment, there for all to see, is to ask you what this had to do with BBC bias. And to suggest you discredit this site.
D) You may be trying to spin it otherwise by misrepresenting Albaman’s comment, but your little experiment clearly failed. It only recieved comment comparing Nazism to communism, and a couple asking what its about. ie. what’s this got to do with BBC bias/is this pic on the BBC website?
Alan’s reply: Failed? It got exactly the intended reponse from Albaman….as you admit….he said such a joke would discredit an organisation using it….your response below, defending the joke, demonstrates why it was necessary to post it without my own comments.
E) I don’t think any humour should be banned myself. The show has a picture round to which the panelists attach humourous comment. Hence why a picture of a German leader making what appears to be a Nazi salute might be chosen. If the insinuation is that this joke is only made because of the BBC is anti-semetic, then I think that’s pathetic Alan.
Can you complie a list of topics that are not to be the subject of humour as well please?
The show is in about its millionth series now. If you’re ‘offended’ then don’t watch it. HIGNFY is made by a production company, not by the BBC. Unless of course the Jew hating ‘group think’ extends there too?
Alan’s reply: If you’re offended by this site don’t read it….but as it is you who adds the ‘It’s the Muslims’ to threads and makes racist remarks about Pakistanis it seems that the most offensive comments are often your own on this site.
‘Tyler’…you’re not posting as colditz. or herman, or the german or the Kaiser or adolf today…why’s that?
I’ve never posted as Colditz. I believe its quite possible you have more than one critic.
Why don’t you post in your real name Alan? Afraid of being sued or arrested? What’s to say you’re not David Vance, who uses the name ‘Alan’ to express his true racist, bigotted views without affecting his public profile, and livelihood?
Tyler….Really?
This wasn’t you then?
colditz
Submitted on 2013/05/14 at 9:46 pm | In reply to Mat.
Moron.
Better secure your computer then….as someone is using your email and your computer.
And that’s not the first time you’ve been caught.
A liar should always remember his lies.
As for racist views…wasn’t it you that expressed your deep dislike of Pakistanis, attributing some base behaviour to their race?
Re (a) a caption isn’t a comment
Re (D)…it is Sunday after all, traditionally quiet.
Re (E) I agree with your first sentence
“I don’t think any humour should be banned myself”, I look forward to Chubby Brown on the show in the near future or Jim Daveison, pity Bernard Manning is no longer with us, I won’t hold my breath. Never mind Jo Brand will be on as ever taking the piss out of white males AGAIN.
” It got exactly the intended reponse from Albaman”
Strangely I did not see any indication that the post was directed specifically to me. Other contributors made similar comments. Were these responses “unintended”?
“……. he said such a joke would discredit an organisation using it.”
No, I did not. What I inferred was that in its original (non) context it discredited biased BBC.
“……… he said any such post would discredit any organisation that posted it as a joke”
Where did I say that?
(Like Alan, I would have added these comments to the applicable posts (and in bold type) but unfortunately only “preferred contributors” appear to have that option.
….Or, you could have wound your neck in, and not replied to the thread, like I did when I noticed it in the early hours of this morning.
The 1st thing I thought when I saw it, and noticed no actual story tagged onto it is “What’s Alan fishing for here?”, and stayed schtum.
Then, along comes you, with your flapping gums, ready to take the bait.
Well played Alan.
‘…unfortunately only “preferred contributors” appear to have that option.’
By enjoying control of the system it’s similar to one BBC blog editors have and, if rarely, exercise, usually before a closing.
Presumably this will be another instance where you find yourself a bit conflicted on precedent?
Good for you Alan; I suppose some of your visitors will now change their opinion now they know the provenance. The subject of Israel to the bbc is like them having Tourettes, in that they just can’t help themselves. Maybe one day whenever the bbc is mentioned, people will burst out laughing.
Is HIGNFY still on ? haven’t watched it in 10 years, got sick and tired of smug, smarmy Leftwing comedians constantly sneering.
Glad I’m not the only one. I haven’t watched for about 10 years!
You should, though. At least the opening animated sequence, anyway. After all, that’s the only place on the BBC, anywhere, throughout the spectrum of broadcasting, that has ever featured a joke at The Obamessiah’s expense.
