Listen up, folks, a few words from the management!
Biased-BBC was created as a forum to highlight and discuss BBC bias. That is the sole focus. Anyone seeking to post any thought in their head can start their own blog. You have a right to your opinion, but you have no right to force association with it on others, nor do you have a right to call for violence on this blog.
While anger about a given situation or issue is understandable, calls for violence are beyond the pale, and have no place on a blog with a specific purpose, as this one has. Furthermore, nobody has a right not to be criticized. If you don’t like being told your comment is out of line, go elsewhere. The internet is a vast space, plenty of room for you to say whatever your like out there.
The blog owners are ultimately legally responsible for comments. Nobody has a right to post comments expressing controversial opinions and not expect to experience any consequences. We must all consider the consequences of our speech, and how it affects others. Additionally, there have been instances where someone has taken specific, over-the-top comments and tried to use them as evidence with the intent of causing trouble for owners and authors in their personal and professional lives. Again, the purpose of this blog is not simply to express right-wing opinion, or political or ideological opinions of any kind, on their own, in a vacuum. This blog is meant to be a forum to highlight, discuss, and expose political and ideological bias at the BBC, rants about Islam and other bogeymen serve no purpose other than to provide fodder for our critics, enabling them to avoid addressing issues of BBC bias and focus on personal attacks to discredit the blog, and to distract us from our original purpose. Granted, nearly all complaints about BBC bias will be from a rightward perspective, and some topics will inevitably lead to, hopefully reasonable discussions about issues and policies and the related bigger picture. However, it must be seen in that context for it to be effective. This doesn’t mean all opinions are wrong – it means only that this is not the place for general expression of those opinions without them being somehow part of the ongoing discussion of bias at the BBC.
If you’re not interested in discussing and detailing bias in the BBC’s output, and are interested primarily in expressing why you dislike a religion or political party or ethnic group, this is not the blog for you.
We understand, of course, that events drive much of the discussion, which is perfectly reasonable. But it can get out of hand, and mar the quality of the surrounding discussion. There is also too much overheated speech in debates amongst commenters, which often devolves into personal attacks, and actual discussion of the original issue is then abandoned. Thread after thread gets hijacked. This also serves as a distraction from the purpose of the blog, as critics can then cite a laundry list of personal points over and over again, instead of having to debate the issues at hand. We have many long-time readers who come here to consider discussions of biased BBC broadcasting, and get tired of having to scroll past a stream of unrelated schoolyard shouting matches. We must always consider readers’ needs as well as our own. In fact, the former just might be more important if we’re to resume being effective critics of the BBC. If one of the usual suspects chimes in with an insult, we should take the high road and not give it back. That’s the only way to disarm the tu quoque argument they usually give. Again, if this displeases, there are other places on the internet for you to enjoy yourself.
Going forward, seriously offensive comments will be removed. We don’t have the resources of the BBC and so cannot be all-vigilant and omnipresent, which means that comments may slip through the cracks and be left up for some time. This is not an indication of condoning. People are welcome to flag up calls for violence or other extreme comments that stay up for more than 24 hours. In those cases, deletion becomes problematic since any nested replies will have to go at the same time.
On occasion, one of the blog owners may insert an editorial remark into a troublesome comment, in the hopes of encouraging the commenter to try a different approach. We’re all guilty of overreacting at times, and it’s not meant to be personal. We must think of the blog as a whole, and our ultimate purpose. In that sense, we should consider the common goal here, rather than ideological fracturing. The blog has at times encouraged and empowered individuals to write complaints to the BBC which have actually had positive effects. That’s the benefit of the kind of community, crowd-sourcing approach that has always been one of this blog’s greatest strengths, and long may it continue. Hopefully, any gentle criticisms will be taken in that light.
This blog thrives when its readers participate in pointing out where the BBC got something wrong, engages in discussion about topics raised, and giving constructive criticism on how to improve. Much of the best content of this blog comes from you, our readers and your comments, and we all learn from each other. But the ultimate goal must be the same if we are to succeed.
Hope you will accept the above as we seek to keep the blog alive and kicking…
Excellent management as always DV!
Well said, needed saying. I confess to one comment that was OTT the other day but I realise this post is aimed at a few viral spammers that have appeared lately.
Thanks David – I am sure most of us do try to keep on topic – suggest that those of us who comment look at our post after we have written it and ask ourselves
i. does it have the words ‘BBC’ in the post?
ii. does it refer to a particular programme/news item – then quote it.
iii. if the post refers to something that shows BBC bias by omission – say so.
If any of the three above apply then I am sure (hope?) it is fit for this site.
Pleased to see this.
Thanks to others, I`ve largely learned who the trolls, weird dodgy posts come from-and skip over them, try to steer clear.
You at the top have every right to warn us/them about the rules of engagement….only wish the creeps, the ball bearing merchants and weird distracors, deflectors could f*** off or be labelled as “not for consumption”.
They are nasty enough to drop the rest of us in it-and if the BBC didn`t purr quietly at this prospect using a few ringers, then I`d be surprised.
Stay vigilant! God Bless and Keep you!
” a few ringers”
Why wouldn’t they use a few ringers?
If it was MY £4 billion protection racket, I sure as hell would!
Agreed DC – or even parallel interest groups who also enjoy a high level of funding. I’m always amazed at the speed with which one particular ‘ringer’ will home in on his pet subject, both he and the subject having been absent for some time. Serious monitoring has to be going on somewhere.
Dysgwr, the thing is, actual Beeboids used to regularly debate with us, on their own time, of their own free will. They stopped, and have told us why. In the not too distant past, two other professional journalists not of the BBC made their own attempts, with the same end result. It’s not like anyone needs to be paid to engage with us.
I like to joke sometimes that somebody at the Telegraph or Spectator has been reading our comments when an article or blog post strongly resembles things we’ve said, like Janet Daley’s recent missive, but unless there’s evidence that they really do (regularly enough to be worth it, I mean, not just once in a blue moon), and that we have actual influence, there’s no need for the BBC to be concerned, never mind to go through the trouble of hiring and paying people to stir up trouble here.
We actually have very few ‘critics’ on this site believe it or not…..most negative comments are from the same person using a myriad of different names…he has been stalking David Vance for years here and on ATW.
David, thank you for that. You have previously sent me 3 links to show that bbc employees did, in fact, engage in debate here.
I must confess I saw quite starkly the comment from one, that perhaps John Reith was not in fact an individual, but a composite of several people. Please correct me if I had that wrong.
As that fits with my preconceptions and prejudices, perhaps I have seized upon that single issue, in which to highlight.
Perhaps.
I remain of the opinion that orchestrating a bunch of troublemakers to visit this site would be in the bbc interests.
Just my opinion. I will revisit the links you sent.
I never got the impression that John Reith was a tag team, although plenty of people saw differently. At most I’d accept that, while there was one person who did the vast majority of it, one colleague would step in on a specific topic, on rare occasions. Maybe. It would be hard for several people to consistently maintain a personal style like that.
There was even a female Beeboid (associate producer or production manager of some kind), using the name ‘Sarah Jane’ who supported the cause of the blog yet still told us when she thought we got it wrong. Which was more often than not. But the point is that Beeboids used to engage openly, no need for secrecy or scheming. They and a couple of other journalists have tried to explain procedural and logistical issues that lay behind reporting we complained about. Not always successfully, to say the least.
What I don’t understand is why you think that the BBC would now orchestrate a group to cause trouble here when they never did back when the site had a higher and better profile.
Thank you David, please understand it wasn’t my impression that John Reith was a tag team. It was alluded to in one of the links you gave me. Cant link to it now, or quote verbatim, but it was within the 2 shorter items. No time now to find, but I’m sure that you can.
I cant provide any evidence, and cant respond to whether this site had a better profile in the past.
It remains my belief, that if it was my £4 billion protection racket, I sure as hell would want it protected, and we know their concept of fair is not the same one we use.
I remain with my ideas, and you will with yours.
