Islamic ‘Institutional’ Homophobia? Not On The BBC



Images from ISIS purport to show two men being thrown from a tall building in Nineveh, Syria- their crime was being gay



Have you seen the reports of ISIS executing people for being gay?  Not on the BBC….nor it might be added has the caring Media Hasan made any comment despite his opportunistic and disengenuous little tweet here:


mh  gays  not


And he is outraged at blood being spilled in the name of the prophet….

bbc  qt tweet  hasan


….Just, it seems, not ‘gay blood’.

Perhaps he’s not got over his youthful homophobia….

As a Muslim, I struggle with the idea of homosexuality


I’m sure he’s on his knees right now praying for gay people.

Still, good to see the BBC still have room for the odd comic charlatan to bring a bit of light relief to Question Time….no time though to report on the horrific killings of these gay people.  Why not?

Hasan gets a free ride on the BBC.  Outside the BBC he has a reputation for hypocrisy and lies as well as for his Islamist rants denouncing the Kafir.  About time the BBC did some due diligence and started to question just what does Hasan really believe as a devout, fully believing Muslim and allow people to see him for what he really is rather than letting him pose as the reasonable voice of the ‘alienated’ Muslim community…and think about this…Hasan is a Shi’ite…Shias do produce images of Muhammed….so his public stance against the cartoons is pure show biz…or blatant hypocrisy and political opportunism…..




When it suits the BBC doesn’t like to raise difficult subjects if it shows their favoured groups in a bad light…remember when Hamas slaughtered Fatah members in Gaza, some thrown off buildings?  The BBC dismissed the massacre as Hamas merely ‘flushing out the corrupt and violent Fatah’.  


Then there is this guy, long time convert, Dr Abdal Hakim Murad…what does a respected Islamic scholar have to say about homosexuality?:

“INEXPLICABLE ABERRATION”: Cam Lecturer Slates Homosexuality
1st May 2013
Divinity Faculty lecturer Tim Winter labels homosexuality an “inexplicable aberration” in a hastily removed YouTube video.
An eight-minute clip of [Dr Abdal Hakim Murad] ‘Tim Winter’, a Cambridge lecturer and a Director of Studies at Wolfson College, has gone viral on Facebook after he referred to homosexuality as an “inexplicable aberration”

The clip appears to have been taken from his recent DVD, Al-Ghazali on Disciplining the Soul, in which Winter, a practicing Sufi Muslim, discusses at length the Sharia’s  “emphatic, unqualified condemnation and prohibition of all forms of homosexual behaviour”.

From the Daily Mail:

Drawing from the Sharia but expressing his own personal opinion, Winter, also known as Abdal Hakim Murad, refers to homosexuality as a “denial of [our] manifest creative purpose”, labelling it the “ultimate inversion”.
He goes on to refer to homosexuals as “ignorant people…[who] don’t understand what their bodies are for”.
He adds, “How ignorant can you get? Even the animals know”.

[He said] homosexual acts were an ‘extreme defiance of Allah’.
He went on to compare gay people to smokers, affirming that practising homosexuality is more dangerous than smoking.
‘There is a great war against cigarette smoking but there is no campaign at all against the vice of the people of Lut [ie people of Sodom, or homosexuals]’



The good Dr Abdal Hakim Murad also, of course, has something to say about recent events…apparently the killing of cartoonists who offend him and his fellow ideologists is, well, uncontroversial…but sanctioned by, not the Koran, but the Bible!…

Scorning the Prophet goes beyond free speech – it’s an act of violence


He invokes the Bible, it’s second Commandment, as a defence for the killers….

Muslims believe in every jot and tittle of the Second Commandment. We are to make no graven images of any living thing, irrespective of whether such images might or might not lure the unwary into idolatry. Orthodox Judaism and many Protestant churches have been similarly direct in following this biblical injunction.


Funny thing…can’t find any mention of the second Commandment in the Koran….indeed no injunction on making graven images of the prophet at all.

It is an irony that a Muslim has to invoke the Bible to defend Islam…and telling porkies in the process to do so…..below are the verses in the Koran that mention the Ten Commandments…or rather some of the Commandments…notably missing is the second one….

The Quran speaks of them in verses 6:151-153 and verses 17:23-39….it commands you to worship one God only but it says nothing about graven images.  Sorry about that.

Now Muslims may or may not ‘ believe in every jot and tittle of the Second Commandment’  but it ain’t in the Koran.

Ironically the Islamic scholar that he is dismisses the murders as…‘ the acts of criminals with troubled pasts and little religious knowledge, and have been condemned by a rare show of unity among Muslim leaders in France and worldwide. ‘  Can’t say much for his own knowledge.