I steer clear too. It’s one of the laziest programmes on the BBC. Entirely predictable – you know the stories that will be selected, and the tack they will all take.
Paul Merton – comatose every week – staring into the distance, thinking only of the pay check.
Interesting how few evidently do watch it now, for Alan’s ruse to have been effective.
It used to be a ‘must see’ in our house, then relegated to record & catch up. And now, if one crops up on Dave and nothing else is on, a maybe.
For me the rot set in with the endless collection of risible pols (or BBC editors) trying to be funny but ending up toe-curling.
Whatever “context” is behind the photo there are some events of history that should be left alone and should never be subject to “humour”.
The deaths of 6 million Jews in WW2 and all the others who died is one of them.
Sadly, this “gag” just shows the crassness of the BBC “luvvies” and the contempt they has for Israel.
Imagine if it had been 6 million Muslims – the thing would have been untouchable…….
In context it was a joke and arguably a pretty poor one based on a historic stereotype.
Out of context it was a cheap post which I think was aimed at eliciting a particular response from some who regularly post here.
In either case I still find it difficult to see any BBC bias.
Whilst we will never know I can only wonder whether you would have qualified the original post had you got a more “favourable” response to it.
Albaman…I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said I believed you would not have defended the joke had you known the it’s origin.
I was wrong about you.
One minute the joke ‘discredits this site’..now you find out it’s a BBC joke suddenly it’s not so bad.
All your spinning and excuses won’t dig you out of the hole you’ve dropped yourself in.
“One minute the joke ‘discredits this site’..now you find out it’s a BBC joke suddenly it’s not so bad.”
My actual response was: “In context it was a joke and arguably a pretty poor one based on a historic stereotype.”
Out of context your original post is completely different.
If you are not a communist/socialist/fascist/warmist/marxist or any other bastardisation of normality, you certainly give a good impression.
Sorry, a typo mistake in my post: *and the contempt they have for Israel”.
Surely this is a joke against a German ‘conservative’ not a swipe at Israel? Par for the course on the BBC equating anyone vaguely right wing with the Nazis.
Either way I doubt very much that Merton was doing anything but trying to make people laugh and was not being anti-Semitic.
As to Alan’s trap itself being anti-Semitic that is a hoot. This is one of the few political sites on the net where anti-Semitism isn’t rife, except of course from its detractors. Alan may write a load of old bollocks at times but I have yet to see him write anything that makes me think he hates Jews.
Agreed. Merton was making fun of Merkel-not very difficult to do- and I can see nothing anti Semitic here.
If you want anti Semitism just go to most British universities. The BBC has many faults but is not in their league at all.
Not in their league.
If as you say anti-Semitism is rife in British universities, what is it doing to expose it?
It helps foster it as far as I can see.
Melanie Phillips once wrote that the newspaper the BNP links to most is the Guardian for it’s articles on Israel. Looks like HIGNFY might get a look in now as well.
If you want anti Semitism look no further than the Conservative party.
Hook, line and sinker. I was one of those who thought you were wrong to publish that picture with “your” caption underneath, and no reference to the BBC. Now seeing the context, I admire your brilliant trap (mixing my metaphors there) and I laugh at those caught in it.
I have real issues with the ‘holocaust’ – it is a lie in the form of a lie by omission.
I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth. and nothing but the truth, is the oath taken by those giving evidence, and by this standard the holocaust is a lie.
It is so because it diminishes the suffering of other groups who were exterminated by the Nazis, despite the fact that the numbers of those killed exceeded that of the Jews. I’ve actually heard if said by Jewish people, ‘why should they be remembered? They actually did deserve to die!’ Unfortunately this was not an isolated view.
Norman G. Finkelstein wrote a book called ‘The Holocaust Industry’ describing the way that modern day Jews have used the holocaust as a shield for deeds which might otherwise have attracted some heavy criticism.
Unfortunately criticism of the way the holocaust has been manipulated is as great a social no-no as ‘racism’ It seems to some that it is beyond all question and criticism, hence the subject of this thread.