Journalists are all about attacking things to distract from their bias/lies.
It’s a shame that this site has fallen for it.
Yes this is primarily a site about BBC bias but posts about other subjects should not be discouraged simply because they offend hypocritical journalists (BBC or otherwise) who are all too willing to launch hysterical attacks against anyone they don’t like or who disagrees with them (eg Goncalo Amaral for showing more concern about Madeleine McCann than they ever did).
As for Islam, there are no mainstream media sites that allow any criticism of Islam (the right wing are scared of reprisals, the left wing are in love)
Of course Islam isn’t the only thing this approach gets used for but it is by far the most common
http://www.blogspot.co.uk
Or join one you feel is less cowardly:
http://stormfront.org
You comment here and elsewhere on this thread that anyone is welcome, if they wish, to go off and start their own blog. This is true, although they will find blogspot unwilling to tolerate controversial content for long.
If anyone wishes to start such a blog, I can set one up at cost hosted in a location that is tolerant of strong views. Any potential site admins are very welcome to contact me on the understanding that it would be completely unconnected to B-BBC.
It’s a shame you need to keep saying it, DV. There was, of course, a lot of anger about last week which might explain, if not excuse comments from some regulars which I hope, in the cold light of day, they will accept were out of order. Islam, and the BBC’s treatment of it, is quite rightly a contentious area but might I humbly suggest that it would take some of the heat out of this area to restrict the number of posts about it on the main page, when perhaps a note in the comments by the author might suffice?
Those making comments should always try to bear in mind that, like it or not, they will be held up as a representative of this site.
Well said, Mr Vance and I apologize as I know I am guilty of some of the above.
Thanks, some comments recently have been totally unacceptable and I have posted so on occaision, also comenting that the site now feels like an enclave of really swivel eyed racists and not a serious blog addressing the pernicious bias of the BBC.
The fixation with everything islamic now totally dominates the blog and has really devalued this site over the last year or so. Ironically your excellent policy statement sits above yet another ‘islamic’ thread (by Alan) with only the most tenuous of connections to BBC bias. The site owners need to consider their editorial policy and think a bit about the threads as well as enforcing blog discipline.
Good points, and I appreciate the position you find yourselves in with the comments on this blog. I hope that you don’t need to go down the road of only registered posters being allowed to leave comments, as this would reduce the effectiveness of the site significantly. Ideally, the approach you’ve outlined will be sufficient to keep things in check.
One point I would make, which perhaps isn’t articulated that often is the underlying reason why people care about BBC bias. Its not simply a case of the license fee, which ultimately isn’t going to break the bank for most people in the UK. Rather, the BBC should in most ways be seen as the ‘establishment’ view of current affairs in the UK. They are the mouthpiece of the people and groups that determine how the UK should ‘think’. A strong argument could be made that all the major themes on this blog that seek to address BBC bias are in fact protests against the prevailing establishment mindset in the UK. It may appear a rather curious phenomenon that what are ultimately political protests are aimed at an entity like the BBC, but only to those who don’t understand how the modern world has become shaped by the intersection of academia and journalism.
I think that this is the reason its so easy for comments on a blog like this to get drawn into overtly political territory. I do sometimes wonder though, whether the idea of getting rid of BBC bias is so entangled with changing the prevailing political zeitgeist that in fact one is simply not possible without the other.
“They are the mouthpiece of the people and groups that determine how the UK should ‘think’.”
I could possibly cope with that on the ‘Entertain’ aspect – entertainment being largely subjective, I suppose, and artsy-fartsy stuff not having to be grounded in reality – though it does gall me when I see people take light-entertainment as a history lesson.
What really rubs me up the wrong way is ‘Educate’ by ‘settled science’, and the partisan-manipulative-emotive skew on ‘Inform’ – I now know to keep flicking between news sources and check the internet but many people don’t or do not have the time. My view is the BBC are abusing their trust.
I think the BBC are a long way from the original (pre-postmodern or pre-postnormal?) meanings of ‘Educate’ and ‘Inform’.
Well said David, I know last week was a rough one, and folk, due to comments closed just about everywhere else needed somewhere to vent some anger I guess.
This site, by virtue, and because of the Beeb being in denial, and lockdown, will have sent quite a bit of otherwise unwanted traffic this way.
Thanks for the job you fellas do, you are invaluable.
Thanks, DV. Sadly, this needed to be said.
BBC-NUJ is very partial in its notion of political ‘freedom’.
For example, BBC-NUJ apparently:-
1.) supports censorship of the press, post Leveson;
2.) opposes censorship of Islamic jihad supporting websites;
3.) does not criticise Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s campaign for global ban on criticism of Islam;
4.) denounces (via NUJ policy) English Defence League’s critics of Islam.
David,
I appreciate your concern at the possible consequences for you and others responsible for this blog for some overheated comments made over the past few days here.
BUT… With no proper outlet provided for the venting of opinions on the BBC website (funded for by all of us) or other MSM websites, e.g. Telegraph, Mail, Guardian etc.
I can see why some more extreme and, perhaps, non BBC related comments have been aired, particularly towards Islam.
The problem is where the Hell are any of us going to be able to exercise our right to free speech, when all the supposed open outlets are shut?
By the goodwill of yourself and others providing this outlet, it does mean that freedom of expression is still (just) possible in the UK. Close that down, and we are all finished.
If some of the comments have been OTT and off topic, but lawful, then surely let it be. There are plenty of anti Christian, anti West, anti Right sites out there that seem to be immune from the sort of concerns that you have expressed.
Finally, thank you for providing this wonderful platform which gives relief to me, and I’m sure many, who are dismayed at how our National Broadcaster has led us to Hell in a Handcart, and is still doing it!
http://www.blogspot.co.uk
And which ‘right’ to free speech would that be?
So why have ALL the posts since this missive been about the BBCs bias towards Islam?
Are these really examples of BBC bias or just another opportunity to stick one on the Mussies?
Answers on a postcard …
Who are the ‘Mussies’?
Pah
All the posts?… you mean the one about Hezbollah and Iran, or the one about MI5…..
Neither of them had Islam as the subject of the post.
So out of 5 posts 2 were not about the BBC’s bias towards Islam.
Not really ‘ALL’ the posts then is it.
And the posts are about BBC bias…whatever the subject…if it happens to be Islam then so be it.
You don’t complain about a series of posts about climate or Labour….so why the special interest in defending the BBC’s bias towards Islam?
Your attitude perfectly illustrates the BBC’s own….Islam is a sensitive subject…don’t go there.
That’s precisely the attitude this site puts under the spotlight.
Please stop conflating criticism of approach and style with absolute censorship.
David
Criticism of approach and style?
What are you on about…the criticism from pah was about the content of the posts.
So yes it was about not posting on a certain subject.
Or was pah saying we can ‘give it to the Mussies’ if only we write it in the style of Irvine Welsh perhaps?
It was both. Hippie’s post was little more than a diatribe against the dangers of Islam, and while your Missing In Action post contained a valid point that needs making, there was no evidence provided of what they’ve done other than a statement that their frequent highlighting of certain cases serves to intimidate the authorities from cracking down on jihadis. Examples were need there. That plus Hippie’s contribution makes two posts warning against the dangers of Islam with precious little hard evidence of what the BBC contributes to that danger. We all agree the BBC is part of the problem, but there was nothing in either post that showed it.
I accept that the Crazy Converts and Big Questions posts were prompted by events, and wouldn’t say we should remain silent on those topics, per se. But the Crazy Converts post had more about explaining how dangerous Islam is than explaining how the BBC got it wrong. Not why they are wrong, but how the coverage is biased. You had two good examples, but I felt they were overwhelmed by yet more explanation of why Islam is a problem rather than more of how the BBC avoids the topic or demonizes those who bring it up.