But, again, ironically,  he says this…‘ it would be easy to dismiss this as yet another tragic case of fringe elements trampling on the teachings of the mosques.’

And yet that is exactly what he does.

And then he really gets on the victim bandwagon telling us that the cartoons were outrageous, an act of war he implies,  just another log on the fire stoked under long suffering Muslims by rampant Islamophobes who stalk Europe hunting down Muslims…

It was received, and rightly so, as a deliberate insult to an already maligned and vulnerable community.

Mosque burnings and a raft of legal disadvantages are increasingly a fact of life for Muslims in Europe.


er..hang on…who just killed 10 cartoonists and 4 Jews, and 3 police officers?  And just where do the Jews fit into this ‘rampant Islamophobic’ atmosphere that needs such a violent response from Muslims?  What exactly did those Jews do to French Muslims?  Oh, you know what, he doesn’t mention them at all.

Here’s the funny equation….Muslims launch terrorist attacks on Europe in the name of Allah, the response by Charlie Hebdo is to draw some cartoons….the Muslims claim this is Islamophobic and kill them.  Islamic scholar implies this is justified and complains of endemic Islamophobia.  Fair one.

Sorry don’t quite see where Islamophobia fits in….it isn’t as if criticisms of Islam, this alleged Islamophobia, came from nowhere …it arose as a response to Islamic terror.  Is it not merely a justified questioning of an ideology that patently is at the heart of so much violence around the world?  ‘Islamophobia’ is the ‘backlash’ to Muslim anti-Western attacks.  If it is OK for Muslims to kill 10 cartoonists as a ‘backlash’  for some drawings then it is OK to do a bit of Islamophobic backlashing for the murders no?  That’s the logic….and remember, most of this so-called Islamophobia is in fact entirely peaceful articles and news reports looking at the terrorism and the ideology that spawned it.  Murad thinks Muslim ‘anger’ justifies their actions but anyone elses anger is unreasonable and some sort of hate crime.

Murad then goes full tilt [Remember this is the guy who said Gays were a perverse aberration, lower than animals] making out Muslims are the ‘new Jews’…how ironic..when Muslims just killed Jews for being Jewish:

Scorn towards despised minorities is a hazardous business. During the days of Nazi terror, cartoons supplied a key weapon of anti-Jewish polemic. To laugh at the Prophet, the repository of all that Muslims revere and find precious, to reduce him to the level of the scabrous and comedic, is something very different from “free speech” as usually understood. It is a violent act surely conscious of its capacity to cause distress, ratchet up prejudice and damage social cohesion.


Finally he recommends that Muslims launch a war of legal attrition against the secular democracy….the good old Islamist tactic of ‘lawfare’…

It is for the many Muslims who now populate the Inns of Court to discover whether these legal precepts can in practice be used to protect non-Christians from abuse. A series of complex cases would trigger an overdue national and perhaps Europe-wide discussion on the right to protection from hate speech. Not all the lawsuits would succeed, but the community would have shown that it is determined to enjoy the protection of our country’s laws.



One day Muslims will admit the truth and take responsibility for their own action and stop blaming others.

And the BBC will start to raise a few questions themselves about Islam….and perhaps take a more questioning approach to who they invite on as speakers on Question Time.

The BBC is going full tilt themselves with the Muslim grievance narrative…time they drew a breath and started to look at what is being said and who is saying it…and the logic, or lack of logic, behind the claims.

Here is a particularly good example of the genre from ‘Is the BBC biased?’ where Islam isn’t to blame…and of course UKIP manages to be invoked and compared to the Jihadis….!!!!   Is the BBC biased? has many more such examples from recent programmes…have a read and despair.



But before you do have a read of this…..some more ‘context’….

What does Islam say?, as taught by the moderate and respected Yusuf Qaradawi [Ken’s old mate]:


“Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lut, kill them, both the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”
(At-Tirmidhi: 1376)


Sexual Perversion: A Major Sin
We must be aware that in regulating the sexual drive Islam has prohibited not only illicit sexual relations and all ways which lead to them, but also the sexual deviation known as homosexuality. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man’s sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females.
The jurists of Islam have held differing opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death?   [This line should be in the text but was cut out ……“How should they both be killed? By the sword? Or by fire? Or by throwing them from a wall?”]  While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements.






And what about the fair sex?  How about that respect we are so often told they get?…


Marital rape?

Your wives are a tillage to you, so go in to your tillage as you will, and send (ahead something) for your souls; and fear Allah and know that you will (one day) meet Him, and give glad tidings to the Believers. (2:223)

Wives are ‘filth’?