Would there have been some interest if this photo had been Merkel with a Gypsy (1.5 million killed) Gay (more than 1 million) , Poles (14% of the population!), Slavs, the disabled, Left Wingers, Freemasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a motely crew of others. All of them side lined and marginalised by one group who want to claim all the benefits for themselves.
Is it a discredit to the BBC? No not at all unless of course you are supporting the holocaust industry.
Thoughtful
The BBC would not make the same joke if it had been a Gay man or a gypsy or a disabled person stood next to Merkel.
As for accusing us of ‘supporting the Holocaust industry’ as you suggest it is…bit of a turn around for this site…we normally get accused of being fascists.
I think, like the BBC, critics from both sides attacking us means we are getting it about right.
I think I said that the BBC would not have made this joke if it had been a gay man etc, and that is an illustration of my point! So all pervasive the association of the extermination camps with the Jews to the exclusion of all others, it wouldn’t cross anyones mind – the joke wouldn’t be funny.
I didn’t accuse anyone of supporting the holocaust industry.
It’s an ironic joke Merkel stood next to Netanyahu the leader of Israel with a pose which appears to be a Nazi salute, and it has a number of different connotations.
There’s the Greeks accusing Merkel of being a Nazi, or those who accuse Netanyahu of being a Jewish Nazi, besides the more obvious one.
Lets not forget that the Nazis were a far left group – and not the distortion & misinformation which the left has used to manipulate history, they categorically were not right wing in any way.
”We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions”
– Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927
Sounds all too familiar to a Milliband speech today !
Pity you didn’t make it multi-choice, along the lines:
Who speech was that?
a- Joseph Stalin
b- Adolf Hitler
c- Neil Kinnock
d- Gordon Brown
e- Ed Milliband
(f) all of the above
When it comes to anti-Semitism, looney left meets looney right and the BBC walks them down the aisle in this ‘gay’ wedding celebrating ‘same sects’ couples.
“The BBC would not make the same joke if it had been a Gay man or a gypsy or a disabled person stood next to Merkel.”
How do you know that? Surely this site should come up with real examples of bias? If your argument is based on a fantasy BBC that only exists in your head… well it’s just rubbish.
Merton wouldn’t have made the joke in those cases because there’s no real shock value there. Basic “edgy” joke rule.
“How do you know that?”
Ok, just try watching BBC3 tonight, and any of it’s “Comedy” shows, report back here with links to any derogatory humor pointed at Muslims, Gay, Climate change, Labour, Obama, Gypsy….ect.
I await the outcome with interest.
Your having a laugh
Yes, I am,
and more importantly, I’m still waiting for you to post back any derogatory humor on BBC3 tonight, aimed at Muslims, Gay folk, Climeat change, Labour, Obama, Gypsy…ect.
Your little, “matter of fact” tossy remark “your having a laugh” don’t wash with me matey boy.
Think you mis-understood my post in responce to ‘Ah yes, the fantasy BBC in your head’ Sorry
Oh, right…..there are so many of our chums here today posting under different names, I failed to notice it was a response to…..well, whichever of them it was posting under that name!
My bad. 🙂
Ah yes, the fantasy BBC in your head says:
May 19, 2013 at 6:30 pm
“The BBC would not make the same joke if it had been a Gay man or a gypsy or a disabled person stood next to Merkel.”
How do you know that?”
I’ll tell you how I know that:
“Comedian and writer Ben Elton has said the BBC is too “scared” to broadcast jokes about Muslims for fear of provoking radical Islamists.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7326476.stm
You know it because Ben Elton said it?
Does that apply in every other sphere then? I suppose the Wright Way is funny because Ben said so?
Not sure where you got your figures from but, from memory, about 3 million of the 6 millions Jews killed during WW2 were Polish. That equates to about half of the total Polish war dead which includes 1 million or so killed by the Soviets.
The Poles certainly were victims but the fact remains that the largest group killed by the Nazis was the Jews.
NB You could argue that the Russians suffered more deaths as their war dead was around 20 million. However considering the difficulty in qualifying the source data, it being communist, it is hard even to estimate who was responsible for what. I have read, for example, studies which claim that the soviets themselves were responsible for the majority of the deaths.
“…the soviets themselves were responsible …”
Incompetence? ‘Not one step back’? Sacrificing the ideological-unworthy?