Then we had a separate post about Rod Liddle’s opinion of BBC management, which is important, yet it got lost beneath the rest of it. Three of those could have been combined into a single post, which would help alleviate the impression that the blog is all-Islam, all the time, over which DV’s message expressed concern. I understand that events, dear boy, events, drive this stuff for the most part, as it should be.
Please consider just how much this blog has become a forum for complaints about Islam, full stop. Today isn’t the only day you or anyone else has complained that someone who is tired of the endless stream of this stuff wants to stifle all debate rather than change the tone and angle of approach. It’s just so many, many posts and comments on the single subject can cause eyes to glaze over.
In actual fact, however, after having gone back to look at posts from the last couple weeks, it’s really not the case at all that this is all Islam, all the time. It’s largely a false impression. You made plenty of posts about Farage and Google and other things, but it’s so many related to Islam in one day and the content of the posts that helps create that impression.
It also gives people the impression that this is the only safe place on the internet to complain about the dangers of Islam. Why do you think there are so many of them here now who do that, nearly to the exclusion of all else – plus the remarks about the intimately related race issue – and practically nothing about any other topic on which the BBC is biased, never mind getting into details about how the coverage is biased?
Even when I get the courage to make a full post of my own about the BBC’s bias on a US issue, somebody posts a comment about Islam. Same goes for your own post on Mardell from a couple weeks ago.
I expect to get more criticism from others for saying this, as people wrongly assume that I’m dismissing their anger and their right to be angry, or that I’m claiming they have no right to express it anywhere, or telling me that a foreigner has no right to an opinion (which I get fairly regularly anyway from drive-by trolls about me commenting on the BBC), but so be it.
PS: Full credit that the Hezbollah post was a separate issue entirely, not related to this. The Beeboids appeared a little foolish acting as if Hezbollah becoming a Shiite military force, full stop, rather than a legitimate group defending Lebanon against an evil Israel waiting for any opportunity to invade and conquer, was a new development.
David
The MI5 post was mere kite flying…based on long experience…not every post needs endless links and ‘proof’….some can just be about raising a possibility and encouraging further thoughts….you’re being too literal about things there…..it’s not just about me telling people ‘this is bias’, sometimes it’s just about raising the possibility and seeing what people think…chewing the fat.
‘Crazy Converts’ was mainly about the BBC highlighting that converts were apparently more likely to be radical than ‘born Muslims’….why would the BBC do that?….to reassure ‘us’ that your average ‘born’ Muslim is not about to run you over and behead you….also Davis trying to suggest radicals were all deranged…therefore radicalism of such converts has nothing to do with the Islamic doctrines.
Second I link to the BBC’s, and others, constant statements that ‘this has nothing to do with Islam’.
All I ask is what is the True Islam then? Can the BBC define it….if not how do they know this has nothing to do with Islam?
Third…why look at the dangers of Islam…as I perceive them?……In itself these comments are not intended to be anti-Islamic..they are intended to illustrate why it is important that the BBC should cover the subject more objectively and in depth. Islam is not just fluffy little Anglicanism with a wooly arch bishop spouting about banks….it’s a serious religion which takes itself very seriously…it has some very ardent followers who kill critics and ‘blasphemers’ at the drop of a hat…it fully intends to spread itself across as wide an area of the world as possible….Islam has consequences. Consequences that the BBC seeks to downplay or hide completely.
Not to recognise that and to refuse to acknowledge that a massive increase in a Muslim population brings with it some very serious concerns for a democratic, secular or Christian society that has vastly different values to Islam is naive, dangerous.
Look around the world and see the conflicts in progress now…every country where there are Muslism is in conflict..everyone..even Canada, Australia and China.
Islam is unfortunately a subject of massive importance…it may be uncomfortable to talk about it but not to talk about it betrays the non-Muslim, secular population of this country…and the Muslims who have come here to escape the very things that are now being imposed upon them inside Muslim communities.
No one here in the UK has had an opportunity to voice an opinion. Islam has been forced down their throat by governments. The BBC and fellow travellers have worked to silence anyone who spoke up by calling them racist…you know that…we get it here on this blog…
Do you have values, a culture, a society that you want to keep or are you happy to get one imposed upon you? If not speak up…and don’t let the BBC and its ilk silence you….make the BBC put your concerns about events into their news broadcasts as well as the minorities’ concerns which seem to get precedence.
It’s not a game…this is deadly serious…its about how you, or rather your children and grandchildren will be able to live their lives in their own country. If you want to bring them up as Muslim..then you won’t have a problem with the future…if not….don’t you want a say? The BBC denies you that voice…it denies there is any problem with Islam in the ‘West’….personally I want a say in the future…I intend to have it.
As far as other commenters…well that’s life…having had a look though I think most of the time the threads are pretty good and on task…and polite…until we get the pet troll climbing aboard and winding people up….polite critics get polite replies usually.
Considering that it is a pretty open blog with little censorship except of the more obnoxious or threatening comments compared to others it is a quiet little place really….other sites get far worse than this one.
Nobody except defenders of the indefensible disagrees that there’s a problem. There is only disagreement on how best to address it.
David
No, your ‘approach’ is what would get this site labelled ‘Islamophobic’.
If I was to say Islam will have a damaging effect on our society without explaining why in a rational and reasonable manner, by examining what Islamic doctrine and practise is, we would rightly be called out on that.
It is necessary to lay out the argument as to why it is so important for the BBC to cover Islam just as it covers Christian doctrine and scriptures.
If Islam was merely selling fizzy drinks it wouldn’t matter…but it isn’t…lifestyles, cultures societies and lives can be at risk.
It’s important.
I disagree with this logic. Nothing I’ve said can be described as Islamophobic. You’re projecting BBC / wet politician behavior onto my words. I say this assuming that by ‘Islamophobic’ you mean being afraid of angering Mohammedans and not a visceral hatred of all things Islamic how defenders of the indefensible and the BBC define most critical remarks about Mohammedans and their religion. It’s ridiculous to say that my remarks here are evidence of that fear, and misses the point by miles and miles.
If that’s how you see everything I say, I’d suggest you reread my comments on the topic going back as many years as are available and reconsider.
OK let’s look at each post then;
1. THE BBC, TREASON AND JIHAD
Not about Islam or Muslims then obviously.
2. The Big Questions
Starts off by attacking the BBC for the balance of its coverage of …. Islam.
3. Those Crazy Converts
Which religion are they converting to again?
4. Stirring Words From Hezbollah
Again Nothing to do with Islam. At all.
5. MI5SING IN ACTION?
Starts off about MI5’s ‘failure’ over last Wednesday’s obscenity and then segues into a justified attack on Begg who follows which religion?
So that’s 5 for 5. As I said in the first place.
As to not complaining about the rest of the stuff. No of course I don’t as it wasn’t in David Vance’s post. I was under the impression that this was about BBC bias, which yes, does include incredible pro Islamo-fascist and Muslim bias. But ALL five posts? Surely if you are aiming to take the heat out of some of the discussions…
Your attitude perfectly illustrates the BBC’s own….Islam is a sensitive subject…don’t go there
Wow. No where did I say don’t go there. I merely pointed out the strange juxtaposition of David Vance warning about being obsessed with Islam being followed by 5 post all on Islam.
The fact that you can’t see that all five involved Islam or Muslims at their heart seems, well, odd.
pah’s post summarises perfectly my views when I read the MI5SING IN ACTION thread and posted the first reply to that, querying why yet another Muslim-oriented thread was needed yesterday. MI5SING IN ACTION could easily have fitted as a comment on hippiepooter’s guest blog THE BBC, TREASON AND JIHAD, which also mentions Moazzem Begg: that is what would have been done by those of us who aren’t part of ‘the management’. The new thread seemed particularly odd following DV’s messsage.
Obviously it is difficult to quote BBC links when the point is about things that they don’t/ won’t report, but MI5SING IN ACTION has four links to other sources and only a passing mention of the BBC.
In my opinion, threads like that smack of conspiracy theory and risk undermining all the good, well-sourced, work that this site does.
