44 Responses to TROLLS

  1. Roland Deschain says:

    Quite right. And people who insist on mentioning the trolls before they have even posted don’t help.


    • Guest Who says:

      I confess I may have mentioned one once, but didn’t get away with it. Rules are rules.
      Speaking of which, as Irony Failure No. 2 has emerged blinking into the weekend sunlight, I hope I am allowed to tease just a smidge now.
      Back on topic, here are some editted highlights of key BBC Rules, which rather clearly fall apart daily on FaceBook:

      Names may be failed if they…

      Appear to impersonate someone else
      Contain swear words or are otherwise objectionable

      We reserve the right to fail comments which…

      Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others
      Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable
      Contain swear words or other language likely to offend
      Are seen to impersonate someone else

      Are considered to be “spam”, that is posts containing the same, or similar, content posted multiple times

      Are considered to be off-topic for the blog discussion

      Repeatedly posting personal or offensive comments about individual members of the public or people who work for the BBC may be considered harassment. We reserve the right to remove such messages and take action against those responsible.

      There’s lots more. Basically, stray and you are modded, no argument. Do it big time, or a few times, and you are toast. Their House; Their Rules.

      Currently on BBC FaceBook pages the mods seem either slow, absent or oddly selective.

      Maybe someone should pop over and suggest some more, or new rules?


  2. Maturecheese says:

    Good advice by DV, we should all heed it for the sake of this site.


  3. johnnythefish says:

    Their contributions are random and facile. They bring nothing to the party as they leave the meaty examples of bias – the overwhelming majority of postings on here – well and truly alone.


  4. Demon says:

    I personally would be happy to see them argue the case for the BBC and other left wing causes as it would be interesting hearing the opposing points of view, but when they do come they resort to personal abuse (Scotty and Dezi in particular). I actually asked recently where they had got to because I hadn’t seen their rubbish for a while and suspected BBC Control was planning something. Scotty didn’t reply to my post but resorted to his personal abuse when he did finally respond to someone else.


  5. Demon says:

    As I stated, I would love to see the Beeboids actually argue the points raised but instead they come on and avoid debate, they just throw pointless red herrings about. See above.


  6. Wild says:

    The above post by Albaman does little other than express how much he hates the people on this site. Yeah yeah, we are just sycophants and haters of free speech. Now back to documenting the self-serving propaganda of the BBC.


    • johnnythefish says:

      When you look at the number of good people banned or semi-banned by the BBC for their views on AGW and anything else that doesn’t fit with the Islington chattering class eco-socialist world view, it’s pretty clear who is public enemy No 1 of free speech.


    • Wild says:

      You are just confirming the point Albaman. Nothing about the BBC just more about yourself. Yeah yeah, you think people here are sycophants and haters of free speech. Yeah, yeah, there is only love in your heart. Anything to say about the bias of the BBC?


      • Albaman says:

        You merely repeat your rant of 3.01 pm. I addressed your points in my post of 3.25 pm.

        Have you anything to add or are you just going to keep repeating yourself?

        As far as I can see there is nothing about the BBC in your comments.

        There are things on the BBC that I disagree or take issue with. However, the fact that I disagree does not necessarily evidence any bias on their behalf.

        It would be a pretty boring world (and Biased BBC Blog) if we all had the same point of view on everything.


        • Wild says:

          Still waiting for something from you about the BBC instead of talking about yourself. Has the BBC coverage of the Scottish independence vote on BBC Scotland been fair and balanced? I presume you watch or listen to the BBC.


          • Albaman says:

            Comments here suggest that the BBC is pro independence. This ignores the fact that there have been protests outside the BBC’s Glasgow studio by those who consider their stance to be anti- Independence.

            Looking at any report or broadcast individually you could provide evidence to support either view. Taking a holistic view I have no real complaints about the coverage.


    • Will Jones says:

      It’s not a problem of free speech. With Scott it’s a problem of free abuse. 90% of his posts contain ad hom. attacks on other posters and usually are very thin on refutation of their points.