How very like our dear LibLabCon with regard to the EU.
Is it a numbers game? There 10 – 13 million victims; I guess “the Jews get the most attention” as they were about half the total and have done the most to make sure the guilty were/are brought to justice and to make sure future generations don’t forget.
Thoughtful – you are mixing with some very strange Jews (maybe the Stephen Fry variety?). Having been amongst Jews all my life I have never (if I knew how to underline ‘never’ in a comment I would have) heard anything like that ever said.
It was said by an older more conservative type, not an orthodox but certainly closer than the reform. Always in a hat and dark coat, but not the full Hasidic look. He had some pretty forthright views which many might find offensive.
One arsehole does not make a culture.
A screaming anti-Semite defending this Paul Merton BBC ‘joke’.
‘Nuff said.
The problem with the likes of Scott and Albaman, dare I say it: is the selective nature of the Lefts myopia…and what it regards as offensive or as wrong, depending on whether its the correct progressive cause that will suffer or benefit as a result.
I mentioned the howling down of Farage the other day…had he been a gay activist or pro-lifer; the BBC would still be going on about the power of the lynch mob, the end of free speech or a threat to democracy or tolerance.
But because he was a UKIP bloke-well, if you can`t stand the heat, take a joke or a little robust student banter, then you`re not really fitted to take on the rough and tumble of Salmond etc are you, you thin skinned toff white boy…are you?
Witness an Observer article today where some woman accuses the Christians in America of being thin skinned whingers…but blacks, women Latinos and lesbians etc…usual roll call of victims…well, they`re perfectly correct to point out the discriminations and prejudices…Christians aren`t allowed to cite the MacPherson defence(that if they themselves think it bullying, religious persecution etc-then it must be!).
I myself find Merton an unfunny sad little bloke with “ishoos”, and would not care about his “quips” if the same show would shaft Qatada or mullahs hanging gays from cranes in a similar way.
But Islam is not funny-never can be either according to the BBC.
When there`s equal access and inclusivity about who the BBC will mock and highlight…then I`ll laugh it off.
Until then, it`s clear that the likes of Scott, Albaman and the BBC/Left liberal elite have eyes only for one kind of “satire”…anti Israel, pro Obama, anti Tory, anti Christian.
And-pro Muslim sex gangs…always and for ever!
“Witness an Observer article today where some woman accuses the Christians in America of being thin skinned whingers…but blacks, women Latinos and lesbians etc…usual roll call of victims…well, they`re perfectly correct to point out the discriminations and prejudices…”
Where do black, female, Latino and lesbian Christians stand in your thinking? Reading your diatribe makes me think that in your view Christians can only be male and white (and preferably speak English).
“Until then, it`s clear that the likes of Scott, Albaman and the BBC/Left liberal elite have eyes only for one kind of “satire”…anti Israel, pro Obama, anti Tory, anti Christian.
And-pro Muslim sex gangs…always and for ever!”
Where did I ever say this?
Oh Albie…obtuse as ever( and I think deliberately so)
1. That little list I gave was simply to say that the writer(TF Charlton…did you even read it?) has decided that one bunch of victims are obviously in no need of protection, whereas the list included many who she thinks are automatically so, because they`re …well victims.
Double standards Albie…does that help?
2.Who said you said it?…is there speech marks on your readout of my “diatribe”?
Now that`s got speech marks you see-because you said it…not difficult is it?
Or are you a fellow victim of white Christian bigotry as well?
Anger at HIGNFY’s Mecca joke:
http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2011/06/06/13415/anger_at_hignfys_mecca_joke
“The joke received a slightly uncomfortable reaction from the studio audience, and is now set to lead to a torrent of complaints to the BBC.”
Really?….yet, as Alan pointed out:
“The audience laughed uproariously when the BBC put up the photograph and Paul Merton quipped…‘Here we are remembering old times.’”
Says PLENTY to me about the show, and the audience it caters for.
The BBC, and the bellends who defend them are revolting.
Scott wrote:
“A fleeting joke, made by a professional comedian, in a context that makes it apparent it’s not meant to be taken as anything other than a throwaway quip, is one thing.”