You’re clearly one of those who are more concerned with the rights of paedophiles and murderers than their victims
For shame
ROFLMAO!!
Whatever next? Perhaps you think I’m really Dez or Scott in disguise?
Or do I work for the BBC?
Moron.
You know George. The followers of that religion you like to shoehorn into every discussion not matter how tenuous the link.
What religion are you talking about? Daren’t you name Islam? And what’s all your talk about ‘Mussies’, a word I don’t use..
Islamic jihad is the main threat to the British people as events of the past week indicate.
What has become Islam Not BBC (INBBC) censors, obfuscates, deceives, omits on this in its daily propaganda.
I see it as success that you are trying to shut me up on this
I see it as success that you are trying to shut me up on this
I’m sure you do George, I sure you do.
Repetiton.
Further attempt to muzzle me by someone who uses the word ‘Mussies’.
LOL!
No one is trying to shut YOU up George. That would be futile.
Have you jihad enough of him
I think your confusing Alan’s obsession with the BBC’s.
If the BBC stopped playing the Islamic advocate role and stuck to reporting the facts perhaps Islam wouldn’t feature so often on here
Yes…Islam is unfortunately an integral part of so many of the big stories..terrorism, Israel, the rape gangs, how Christianity is treated, even Swedish riots.
If the BBC treated Islam and Muslims in the same way it treats others it wouldn’t get a mention…as said the blog is about BBC bias…if the BBC is biased towards islam it gets a mention.
pah is right though, it can seem a bit much on one subject..however the posters are all ‘volunteers’ turning this out in between other things….we have to see the bias first…but obviously we can’t see and hear everything..so the big stories get done first..or whatever we get to hear by chance…or hopefully what someone flags up in the comments….it then has to be checked out and written up….all taking time.
Tomorrow it might be Israel or Europe or the Labour Party or UKIP….but we can’t cover everything at once.
What I recommend is that you (anyone) write up a post yourself and send it to the blog by email and see if it gets posted….the more the merrier as far as I’m concerned….and the more subjects the better…
Give it a try…Hippiepooter just had one posted…..nothing to stop anyone else having a go.
” I think your confusing Alan’s obsession with the BBC’s.
If the BBC stopped playing the Islamic advocate role and stuck to reporting the facts perhaps Islam wouldn’t feature so often on here”
So very eloquently put. Absolutely the defining logic of this discussion.
The bbc’s news at 1 pm today, carried a “going live” report outside the gaol where the hostage situation has just occurred. Lo and behold the reporter actually used the word Islamic right at the end of the piece, in talking about why the anti-terrorist branch had become involved.
What’s odd is that half way though the report he was at pains to point out that none of the inmates involved are gaoled for terror related crimes.
I have seen unconfirmed tweets ( yes I know, get true facts) that say one was convicted of plotting to behead a soldier. I await the truth to come out. But would you call that non-terror related, and if he knew who was involved and what he wasn’t convicted of, he must know what he WAS gaoled for, so why not say it?
Thank you DV, The message is: keep focused Remember the subject is the BBC and its approach, not a general rant. Therein lies chaos. Sadly, the trolls and nutters are always with us.
Let’s not get carried away here. The most appalling bias the BBC perpetuates orbit around Islamic groveling and censorship, anti-Israeli sentiment, utter contempt towards Right-wing politics (both American and British) and global warming. To deny this list of loathsome bias is to be no better than the Rivita-eating, fair trade coffee-sipping chattering classes that permeate the BBC. If we are posting about any of the above then we must provide evidence if BBC complicity in foul bias. So long as we reference to support our claims, surely there be no problem
But: when posting, keep the angle of the complaint in mind. When being specific you win. When its just what you may hear from a pub bore, it ceases to be effective. The BBC reporting of Islam is fair game (eg: always playing the victim card, omissions from news reports, claiming equivalence between Islam and other religions). However a rant against Islam in general is not. I reply on Vance and chums to hold the line. And I thank them for holding back some of my comments dashed off in anger.
“Pub bores” are what is needed
They usually repeat what they hear from what they consider a trustworthy source (such as the BBC)
And do you think the BBC or any other media outlet cares about off topic, ranting or being specific? No, they don’t
Take David Beckham. 15 years ago he was very unpopular. Since then the media have mentioned him every chance they get, even in stories that have nothing whatsoever to do with him, and expressed none of the anger they usually hurl at rich people. As a result he’s wrongly seen as a national hero.
For this blog to be effective it needs to persuade the masses and it’s not going to do that by going along with journalists and sticking strictly to analysing their bias even though they have a much bigger audience
Persuade the masses about what?
To those commenters who are saying that there are too many posts about islam, and that it creates a perception that this site is far-right, have you considered that what the BBC is doing cuts both ways?
Sure, the BBC believes that its being PC, and tolerant, and liberal, and whatever else they like to think of themselves, but in the long run they are failing the demographic that they believe they are protecting. By creating such an obvious house of cards (around the ‘religion of peace’ bullshit), and denying and censoring any opposing viewpoints (even though its quite likely that such viewpoints are held by a majority of the people in the UK today), they are facilitating the build up of massive amounts of pent up rage. When this anger eventually (possibly sooner if we keep seeing tit-for-tat escalations over the next few days/weeks over Woolwich) boils over, it will be the law abiding muslims who will largely suffer, along with those immigrants who look like them or live in the same areas as them.
Either the BBC is so stupid that they can’t see this, or else this is the true establishment plan: to create a situation that allows for massive crackdowns, increases in governmental power, and possibly the scapegoating of an entire community. At this point in time, I still believe that what the BBC is doing is based on sheer stupidity, a group of left wing fantasists who believe that their mental model of how the world works can actually define reality, but as time passes and we see more and more the repercussions of the pandering that happens across all western countries (see Sweden for example, in day 7(!) of their riots) its becoming harder and harder to believe that they just don’t get it.
Oh they understand it alright but they have two very obvious problems!
Firstly they don’t have a clue what to do about it. Left wing ‘thinking’ is collectivised, it is derived from some kid in a pub dreaming up the most ridiculous policy they can imagine, then the rest of the group finding ways to justify it, and then spreading it around until it either gains credence or dies. Dealing with real problems has never been a strength of this system, so solutions are unlikely to come.
Socialists need to be spoon fed policies especially the BBC which merely repeats a commonly held view, to come up with a solution would require a step on their own which might lead to left wing criticism (can’t have that!)
Secondly to admit there was some kind of a problem rather than covering it up would be to admit their whole left wing philosophy was wrong! This would have the house of cards effect bringing doubt on virtually every other philosophy & belief.
There are now nearly 3 million Muslims in the UK a number which doubled under Tony BLiars Liebour term, annoy them and there’s no knowing what they might do. The BBC must be mindful of Sweden and the riots in the UK a decade ago.
The only people who can act are the government, but they’re not going to, two decades of socialism have seem to that!
Although I only pass occassional comments here, and usually fairly late in (my time zone) evening, I’d like to say that to my mind the best contributions are those that eschew the personal, refuse to get drawn into confrontations with provocative trolls, and above all retain both a sense of proportion and a sense of humour.
It is increasingly obvious to me, as a relatively new commentator here, that there are contributors whose purpose is to provoke the most strident backlash to their comments that they can; we are fools to fall into their traps, for all that they seek to achieve is to brand us as, in the phrase of the moment, ‘swivel eyed loons’.
True, many of us would like to see, and would actively become involved in, political campaigns to steer our country in a different direction
That is our right.
Let us not conflate that with our aim of pointing out, and bringing to a halt, the blatant bias and inherent leftism of a tax-payer funded broadcasting monolith. If you have to resort to personal insult, even in the face of severe provocation, that says more about you than it does the agent provocateur.
In view of what has happened over the last week or so (Bercow, Rigby) this has become a common thread for most people who run sites which allow comments.
It is indeed a tricky one for anyone who runs a site.