  7. John Anderson says:

    That is a stupid comment Albaman, and you know it. We choose to come here because it gives an opportunity to criticise the myriad examples of BBC bias. We often bring our own examples of this bias, I for one have been bringing lots of examp0les this past month on Gaza.

    And some of us were using this site long before Mr Vance came along. We have out own independent views. The fact you disagree does not mean that we are somehow marching to someone else’s drum.

    Troll behaviour is avoidance of real debate and deliberate stirring up of trouble – for instance by criticisng everyone who uses the site as if they are all as one. That is – general denunciation of everyone else. You seem to indulge in this pattern of behaviour quite a bit, but you are not the worst.

    Oh – and one general criticism that trolls here throw around is to suggest that we are an ignorant uncouth rabble. That is a deliberate insult without cause. I for one have a higher degree , Mensa level IQ !!! and lots of hard-won real-world experience and education, and it is stupid for trolls of limited world experience or clearly limited and warped intelligence to suggest otherwise. There are people here who clearly know more history and politics than any of the trolls.


    • Richard Pinder says:

      From my experience, any mention of that M word, would set off a John Anderson doppelganger troll.

      See above BBC rule: Names may be failed if they…Appear to impersonate someone else.

      And yes, there never is any challenging substance in a post by a troll.


    • Albaman says:

      ” ……………. it is stupid for trolls of limited world experience or clearly limited and warped intelligence to suggest otherwise”

      Is this not a “general criticism” and a “deliberate insult without cause”?


      • Guest Who says:

        ‘Is this not a “general criticism” and a “deliberate insult without cause”?’
        It was directed at trolls. Un-named. Quaint to place such an entity on par with an entire forum group they exist to disrupt.
        And hardly robust in description by any measure anyway. But for someone who can describe Wild’s comment above as a ‘rant’ anything must be possible to come from viscera to keyboard by shortcutting brain. Or if staggering past it, the air up upon that outraged high horse must be pretty rarified.
        Continually going off topic to try and associate someone’s historical posts elsewhere with what inspires factual debate here amongst others is plain daft.
        Interesting though where you appear to place yourself, at least in clear empathy, though.
        Cap fitting-wise.


    • Pounce says:

      John Anderson wrote:
      Oh – and one general criticism that trolls here throw around is to suggest that we are an ignorant uncouth rabble. That is a deliberate insult without cause. I for one have a higher degree , Mensa level IQ !!! and lots of hard-won real-world experience and education, and it is stupid for trolls of limited world experience or clearly limited and warped intelligence to suggest otherwise.

      You make a good point there John. We’ve just come back from a dinner with friends and we started talking about people. My background is abused child, joined the army made good. I leant at an early age that people only throw abuse that personally effected them. And I very quickly learnt that the reason they do so is because they do so is because usually they are scared or unsure of themselves in the environment they are currently in.
      I also quickly learnt that it is far better to have a friend than an enemy and so coming up through the ranks I quickly gained a reputation of being able to get the most out of people (usually the cast off nobody else wanted) by treating them as human beings. I know I am only as strong as my weakest link, thus my weakest link had to be as strong as me. Being able to see people for what they are and utilising them for their own strengths is a start. Showing them loyalty and respect is another. People couldn’t understand why I had no problem with Homosexuals and I by showing them I saw them as normal people (which they are) I found I couldn’t find a more loyal bunch of people.
      However on the otherside of the coin , I quickly worked out, what affected people. (The only positive side from been a physically abused child is you learn to read peoples emotions) So for people like our resident Troll. I started referring to him as a racist. One simple word and boy did it get under his skin, he would spend an inordinate amount of time trying to clear his name. (Including posting at 1 in the morning , followed by another at 5am) The irony is, People like him are racist, but against their own kind. To them British people can only be racist, and thus should be made to carry a cross of guilt for everything that has transpired since the Ice Age. This myopic mindset allows them overlook everything that is happening around the world and somehow blame the victim.
      I’ve also noticed that their SOP is to silence anybody who questions them, in the ethereal world of the media, they character assassinate their opponents. The thing is with people like me, Is I don’t care what people think of me. In the real world I have no problem sleeping on a night. (Much to the annoyance of Mrs Pounce who has a habit of ruminating all night over the smallest problem) If I really was annoyed by some troll, I would have no problem seeking him out, and ensuring he ate food for the rest of his life through a straw. It’s as simple as that. I can’t be doing with this penchant of playing the eternal victim. Do something about it in which to rectify the situation. I tell my people don’t come to me with problems, come to me with solutions. It works. In doing so I make them a stronger part of the team by getting them to look at the situation in hand.
      Unfortunately this penchant of not being responsible for your own actions is prevalent throughout British society. Today you can never be guilty of anything you do, it is always somebody else’s fault. People would be surprised by the amount of cases where I have to reprimand my juniors for their behaviour . That’s just it, I am in a position where I have to act the adult. Take for example last weekend, troops on the piss partying to 4am in the morning keeping others awake. They weren’t happy with how I not only ripped them a new one for keeping others awake, but ensured that they were given tasks in which to teach them not to do it again. We don’t have such discipline in civy street. But in f—king them around, they quickly learnt not to cross the line and because of this others get a decent nights sleep. Yet to the left, I am out of order and disrespected the human rights of the partying people.
      Anyway its late and need to get my head down. Just really glad somebody has decided to remove the Trolls posts.