So Scott if the joke had been about how people used to jailed for being Homosexual, would you still see it as funny. Nah you’d be at the front of the queue of screaming queens bitching unfair. Remember when you cried a hissy fit (in your pink tutu) when I cracked a joke about how Dez was on his knees getting battered around the ring. That was a joke, yet you screamed and screamed (until you were sick) that it was homophobic.
Grow a spine yer jellyfish , stop inking on articles on this blog and scuttling into the nearest hole at the first sign of intolerance from the bBC.
Bless. That’s why I like about you, Pounce – even at your most deeply unpleasantly hypocritical, you still have no idea how hilariously predictable you are.
The next time you try and shout down somebody and tell them to grow a spine, just remember that you were the one who declared that the use of an elephant in a simile was racist.
And yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact, that you have caught out as the hypocritical you are here. That’s what I love about leftwing wankers like you, you become what you hate the most.
“Intolerant bigots”
Caught out? By a deluded and slightly deranged man who flies off the handle whenever someone doesn’t kowtow to his hectoring?
Diddums. Did the nasty man not take poor little Pounce seriously? Awwwww.
Scott, why do you post on this site? What are your motives. It seems you write in a way that is deliberately provocative and guaranteed to wind up some of the correspondents to this site. You never refer to the point of the posts and, instead, merely use digression to attack the person and not the issue. Perhaps it’s your condescending style and self-righteousness that winds people up. Once you get the bit between your teeth you never know when enough is enough and just become an irritant.
By all means contribute to this site, most of us welcome a good debate, and it’s good for this site to have someone post counter-arguments that are thoughtful and to the point. But you just seem to post just to disrupt, divert and, yes, insult other posters to this site.
If you want to be treated with respect by others then you have to treat others with that same respect, not condescension.
“If you want to be treated with respect by others then you have to treat others with that same respect, not condescension.”
Funny – you never see people saying things like that to Vance, Preiser, Alan, hippiepooter, Teddy Bear, Guest Who, or any of the other regulars who use abuse of others as a debating technique.
Are you scared of them? Why? They’re just sad little middle-aged men who like to think they’re important despite any evidence to the contrary. It won’t hurt you to stand up to them, you know.
‘Guest Who, or any of the other regulars who use abuse of others as a debating technique.
..sad little middle-aged men who like to think they’re important despite any evidence to the contrary.
Can’t speak for others, as I don’t know, so I can’t match you on that, but having scored a mention and the subject of evidence has cropped up, care to justify the ‘abuse’ tag?
Even allowing for what may be robust returns of serve, I think you may struggle.
And then we come to what you see fit to deploy. Counters (of which this is one) to which you seem to feel unacceptable ‘debating technique’. Giving you free rein may suit you, but doesn’t seem the best (lack of) reaction unless the intention is to make this a forum populated by those who who are seeking to see it shut down. I am wondering if, in the new post-Leveson/#HackedOff world, as with ‘ism-until proved innocent’ strikes, enough accusations of ‘abuse’ or statements of ‘discredit’ get logged (no matter how spurious), and you can run to some daft body to get just that to happen on no more than your perceived prejudices.
You used to at least manage the odd fair point on occasion. In your latest incarnation the point aspect does appear to have been dropped now.
Maybe ‘people’ don’t say things because they don’t want to or don’t feel the need; as opposed to being instructed to by you and your colleagues?
Scott, I don’t use abuse of others as a debating technique. Your smear is baseless. Once again you bring up my name to defame me in a discussion which has nothing to do with me.
There have been a few claims made by a few folk about a few actions with regards to debating and modding that have been challenged on accuracy (which seems to be seen as ‘abuse’), and thus far seen no response.
One suspects as these crows start to roost the lure of the bunker has again made its siren call.
Lefties like Scott think anyone voicing an opposite viewpoint is “abuse”. It’s a word that has been hijacked by the left just as “bullying”, “inappropriate behaviour” and “inappropriate language” have been used as a weapon to close down debate and intimidate opponents.
Scott’s latest diatribes have shown him to be the “sad, bitter old man” and an utter hypocrite. Unless he raises the standard of his arguments, it’s probably best just to ignore him. He’s making it obvious he’s not interested in the subject of the threads on this site. He comes on just to disrupt and boost his ego.