On the one hand, a lot of it is hot air, people looking to vent anger and if someone has a grievance, I would rather they get it off their chest by writing it on a blog than hacking some bloke’s head off in the street.
On the other hand, it does become “incitement to violence” which is the very thing that most of us abhor about the more radical Islamic “preachers” out there.
However, it must be understood that if people can stand on street corners and shout all kinds of incitement to violence with impunity then an anonymous blog commenter should expect the same lack of action.
Certainly the host of such comments should be even one step further removed.
At the end of the day, words never killed anyone but people acting on those words have.
It is the actions which need to be punished… severely.
BBC censorship is the problem.
Censorship of facts, thought and speech is proof that the BBC is left-wing.
Freedom of speech and a Free press used to be bound up with British Nationalism as did old fashioned national pride in Magna Carta and Habeas corpus.
I suppose the patriotic nationalist George Orwell would not have been a pro-EU, BBC Guardianista.
We seem to have lost our Human Rights with the introduction of the Human Rights Act, how very ORWELLIAN.
Michael Savage was playing ” There is no England now ” on his radio show, after the beheading of the British soldier by a muslim. The lyrics are kind of apt.
All the stories have been told
Of kings and days of old,
But there’s no England now.
All the wars that were won and lost
Somehow don’t seem to matter very much anymore.
All the lies we were told,
All the lies of the people running round,
They’re castles have burned.
Now I see change,
But inside we’re the same as we ever were.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBasdIOVY7c
To be honest Richard, it’s not just the BBC who are guilty of censoring bad news about Islamic criminal acts and terrorism, the whole of the Mainstream Media is at fault. Take a look at any of the other national news broadcasts and read any of the printed news media – they all seem reluctant to mention the common denominator of these acts. Even Melanie Phillips pulled her punches in her article in yesterday’s Daily Mail when she stated that the authorities have a “head-in-the-sand” approach to the dangers facing this country of Islamic terrorism.
It’s only to be expected that much of the media and respectable blogsites are running scared of the publishing or broadcasting of any honest opinions when the Police seem to have become self styled “witchfinders” who arrest anyone they feel has been insulting to the Religion of Peace. Read any of the American blogs and their commenters cannot believe that people are being arrested just for airing their opinions and are now comparing Britain to any other tin pot dictatorships which use government officials to crack down on dissenters.
Some of the more outrageous comments on BBBC last week were obviously the work of trolls and mobys attempting to encourage similar comments from regular contributors. I was glad the vast majority of the regulars criticised those extreme posts and challenged the posters.
I can understand David Vance’s worries about this site being labelled a hate site by Left-wing “pundits” eager for an excuse to undermine the blog, but he shouldn’t be ashamed to be called Right-wing. It’s been one of the Left’s successes to make the label “Right-wing” appear to be something that’s beyond the pale. In my opinion to be Right-wing is to want smaller government, less government intrusion into our daily lives, believes that the state shouldn’t be running everyone’s lives, shouldn’t be taxed out of existence and folk should be free to do, and say, whatever they want as long as their actions don’t have an adverse impact on others. That freedom should also extend to challenging views and actions without those challenges being labelled “hate crimes”.
In that respect, I’ll fully admit to being “Right-wing”. I’ve seen, and read enough history to know, the damage Left-wing politics has done to freedom and quality of life around the world. Left wing politics is as much a religion to its followers as the Islamic faith has its political dimension.
Like many who post here I look closely at BBC news and current affairs. My disenchantment with the BBC goes back to the early 1980s to the notorious Panorama programme which assembled a collection of lies in order to discredit the definition of brainstem death and transplant surgery. A distortion of scientific facts which continues in many of their forays into medicine and science.
However, in recent coverage of Islam, from the rape trials to the recent Greenwich atrocity, I am concerned that BBC bias – well documented on this blog – appears to be shared by most of the media, even if only in their closing down on comments. The same tune- true Muslims reject violence, far right are the danger, and so on. So I am asking whether the BBC is out of line, but merely singing from the same sheet, which to my way of thinking is government inspired. This is a subjective view and I am not attempting to back it up with numerous references.
It’s both. The BBC is out of line, and too much of the rest of the media – and your politicians – are indeed singing from the same disingenuous hymn sheet. However, only the BBC is your official national broadcaster with a deep cultural connection and legacy of trust spanning generations, from which the majority of the public get their information, drives the national news agenda, reaches the entire spectrum of audience demographics with its programming (all ages, drama, news, comedy, factual, etc.), is relentlessly expanding its influence worldwide, and for which you are forced to pay on penalty of law even if you never watch or listen to any of its output.
Lemming journalism is not a valid defense. The BBC claims the high moral ground, acts superior to all other news organizations because of its impartiality remit and respected legacy. They ought to be held to the higher standard they claim for themselves.
Well said, DV. The blog at times was degenerating into a recruitment campaign for EDL runawayers and anti-muslim rants.
Yer know, not every muslim is dedicated to setting up a global caliphate by any means necessary.
This is what some Iran Shiite Muslims (who carry out Islamic jihad against the West), think about some Saudi Arabian Sunni Muslims (who carry out Islamic jihad against the West):-
” Doctrine of Armed Jihad or Doctrine of Saudi Wahhabi Caliphate?”
http://abna.co/data.asp?lang=3&Id=422639
The bBC, Islamic terrorism nice people and half the story:
Full Sutton Prison warders injured in prison attack
Two warders have been attacked by three prisoners at a maximum-security jail. The incident on Sunday at Full Sutton Prison in East Yorkshire, lasted for four hours…A Prison Service spokeswoman said the warders received treatment for their injuries, which were not thought to be life-threatening. She would not confirm reports that one of the warders was held hostage and stabbed, or give details of the identities of the prisoners involved…..He said they would not comment further until the full facts were known but stated the incident highlighted the dangers faced by its members.
And here is what the bBC isn’t telling you:
Jailed Islamic extremists ‘stabbed and battered warder hostage after prison imam asked them to pray for murdered soldier Lee Rigby’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331919/Jailed-Islamic-extremists-stabbed-battered-warder-hostage-prison-imam-asked-pray-murdered-soldier-Lee-Rigby.html
Three jailed Islamic extremists stabbed a warder and beat him for four hours after the prison imam called on them to pray for murdered soldier Lee Rigby, it was reported last night.
How long before the The bBC demands that a law be set up that anybody who has thoughts which are negative towards Islam and its peaceful followers are to be not only to be sent to Coventry, but they are to be beheaded in public for offending the Prophet Mohammed.
The trio snatched the warder from E-wing at Full Sutton prison, near York, and held him hostage before stabbing him during a stand-off with guards.
The terrified victim, who is in his 30s, was locked in a cleaning room where he was also apparently beaten with mop handles and told he was going to die.
Interesting, while the bBC is still reporting:
“”Until the full facts of the incident are known, we do not wish to comment further for fear of compromising any police investigation.”
Of an incident which finished 16 hours ago.
I can report that the person who did the kidnapping and threatened to kill the prison warden was none other than
Parviz Khan, you know that Parviz Khan jailed for wanting to behead a British Muslim soldier in Birmingham.
To the management I clicked report comment by accident instead of reply.
Thanks Pounce. The new “Report” system I’ve put in works on the number of Flags received.
If a comment is flagged by enough readers (from independent IP addresses; you can’t just keep clicking) then it’ll go into Moderation and need to be revived. So the occasional accidental click won’t cause anything to happen.
I hope everyone uses the new functionality wisely and sensibly.
INBBC: its censorship for Islam.
‘Yorkshire Post’:-
“Muslim extremists hold Yorkshire prison officer hostage in Woolwich copycat attack”
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/general-news/muslim-extremists-hold-yorkshire-prison-officer-hostage-in-woolwich-copycat-attack-1-5714949
For INBBC, re-Islamic jihadist and Yorkshire prison:-
“SAVAGE JIHADIST JAILED FOR PLOTTING TO BEHEAD SOLDIER BRUTALLY BEATS PRISON GUARD”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/05/savage-jihadist-jailed-for-plotting-to-behead-soldier-brutally-beats-prison-guard.html#commenttelegraph
And the bBC goes even further in which to edit the news further to the above story on the atatck on a prison warden the bBC reports:
The men are not in prison for terror-related offences,
The BBC wants the viewer to think that the men may be EDL members, in prison for saying something illegal.