It is not a function of religion to define the postures of sexual intercourse. However, a Muslim who fears Allah in his relationship with his wife and possesses the certainty that he will meet Him avoids the anus because the Prophet (peace be on him) said, “Do not approach women from the anus.” (Reported by Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nisai, and Ibn Majah.)
Again, he referred to such an act as “minor sodomy.” (Reported by Ahmad and al-Nisai.) A woman of the Ansar asked him concerning vaginal intercourse from the back; he then recited to her, ‘Your wives are a filth to you, so go in to your filth as you will,’ but with only one receptacle.

Obey the Master

Because of his natural ability and his responsibility for providing for his family, the man is the head of the house and of the family. He is entitled to the obedience and cooperation of his wife, and accordingly it is not permissible for her to rebel against his authority, causing disruption. Without a captain the ship of the household will flounder and sink. If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument which might cause pain and injury.





Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Islamic ‘Institutional’ Homophobia? Not On The BBC

  1. chrisH says:

    Didn`t Hasan write a fawning biog of Ed Miliband?
    If so, that might explain why he gets the Libtard blessing…assured for life as well.


  2. GCooper says:

    I’m sure Scott will have something interesting to contribute to this curious dichotomy.

    Scott… Scott?


    • Laurence d'Artagnan says:

      Perhaps flimflam could answer if Scott is not available.

      Ooops, autocorrect did that. I actually typed filmfan.


  3. Flaxen Saxon says:

    What do you expect from a barbaric doctrine. In the West, freedom of thought, speech and action did not come without a struggle. We should not be dictated to by those whose mindset belongs in the Dark Ages. If they don’t like how we portray their prophet, they should bugger off to where they hail.


  4. London Calling says:

    Our country, not theirs.
    Their god, not ours.

    What a bunch of snivelling appeasers we have in the mainstream media.


  5. john in cheshire says:

    What did this effing prophet ever prophesy that was worth more than ridicule?


  6. hippiepooter says:

    “Without it’s Jews Britain would not be Britain”.
    The Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Theresa May.

    A fascinating comment, and one which I wholeheartedly agree with.

    If she raised the question “Would Britain without its Muslims be Britain?”, I think the honest answer would have to be ‘Britain’s would still be Britain and resoundingly more so’.

    If Britain’s Muslim population continues to double every 20 years all our Jews would have left and Britain would have ceased to be Britain in a terrifying way.


    • hippiepooter says:

      Hold on, the Home Secretary has answered that question.

      ” … just as without its Muslims, Britain would not be Britain”.

      Oh dear. Goodbye Jews. Goodbye Britain.


    • dave s says:

      A rational man or woman would ask exactly who is causing the Jrews to consider leaving. No reality again from May, Cameron or the BBC and their fellow travellers.
      It is like reading Alice in Wonderland except that book makes more sense.
      No nation can survive this absurdity. Jews should leave .It is the only rational course of action.


      • hippiepooter says:

        We’ll be begging to join them in Israel soon.


        • Chop says:

          Ain’t that the truth, it will be the ONLY safe nation on the planet in the next 50 years (provided ISIS…ISIL…LIPSYL…ALQAY-EEDA or whoever don’t get their hands on a nuke)


    • ROBERT BROWN says:

      Britain without the, not our, muslims would be a much nicer, calmer, safer place. I’m old enough to remember Britain in the sixties, union strife and all, but muslims?….as a child i would not even been aware of them. Now, they are in our face every day, demanding this and that, preaching hatred towards us, and around the world, inflicting death and misery everywhere……read the website ‘religionofpeace’, and Atlas shrugged, Gates of Vienna etc……they are trouble worldwide, what on earth is our stupid government doing letting them into this country in thousands? A moderate muslim is one who will hold your coat as his violent mate chops off your head…..they read from the same decrepit book.


  7. dez says:

    Cat Killer Alan,

    “…nor it might be added has the caring Media Hasan made any comment… Curious because he is outraged at blood being shed in the name of the prophet… Just, it seems, not ‘gay blood’”.

    Even for you Alan, that is truly pathetic.

    “Fears are growing that a serial cat killer is on the loose after more than 50 pets were reported missing in one town in the past week alone.”

    You’ve not made one single comment on this story; therefore you obviously support whoever is killing pet cats in Suffolk. I heard a rumour that you live in Ipswich. Purely coincidental?

    “THE OWNERS of a dog which was mutilated and killed on Halloween said his death has ‘devastated’ the family.”

    Again, not one single comment; apparently you couldn’t care less. Bit of a pattern forming here, is there not, demonstrating your pathological hatred of pet cats and dogs?

    Oh and don’t bother denying it Alan, you’ve proved yourself to be a hypocrite and a liar many times over; so why should anyone believe a single word you say?


    • Rob in Cheshire says:

      Another sad victim of care in the community.


      • dez says:

        “Another sad victim of care in the community.”