  8. dave s says:

    Free speech is the rule in my opinion and if that means trolls then so be it.
    I do not like pointless insults. I have no objection to being insulted with style.
    Boring dissections of a person’s sexuality add nothing to any argument. I have no interest in a poster’s sexual preferences or dislikes.
    I did notice that a comment I made about the blessed J Ross seems to have vanished. I thought I was being polite.


    • Andy S. says:

      I agree, Dave S. I couldn’t give a damn about someone’s sexual preference as long as they engage in reasoned argument. What I DO object to is someone who uses their sexuality to denigrate, abuse or make allegations of homophobia because others may not agree with their arguments or abusive conduct. There are circumstances where being polite about their conduct is not an option. As long as no laws are broken, despite the desperate claims of certain people who accuse contributors of the various “isms” or “phobias”, then strong words can be appropriate.

      Trolls only appear on this site, and others they profess to loathe, in order to spread the hate they feel for those who don’t share their views. They can’t help themselves.


  9. Roland Deschain says:

    It’s been my experience that if someone comes on here to challenge the view that the BBC is biased, the debate will usually be civil providing they appear to be arguing in good faith. That’s not to say that some will not resort to insults straight away: it is unfortunately the way of the internet on an anonymous forum. Which is not condone such behaviour but it’s naive in the extreme to come onto a site whose views you oppose and expect otherwise. If they continue to put their point in good faith there is likely to be an interesting exchange of views.

    However there are those who clearly come on not to debate but to obfuscate and obstruct. They know who they are. They can have no complaint when they are called out on it. At that point it’s a bit rich to cry foul. However it derails the site when people keep responding. One reply to the effect that they are trolls and will not be spoken to is all that is needed. They only return because of the effect they have in derailing things – it’s certainly not because they like a healthy debate.


  10. Sickofitall says:

    If everyone just played the ball and not the man, it would be OK. Just leave out the ad hominen stuff. I am a relative newcomer to this site but one thing I have noticed is a distinct lack of robustness when it comes to counter arguments of BBC bias. All the noise from the opposite side is mostly personal so shouldn’t be risen to.


    • Jeff Waters says:

      ‘If everyone just played the ball and not the man, it would be OK. Just leave out the ad hominen stuff.’


      And also leave out the verbal slaps.

      If Scott imagined he was speaking to one of his liberal left mates when explaining why he disagrees with particular posts, and was polite and constructive, I think his posts would be welcomed by many people. Personally, I love debate and being challenged to think about my assumptions – I just don’t like being talked down to…



  11. George R says:

    I think David Vance has hit on a good way of dealing with trolls:
    -keep one thread permanently on this topic of ‘Trolls’ so that all their ‘Comments’ can be shifted to it.