I’m very glad to see this post. I’m disappointed that it’s so long overdue, having drawn attention to threats of violence previously.
It’s disappointing that it appears to have taken a legal threat which could cause ‘trouble for owners and authors in their personal and professional lives’ for action to be taken.
Sorry what ‘threats of violence’ ? I have seen venting and angry words but nothing like that so can you link please serious !
I get the feeling this is more about the hit and run merchants perceiving any agitation in comments or any counter to their bilge as having carried ‘a potential threat of violence ‘ and nothing at all to do with any real threat of any thing !
Someone suggested we should burn some mosques down and I was accused of being a lefty when I challenged it. That comment has now been deleted.
Here’s one which hasn’t been deleted.
With 20 “likes”, no less. That goes some way demonstrating approval by the blog’s community.
Here’s one of many calls we’ve seen for mass deportation. Not deportation of radical imams or illegals, mind, but all of them:
OK lets get this straight before we descend into pettiness I asked for ‘threats of violence ‘ not comments about ‘deporting ‘ or general ‘I hates’ and I didn’t like that comment anyway so no it doesn’t represent my views so neither the whole community on this blog !
Now rightly deleted, but a long-term regular at B-BBC posted a comment saying that the only way to fight Islam is to wipe them out entirely and those like the BBC who defend them.
ROBERT BROWN has been commenting at B-BBC for some time. He’s not new. He condoned Breivik’s massacre in Norway here and has been posting comments on-and-off for ages. He called for mosques to be burnt and called Muslims “sub-humans”
DV’s post was spot on about these calls for violence:
“While anger about a given situation or issue is understandable, calls for violence are beyond the pale, and have no place on a blog with a specific purpose, as this one has. Furthermore, nobody has a right not to be criticized. If you don’t like being told your comment is out of line, go elsewhere. The internet is a vast space, plenty of room for you to say whatever your like out there.”
I hope David has your support here Mat.
I challenged someone calling themselves Robert Brown who advocating ‘burning out the sub humans’. (Yes he did use that phrase) I pointed out that such stuff was actionable and completely unacceptable. I have never seen a post from him before and the views were so extreme that I suspected it was a Moby attack.
I want this site to be one where I can interact with reasonable people and discuss social and political BBC bias. It seems that it is in danger of being ‘colonised’ by racists that hate muslims who are effectively closing off this site as one of the last vestages of resistence to BBC/Leveson enforcement of rightthink.
The Management should consider a formal registration policy; I am ashamed of some of the stuff I have read here, not just anti-muslim obsessives but really rabid homophobia and ad homs, and I really do not want to be associated with such material.
OK who is Robert brown ? is he a regular or just a hit and run ? I know dumb things have been said here but I also know that this site is getting hit by idiots and I want to see evidence it’s the community here not jerks!
how do you know its not someone POSING as a racist?
I don’t – hence my comment about a moby attack
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moby)
Nevertheless, if we are to be paranoid, given the preponderance of anti muslim raving appearing in the comments now, a large percentage of the comments must be coming from agents provocateurs just like the “Brotherhood” of followers of Emmanuel Goldsten in 1984 who were ALL Party members informing on each other. Or perhaps it is like the East Germany so beloved of the ‘democratic left’ (incl the BBC) where one in ten of the population was a Stasi informer.
I’m fairly sure there are some moby/trolls egging each other on to more and more extreme postings, congratulating themselves on the work done to discredit the site: especially this Robert Brown. However there is a fair levening of genuinly nasty material appearing here – irrespective of its provenance – and if we want to have access to a credible site that gets results and continues to address BBC bias then it has to be stopped, not least because it is wrong and wicked but also because this excludes large sawthes of the public from participating. For example I always try to make a point of supportung Scot who only posts on matters relating to the gay agenda – I don’t agree with his politcs or views but he gets savaged with some offensive and pointless ad hom attacks about his sexuality every time he posts here.
I recently posted about changing my name as a way of highlighting/satirising the absurdity of the apologetic’s that characterises both the ethos of the British political class and the the BBC. Whilst this post was not connected to any particular programme broadcast by the BBC, I feel it is legitimate to comment in this less specific way about he ethos that pervades the state broadercaster and how this is link to wider societal matter such as the dominance of academia and our culture by the ideology of liberal/left that came to prominence in the 1960’s and captured our institutions of higher education and from there spread throughout our society. There is an ideological perspective that links the bias of the BBC with wide societal issues.
Most of my posts are about Islam and Israel. However, I am equally occupied with the ‘climate change’ issue, welfare reform, the NHS, etc, in which the BBC shows a partisan interest. I write this because I feel it would be too narrow if every comment had to be about a specific instance of bias.
That said, DV you are absolutely right to criticise any call for violence and hatred. One cannot defend civilisation by a resort to the methods of barbarism.
Now I want to get back to why I visited the site today. This is not a criticism of bias by the BBC, but it is about a debate that occurred on a BBC current affairs programme. Dateline London had Amir Taheri , a Iranian Writer commenting on the implication for Muslims of the murder of Lee Rigby (it is about 8 minutes in). He is eloquent on the need for Islam to ‘detoxify’ itself. Amir is clear that it is for the Muslim community to take responsibility and to act to prevent the radicalisation of their youth. He speaks of the fact that Muslims living in the UK are not “emotionally” attached to the country they live in. The amazing thing is that Ian Birell, of the Daily Mail, responds as the apologist for Islam. So we have a ‘liberal Muslim’ speaking out and a British Juno attacking him. No change there. Where will the support for liberal Muslims come from? http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b021nbm3/Dateline_London_25_05_2013/
Maybe Mr Vance is cautious from previous experience. I did a quick Google search under the terms “David Vance racist” to see what came up, and it appears he has had a blog closed down because other people were posting racist material on it.
It would seem wise, therefore, that he should issue this caution, and it would equally seem beholden on those who use this site to pay heed to his advice as he is the one who will be held to account.
There is also too much overheated speech in debates amongst commenters, which often devolves into personal attacks, and actual discussion of the original issue is then abandoned. Thread after thread gets hijacked. This also serves as a distraction from the purpose of the blog, as critics can then cite a laundry list of personal points over and over again, instead of having to debate the issues at hand.
Didn’t take long for the comments to be littered with some people’s issues over Islam.
As far as I’m aware, islam has bugger all to do with the economic crisis we are still in, which is the main story effecting all our lives. With another round of cuts on the way, just how is this being reported? Biased or without any comment?
What is it with the Uk and the inability to call a spade a spade:
Morrison suspends a worker for wearing a help for heroes bracelet.
War memorial defaced by Muslims
Men arrested trying to break into cabin of Aircraft when it enters UK airspace
The Guardian (yes Guardian) closing down comments on its CIF MB on any article (mostly blaming whites) about the murder of Lee Rigby.
The whole media circus promoting the view that actually those who are getting hot under the collar over Islam are actually the reason why Muslims do what they do
Can somebody please explain to me , why defending an Intolerant faith is so important in the UK today
Pounce, I usually find myself in total agreement with everyting you post, indeed it was some of your contributions here that made me decide to post occassional comments, but I have to take issue with one point you make, and I do so as an ex-employee of Morrisons (not the greatest company to work for) and as a qualified chef who is quite often responsible for monitoring food safety.
My initial reaction was to be staunchly critical of Morrisons – until I read the story in depth.
The fact is that this man works with fresh food, an area where only the highest possible standards of food hygiene are permissible, in order to protect the customer from various sources of contamination. One of these potential sources, physical contamination, occurs when debris or other objects fall into food and are not recovered before the food is sold or prepared – it’s why we wear blue plasters over cuts, they’re easier to spot.