And Scott, I’m scared of no one who visits this site. If I disagree with a certain viewpoint, I’ll have my say, but with respect to the others’ views and without resorting to insults, condescension and your ever present “bless….”.
You have become the person you accuse others of being.
Ooh Scott, you can be so hurtful at times.
What Sir Ian McKellan and Derek Jacobi could learn from your scalding wit and humour.
Not.
Comedy is not funny if the audience do not understand the context eg In the past ,Jeremy Harding tried to make fun of blood libel that Jews were accused of by the Christians and then the Muslims but by critising Israeli policy in the same breath, it was confusing and you heard coughing in the audience.
From Alan’s post:
‘the audience laughed uproariously ‘
Good thing Merton didn’t say, “golliwog”.
Especially if he said it in a Jamaican accent, and called it….ohhhh, I dunno….”Chalky White”
It’s all about context….apparently.
Is that the same Paul Merton who left his wife for another woman because she was dying of cancer, only to be told by his agent to go back to her until she was dead?
If so, who the hell is he to preach morality?
Yes but he’s not a racist
Do you mean Sarah Parkinson? I’ve not heard this story before – is it true or is it a tabloid smear?
Do you have a link for it – I can’t find any hint of this on Google?
As I can’t find it either I think it probably was a smear.
Evidence if any more were needed that you really do discredit this site and yourself. Largely because you are very, very stupid Alan. Well done though, keep it up.
Tyler, I can see the point of Alan’s post was to highlight the BBC’s hypocrisy over the type of humour it allows to be broadcast. There are certain comics – Jim Davidson, the late Bernard Manning, for example, the BBC would have severely criticised, in fact vilified, if they had uttered a similar “joke”. If you can’t see the point then you should look in the mirror and contemplate whether the insults you directed at Alan are more appropriate to yourself.
Jim Davidson used to appear regularly on the BBC. I think the reality is that he and Manning were just long past being funny after decades on the box. Subjective though humour is.
I havent heard the BBC criticise any comic about a joke yet (the BBC is actually required to be impartial except on issues of broadcasting so I wouldnt include complaints upheld about jokes on the BBC by the BBC.) I suspect what you’re thinking of is when a news programme covers the likes of the latest controversial Frankie Boyle joke. Thats not the same thing.
I’m happy to take part in reasoned debate, but when when the ‘debate’ is about something posted here in black and white, and Alan describes it as soemthing completley different then it appears his problem is with reading the English language.
Albaman’s comments are still there for anyone who wants to go look and then compare with Alan’s post here.
Tyler, if that is all you can bring yourself to post it is perfectly clear your true thoughts are the complete opposite.
I of late really believe Alan has begun to shine.
Plenty of room for debate over his perception of this issue, but as people like you just resort to ad hominem, looks like he might have a point!
Except he doesn’t have a point. His little experiment clearly failed, and he has misrepresented what Albaman said in order to suggest it did work. The post is just the previous one to this, its there for everyone to look at.
He also seems to have replaced my original post dismantling his argument and calling him on it, and replaced it with one with his responses!??! In my name?!?
Perhaps he’d like to explain what ‘racist remarks about Pakistanis’ I made?
I often thought David Vance’s contributions were the most ludicrous but in giving Alan authorship rights, they really turned the asylum over to the lunatics.
your post is still there although your use of the word ‘dismantling’ is misplaced.
‘seems to have’
That alone is enough for a few red flags.
Replaced, or added notations?
Following some of the comments here has been instructive if puzzling at times.
Discussing numbers and the murder of European Jewry vis a vis other groupings is absurd.
It was the dedication and thoroughness of the Nazis towards the elimination of the Jews that is so dreadful.
Take Holland. Jewish population 1939 approx 140,000.
Deportations 107,000. Murdered 102,000.
Effectively the total destruction of Dutch Jewry.
Anti Semitism is different. It is a sickness of the soul and bears no analyisis. It’s modern manifestation disguised as the University led boycot movement of Israel is not worthy of engagement . These people are enemies of mankind itself.
To stand with Israel is the duty of all of us.