    • Guest Who says:



    • Guest Who says:

      Maybe the thread could be named ‘Our Posts’, so they need not be deleted but simply move there for ‘them’ to discuss with each other how for example creating threatening, person-playing ad hom bile really helps persuade anyone to support ‘them’?

      Another possible title is ‘Careful What You Wish For’, because if accumulating ‘evidence’ of free-speaking extremes can be used to close down humble independent blogs, then it can also be used to close down entities that carry worse on public sector media estates.

      That’s the trouble with legal precedent. Selectivity can slip away once the genie is out the bottle.

      BBC World News on FaceBook has enough in a day to get the BBC closed within a week on this basis.


  12. Will Jones says:

    Sorry Scott. I just looked up “troll” In the dictionary and your avatar came up.


  13. Rod says:

    Quelle Surprise , DV has baited the trap ,& up it pops . Can`t be much going on in the Musical Theatre world today.


  14. David Brims says:

    Block Twinkle Toes, problem solved.


  15. Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

    Have I not been advocating this for ever?


  16. Disgusted of Essex says:

    To quote one of our wombling trolls…

    “Oh. My. God.

    I have my own thread on Digital Spy. My life is complete, and I can now truly die a happy man.”

    Just swap Biased BBC for Digital Spy. I’d do it but it’d accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting the facts.


  17. hippiepooter says:

    I think a definition of a troll is someone who is just out to wind people up because he bears animosity towards them for not seeing the world the way he does. I think that’s certainly the case with Scott. He comes here because he feels threatened by a site that is against the bias he’s in favour of.

    I couldn’t care less he doesn’t see the world the way that I do, but his world view prevailing depends on BBC bias skewing the terms of debate, and that’s not democracy, and Scott is not a democrat. No troll is.

    The way certain people come back at him though with the same mentality he displays demonstrates that what they object to is that the BBC isn’t biased in their favour.

    Democrats seek an objective and impartial BBC that reserves bias for totalitarians and terrorists.


    • just sayin' says:

      i think Scott only posts here because he is a BBC wannabe. He’s hoping that if someone from the BBC sees him here trying to defend the Buggering British Children Corporation they might give him a job at the beeb. Maybe he’ll land lucky and get a job working on doctor who. Maybe he can write an episode about non racist gay cybermen who adopt a darlek when daleks are blamed for global warming because of their emissions


  18. stuart says:

    trolls in my view is a good thing for democrasy,as scott in this blog has proved many times, i dont believe in blocking far left haters and islamists of the uk like scott and his isis mates,dont block scott from any website.just expose him and his lefist anti semetic.pro hamas.pro isis rotten ignorant bastards for what they are,get the drift scott and the swp.


  19. Barlicker says:

    If there are dogs that bark when you prod them with a stick and you don’t want them to bark, stop prodding them with a sodding stick!!!


  20. Mark says:

    Arguing with a troll is like wrestling with a pig in shit. After a while you realise the pig enjoys it.

    Trolls on this site hope for an ad hominem attack, knowing that they can then play the offended self-righteous victim. From there they can claim the moral high ground before posting indignantly to CiF and saying what a nasty, intolerant site bBBC is.


  21. johnnythefish says:

    See my post above.

    More regular engagement in defence of the BBC’s apparently indefensible positions on major issues might do you some good rather than the odd and, more often than not, trivial interjection.

    I am not in favour of banning people or removing posts unless they are grossly offensive, as they will be judged by what they write and, at the end of the day, there is always the option of ignoring them. ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it’. Or somesuch.


  22. Jose Cymru says:

    Speaking of trolls please tell me this site is a Clint Heine free zone, he’s not even very good at trolling but persists in feeble attempts at it.


  23. ROBERT JONES says:

    Do we have an ignore button here?


  24. Guest Who says:

    Not a unique phenomenon of course:
    Have to say that it didn’t take long for the irony failure brigade to kick in there too.


  25. Wessexman says:

    I must say, even though I’m an arch-traditionalist who thinks the BBC has a consistent, if soft, left-liberal bias, I wouldn’t have said they were particularly biased in favour of Scottish Independence.