The rules at Morrisons, just as in any other supermarket, commercial kitchen or food processing area of any type, are there for very good reasons.
This man is absolutely correct, in my view, in his decision to honour a murdered British soldier – but he really can’t do that in a fresh-food handling environment. Sorry, it’s the law, and it’s good practice – or don’t complain when you find all sorts of detritus in your fresh food!
Never thought I would ever post anything in defence of Morrisons but there you go.
Second attempt,
John thanks for your missive regards the Morrisons story, at the time I wrote it I used the only paper which was reporting it and that was the local Potsmouth rag, They quote:
A SHOP worker has been suspended from his job after he wore items in tribute to Drummer Lee Rigby.
Adam Austin, 28, turned up to work at the Morrisons store, at Victory Retail Park, Landport, Portsmouth, yesterday wearing a poppy pin badge on his name tag.
He wanted to show his respect to the friends and family of Lee Rigby, a soldier who was murdered in Woolwich, south-east London, on Wednesday.
But he was left stunned after managers told him to take it off because it went against the dress code. He didn’t want to cause a fuss so accepted, but decided to put on a Help for Heroes bracelet instead. Mr Austin, who works on the store’s checkouts, was then told to leave after refusing to remove it.”
Seeing as they reported the story first and Morrison replied not with the fact he worked in food preparation but rather:
‘We currently ask that colleagues adhere to a company dress code which precludes bracelets and pins. However, we have reviewed these guidelines and colleagues working in non-fresh food preparation areas will now be permitted to wear a registered charity wristband.’
I would say I was justified in adding Morrison to the list.
The blog won’t accept the Postsmouth News URL. Do a google on
Morrisons worker suspended after wearing poppy and badge in memory of Drummer Lee Rigby
and pick the Portsmouth news article.
Is this the link?
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/morrisons-worker-suspended-after-wearing-poppy-and-badge-in-memory-of-drummer-lee-rigby-1-5137550
Thanks, for some strange reason i can’t post that link and my posts don’t load. Strange.
A little more information:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1160168/thumbs/o-MORRISONS-570.jpg?6
Contrasting yesterday’s report on the attack at a Grimsby mosque with the hostage-taking at the York prison: the details regarding the type of attack, against the mosque, were explicit – even had the journalist retrace the trajectory of the petrol bomb. Then we had the prison incident. It ws so economical with the truth I thought I’d entered a truth recession.
occasionally the bbcs sloppy reporting , lazy control on live shows can yield a small kernel of fact emerging.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01xpt5q/
(39mins)
I live in Cleethorpes, next to Grimsby… That mosque used to be host for a youth club which I had been to a few times in my teenage years…. I live about half a mile away from it now…. TBH I think that there will be more to come… The local people here don`t like having a mosque in the town, and it is very close to some of the worst nieghbourhoods in the town, some of which even the police do not enter after dark unless they absolutely have no choice… grimsby is very much like Scunthorpe (Skint Docu C4) apart from the fact that there is no Muslim community here… We are very tolerant of European migrants as in the past Grimsby was home of the largest deep sea fishing fleet in the world until the Cod Wars of the seventies and EU fishing laws effectively closed it down.. Many Scandanavian fishermen put roots down here and so Grimsby is very Scandanavian in some ways, in fact the only significant ethnic section of Grimsby is Danish or of danish origin… My mother who lives in N.Ireland since leaving grimsby to go back home lives there with a Dane, who she was with during my early childhood and he brought me up till the age of ten, she remarried and after my stepfather died a few years ago met the Dane again by chance and they got back together again… He himself decided that he would like to go to live in N.Ireland with my mother after she decided to return back to the place she came from. He said he didn`t want to return to Denamark, he had lived in Grimsby for about forty years and has dual nationality, he said the way Muslims act in Denmark is a disgrace and he doesn`t wish to go back even after the fishing industry was wiped out.. He told me that all the Danes he knew had stayed in the town becouse of the same reason he gave… About a fifth of Grimsbys` population is of Scandanavian origin even now.. We are very very tolerant of them becouse they fit in and apart from a slight accent are impossible to tell apart from everyone else… I find it slightly ironic that a Dane would choose to move to N.Ireland ( Sectarian Capitol of Europe) where even now terrorists still cause problems based on religious beliefs rather than return home becouse of Islamic violence….. There is no surpise that this has happened here, it will gather momentum, I have a feeling that some of the youths who petrol bombed the mosque were grandkids of ex fishermen who were angry and also Chavs off the Nunsthorpe estate which is along with the west Marsh home to some of the worst people in the UK… MacIntyre tried to do a live documentary there afew years back and were harrassed so badly they had problems just being on the streets of the town due to a small number of Chavs throwing bricks, Sshitparcels… and other stuff over the Police barricades around the filmcrew areas… They even started charging the at police at one point and they ended up filming most of the three day duration inside the local Police sub station that had been built on the estate a year before…. The fact is, Grimsby isn`t Muslim friendly, I don`t think it ever will be and I am glad of that, and for once the Scum of my town is actually doing something good… Wait for next weeks Friday prayers meeting…. I have a feeling it will happen again…… The decent people of our town can finally breathe a sigh of relief….. Usually we are the targets of their criminal behaviour and if they can find someone else at which to channel thier criminality in my opinion then alls good…. I am not a racist, Islam is a doctrine it is not a race, I am not a BNP member as my parents were Irish and Nick Griffin doesn`t like the Irish…. However I am very concerned that recent peadophile gangs have been found in Scunthorpe and the way the BBC has covered this up is not good!! I have daughters and grandkids and I fear for thier safety becouse the BBC is not reporting these types of crimes properly… I used to seel Double Glazing in and around Scunthorpe in 1992-94 and I know that part of the town is 100% Muslim and my boos used to warn us from going there…. The entire area was nothing like the rest of the town, it was an awful place, and very very anti white… Grimsby doesn`t want these people and see closing that mosque as a step to ensuring it doesn`t happen here…. Grimsby is a real shithole far worse in every respect than Scunthorpe yet I would rather live here than in Scunthorpe cos at least I know that my kids will be safe from predators and Islamic problems…..
I would like to make a suggestion to help make the site appear more balanced than it does at times.
I notice now that the only threads that have tags or categories attached are those by David Preiser. The rest are left as uncategorised, which is a pity.
First for ease of searching specific topics of bias that we cover from the ‘category’ links on the side of the webpage, and find the most recent threads on a particular subject.
Second to better streamline comments to specific threads rather than be spread throughout, which in times following an incident such as we had with Lee Rigby, becomes rather saturated.
I would also suggest when there is already a thread related to a particular area of bias in any given week, that further threads on the subject be kept inside the main one, instead of added one on top of the other.
Spot the difference
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-22685382
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331919/Terror-police-called-prison-warder-held-hostage-attacked-Muslim-inmates-asked-pray-soldier-Lee-Rigby.html
No mention of motive from the BBC.
I am an occasional contributor to this blog and did not comment on the BBC’s coverage of the sad event last week. But, I understand the position that this blog is in. Script kiddies would be the least of your worries. I appreciate the efforts of “The Management” in maintaining this blog.
The BBC should be independent, impartial and honest. It may be independent of the government, but it is not impartial, and it is not honest. It actively, through its actions (or deliberate inactions), promotes political views that influence this country to a great extent. For an organisation that supplies 47% of the news consumed in Britain (Enders Analysis), that is very wrong.
The event of the last week is one consequence of a decade long attempt to gerrymander the electorate. The BBC’s dishonest and partial policy was to be complicit. It had successfully attenuated the awareness of the British people to what was going on. Also, it helped to turn pertinent aspects of argument into effective no-go areas. It is reasonable to argue that the position this blog finds it is in, on this subject, is (to some extent) a direct result of BBC bias.