At the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem there is an enlarged copy of a paper on the agenda of that fateful meeting starting the Final Solution. It lists the numbers of Jews in each country – all to be hunted down,
Little Estonia had 2000 Jews. But they were included in the target list – a measure of the extremes to which the Nazis wanted to carry out their extermination.
Likewise on some Greek islands, there are memories of how the Nazis hunted down and transported to death camps the relatively small Jewish populations. How on earth were they a threat to the Reich ?
Yes, many others such as gypsies were swept up into the death camps. But the primary and obsessive target was the entire Jewish people of Europe.
What sickens me is that in spite of this awful history there are many in the Middle East who want to repeat it. Who teach their children that Jews are animals. And the BBC turns a blind eye.
Blind eye more like fully support it
Alan, perhaps you can explain to the faithful why my comments have been scrubbed. ‘Gibberish Buster’ No foul words, no ad homs, I would love to know? I can post it all again tomorrow under another handle but why should I? What exactly is your problem here. I have seen you wield your power by changing dissenters posts rather than replying but this is absurd.
It’s the way he works. I do think though that most here would find it objectionable if they were aware of it.
A couple of my posts didn’t make it either seen as they supported this blog I don’t think it’s anything to do with censorship. Btw anything with a few links won’t post.
‘I have seen you wield your power by changing dissenters’ posts’
Changing, how? If so, I would share your consternation (though BBC & Telegraph to have ‘editted by moderator’ facilities).
Also #2wrongs I concede, but modding or banning is a BBC (or CIF, or Telegraph) power it wields, a lot, for a lot less than the personal provocations made here to authors or posters.
The BBC Guidelines are pretty extensive on why and what can get nuked as and when they feel, including choices of names.
If ‘AlanCensoredMe’ is you, Mr. Buster, while there were indeed no foul words or ad homs, you stray into semantics in your pious victimhood.
You admitted you created the name to ‘tease’, and dedicated yourself not to any specific point initially but simply to comment initially off-topic on styles. Hardly sincere.
I was fine with it and gave as good as I got, and if it got you purged that’s unfortunate, but as the aim is clearly mainly distraction, clutter and attrition to disrupt in heat over debate in light, as other media respond in more draconian ways, your complaints here struggle in comparison.
As you say, posting under another name is (for some), like a change in underwear, but given the usual content it is seldom other than tiresome or predictable drive-by fare. On the few occasions a fair point is made I savour the debates that ensue, hen’s teeth rare though they are.
Also a bunch of folk who claim to be banned keep cropping up in original names, or posting as others, or whatever, so be it poxy servers, hacks or clones it’s hard to know who is who often. At least some names, or ‘categories’ of name, offer a hint as to what will be underneath, and offer the option of skipping.
Say what you will about the BBC… at least when they scrub you, you stay scrubbed. Makes you proud, eh?
It’s far from the first time Alan has wielded what little power he is afforded in order to get rid of comments that paint him in a valid, but less than rosy, light.
Which makes it all the more remarkable that your incessant whining seems to get through so often, doesn’t it?
A salute to Scott M. who said what I have been trying to get across: “Because at the end of the day, this site is not about BBC bias: this is about a few extremely vocal, and extremely anti-social, bitter old men trying to convince themselves that their lives have some sort of worth. And failing.”
Well, at the end of the day al-beeb is still unreconstructed!
Sure Deborah is well on board with this salute to trying, too, so well worth the cut & paste (version? He comes out with them a lot) repetition.
The fate of the BBC lies in its own hands of course, as it is unaccountable. But as it keeps straying from accuracy and objectivity, and folk keep noticing and sharing, how that ends up working out remains to be seen.
Karma has a funny way with being taunted.
I was pondering the noble, silent, upbeat male thing, and was reminded of what the Pollard Report had to say about most ferret protagonists in the BBC sack.
I guess none were old. And of course a few were of the fairer side-stepping variety.
Still, he looks chipper at how things worked out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21530542
Really captured the youthful glow if, one might suggest, a degree of pensiveness?
And she looks positively radiant:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-news-head-helen-boaden-moved-to-radio-as-exminister-becomes-strategy-chief-8494831.html
As to why…um… worth, well, what’s not to like about £500kpa between them to keep those dimples deep?
Rewards for what again?