The Left wonder why British people have expressed their anger over the bloody thirsty murder of a British soldier by 2 black Muslims on the streets of London. Here is one such example from the bBC:
Woolwich: Michael Adebowale discharged from hospital
One of the men shot by police in the wake of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby has been discharged from hospital and moved into custody in a south London police station, Scotland Yard has said.
Ok, I can accept the above, then the bBC gets all shy and coy about these two men.
Drummer Rigby was repeatedly stabbed in the street by two men, witnesses have said.
Which two men bBC? Which they then follow by this crap:
Mr Adebowale, from south-east London, and Mr Adebolajo, 28, were shot and injured by police at the scene near Woolwich Barracks on Wednesday. They have been under police guard in hospital.
Typical white racist Police, they have nothing better to do that shoot innocent black men who just happen to be promoted as victims by the bBC.
The bBC, the traitors within our midst
This is a great blog, I grew up where I first knew of the BBC through shortwave radio, this was 20, 30 years ago. Back then, they were thought to be one of the best neutral sources for International stories and I detect the pendulum has indeed swung.
So, I am watching the news and at 2244hrs this evening the bBC tickertape mentions that a prison officer was attacked by 3 Muslim inmates. I’ve checked Ceefax (or whatever it is called now)and nothing about the faith I’ve checked the bBC news webpage..nothing. So lets look at this in more detail.
1) While everybody else is reporting that 3 Islamic inmates attacked a prison warden who used to be in the army, the bBC has reported nothing of the above.
2) The vast majority of people will watch the News at 2200hrs and will have switched off at around 2230hrs.
3) By publishing the religion of the attackers at such a late time the bBC has ensured that those who only get their news from the bBC know nothing about the reasons behind this latest attack.
4) That people is how the bBC whitewashes the news in which to ensure that people are brainwashed into thinking that Islam can only be a religion of peace.
Welcome to the Ministry of Truth.
I forgot to mention, the story has been in the headlines all day. The bBC alone out of all the rest of the media has refused to mention who was kidnapped (An ex soldier) and who did so. By reporting the facts at such a late time, most people will have heard about the story and will find no need to return in which to find the facts behind it.
A little confused on this matter , wonder if somebody can help me. The bBC is using Mozzam (I hate Non-Islamic people) Begg as a so called voice of reason. Yet the bBC quotes his org as:
Cageprisoners Ltd,
My question is can a charity be a Ltd company?
And INBBC was propagandising on Radio 4 ‘PM’ today (after about 5 mins in) for Muslim ‘Cage Prisoners’ outfit in relation to Islamic jihad Woolwich murder.
And a ‘Jihadwatch’ link of 2011-
“Jihadis who planned to attack newspaper that published Motoons had links with jihad network in Britain”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/jihadis-who-planned-to-attack-newspaper-that-published-motoons-had-links-with-jihad-network-in-brita.html
Once a charity becomes bigger than a couple of people, you need limited status protect individuals from the liabilities that the charitable activity might generate. It’s better to limit by guarantee because the lack of shares means the ownership can’t be easily transferred.
Being limited by guarantee does not confer the tax exempt status that a charity enjoys, so you need both.
The Charities Commission website has a whole section about this and if you need more detailed info then I went through this with a charity I co-run so I can bore to Olympic standard when required.
i see censorship is on its way,this site and simmilar dont have long left. make the most of it people cos thats the way its going. no more free speech unless it fits the lefty agenda. i give up on this country and luckily im able to move away but good luck to the brits that are left because something sinister is occuring. the bbc is the modern day equivilent of the nazi party.
The way to beat censorship is so adopt the way of the enemy. Most Islamic groups host their websites in foreign lands where they can’t be touched. But then all the left (Including the bbC) have to do is slander you by saying you belong to the EDL and thus you can only be evil.
Murder people in public and the bBC will ensure you are cast only as a victim
Good to see the bBC promoting the line that the Woolwich killers are victims of MI5 and there leis the reason why they decided to murder for Allah.
The bBC the propaganda arm for intolerant racist bigoted Islam
I see the bBC has worked it’s magic regards the prison story after breaking the news that the attackers were Muslims the story has all but disappeared from the bBC web site,
good old bBC, gettin in some post Rigby black propaganda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22691655
I have been an irregular contributor but a frequent reader of Biased BBC over the last few years and would just like to add my support to what David Vance has written.
I usually find this site entertaining, often informative, occasionally provocative and worth the time to visit. I do not listen or watch the BBC much these days – I have a low boiling point – so it does keep me posted as to what is going on in that ivory fortress known as Broadcasting House.
One down side has been the occasion when posts slide into abuse. It is common to the internet or the blogosphere or whatever it is called. There should be no place for that. Reasoned debate is essential but when passions run high we can all lose a bit of control. Some take it too far. They should be banned.
And posts should highlight BBC related bias. That is only proper. Yet things will inevitably drift beyond the Corporation because that tax payer funded institute of privilege is one of the pillars of the establishment, an establishment colonised by “progressives”, as they like to describe themselves. They have an agenda to push.
Some have said that there is censorship at BBBC. If there is then that is because of the world we now inhabit. This site, and its contributors not only face abuse from “progressives” for daring to challenge the BBC and its output but these same people would gleefully report any “hate crime” to the authorities given half a chance.
It will be a long hard road to turn back the tide of PC fascism. BBBC plays its part in keeping those concerned by tax payer funded “progressive” propaganda informed.
I can remember a time when the BBC was excellent. Yes, perhaps a slide did begin with Hugh Carlton Greene in the sixties and not just in what programmes were produced.
Yet in the early seventies the BBC would be criticised by the left for producing a favourable documentary on Ted Heath (Mr Heath’s Quiet Revolution – 1970) and a damning one on Harold Wilson and his Government (Yesterdays Men – 1971). What price such an recurrence now?
Through the eighties there seemed to be an endless slide to the left. Frustration became anger when I finally saw first hand the way the BBC slant news reporting to follow a particular line.
Critics of this site complain that other media are biased. The point is those organisations are not funded by a private tax. If I want to buy the Daily Telegraph why should I give a fee to the Guardian? Would anyone supporter a newsprint tax to fund that paper?
The BBC enjoy a ludicrously privileged position in our society. No wonder the left covet it and defend it. It is the leading mouth piece of “progressive” twaddle.
I expect that such a comment would produce a few angry attacks from leftists ever fearful that without a licence fee the entire broadcasting landscape will be dominated by something called “Fox News”.
Well BBC stands out against that tide and the leftist mob. If it is to continue to do so it cannot be taken over by the angry brigade using it for sinister ends.
Power to your elbow BBBC.
“Would anyone supporter (sic) a newsprint tax to fund that paper?”
The man who “saved the world” (aka – Gordon Brown) suggested something close to that at the end of his Leveson appearance. His brilliant idea was that the TV Licence could fund newspapers challenged by falling subscriber numbers – like The Guardian.
The Guardian is already soft-funded by the TV Licence. There is the funding from adverts for BBC jobs which tend only to appear, on newsprint, in The Guardian, More subscriptions of The Guardian (than any other paper) are bought by the BBC for its staff. When I catch BBC radio programmes such as The Media Show, invariably it includes one Guardian hack interviewing another.
Some of you seem to be permanently retired or out of work fixtures on this blog. What I can see and hear from a long distance is that you have achieved nothing except having a useless platform for your own egos, I.e.,
the BBC is still there turning out a load of drivel surpassed only by your own inane chicken tracks!
I see the BBC is back in its comfort zone with news that the British army is detaining 80 or so Afghans. Top billing too.
A reprise from another B-BBC thread:-
Afghanistan.
Is INBBC defending critics of British troops, and not supporting British troops?
INBBC:-
“UK confirms extended detentions of up to 90 Afghans.”
INBBC report, critical of British troops, contains these words:-
“Lawyers for the men, whom the BBC has chosen not to name over fears for their safety”…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22699473
As I have pointed out reasoned debate is essential but abuse of other is uncalled for. Those that do so should be banned.
Test