        Thank you “Rob”. Here’s something you said earlier (without the *):

        “Yet another w*g given power by the socialsts shit of this country. Mrs. W*g shit. f*ck off because if you don’t we, the indigenous peoples of this country will surely f*ck you up. you and your immigrant shitstock will be extirpated without mercy. You f*cking w*g shit. you are not fit to live in a civilised society.
        Long live the anglo-saxon, celtic gene pool.goddamn the ethnic contamination.”



        • Wild says:

          “truly pathetic”

          Typical Leftist projection by Dez. What a coincidence that he also supports the BBC.


  8. Rob in Cheshire says:

    I read this pathetic column in the Daily telegraph. As is its gutless custom, it does not allow comments, in case its readers should dare to tell the good Islamic scholar what they think of his posturing and weasel words. Free speech? They couldn’t even spell it.


  9. Pounce says:

    Muslims have over the past 30 years failed to assimilate into the Western Way of life. While the liberal left wax lyrical about Nice Mr Khan down at the cornershop who wouldn’t hurt a fly. The fact remains he (and the rest like him) would most like ostracise (if not murder) a daughter who refuse to marry her cousin, murder a son who turned out gay and would have no problem playing the victim card for subscribing to a racist bigoted faith which is behind the huge rise in Anti-Semitism in the West.

    So before anybody wants to question me on the above, how many nice Muslim girls do you know who have married out of their faith?

    How many people here know of a gay muslim who is happy to share that knowledge with his/her Islamic family and friends.

    How many people here believe in equality for women

    How many people here have been to a curry house and have a Beer

    The thing is Muslims say one thing and do the opposite , now if the EDL/UKIP did half the stuff that Muslims get away with:

    Rape gangs
    Insurance fraud

    We would be quite right to ostracise them. but instead we keep on getting told that Islam is a religion of peace and that anybody who speaks out agaisnt them is the evil one.

    Europe is waking up to the fact that Islam isn’t compatible with our way of life. Unfortunately for a so called NEWS ORG the bBC refuses to read that memo and still subscribes to the notion that the most intolerant faith going can only be the only victim in the village.


  10. Vector Curl says:

    I’ve just tweeted to Hasan about how I wouldn’t want to be a Christian, an apostate from Islam or a homosexual in most Muslim countries.

    I also see he has some silly, sycophantic, non-Muslim liberals on his twitter feed going on about how Muslims in France are suffering. Apparently, some clown in France throwing a pig’s head into a mosque is a far greater crime than burning Christians alive in Niger.


    • DP111 says:

      Liberal equivalence

      One tug of hijab is equivqlent to hundreds, if not thousands Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists killed.

      So you see, all religions have a tiny minority of extremists.


  11. jackde says:

    Jindal’s Brilliant Take on Radical Islam
    The problem and solution reside with the people of the Islamic religion themselves.

    One comment on this piece…..
    We must overcome our political correctness so that we may discharge anyone who supports triumphalist Islam. The courts will have to accept the concept of America being at war with violent Islam and permit the expulsion of anyone of Muslim faith who speaks of overthrowing, replacing or modifying American society. Even fully American citizens should be coerced into choosing a new country more accepting of their views. What is forbidden in peace is frequently permitted in wartime. If we are not at war, then, tell me, what is the nature of the present conflict we are all feeling.

    Must we wash our hands with our blood spilled in our streets before taking logical actions?

    Replace America with UK or Europe


  12. TheTruth says:

    So is BiasedBBC is now gay friendly?

    After vast amounts of binary numbers wasted constantly displaying Alan , Vance and the other sock puppets utter fear of homosexuals (just look at the abuse heaped on Scott before the denials start) suddenly the site is pro gay.

    Hmm. I think rank hypocrisy is at play.

    I look forward to Vance/Alan’s next post post starting ‘I have nothing against homosexuals…’oh but you have.

    I wonder why?


    • I Can See Clearly Now says:

      Not quite following this post. I haven’t read David or Allan calling for homosexuals to be thrown off buildings.

      The BBC is normally a defender of all things Islamic. They have been remarkably quiet on this brutality; probably because it doesn’t fit the ‘narrative’ they like to promote.


    • D1004 says:

      The truth, You are wrong, I have given Scott stick because he is a troll not because he is gay. He whines against all and sundry on this site, he does not belong, he only appears to throw abuse, he keeps saying I am some other posting under another name even though I have told him I am not.
      I don’t like being called a liar by anyone gay or not, over to you.
      Oh and I have not got a clue who runs this site beyond a couple of names, not interested, it’s the unveiling of bias and being lied to by our so called betters that I am interested in calling to account. Oh and where is the BBCs report showing gays being chucked off roofs ? Of a woman being beheaded… ? Yeh, right, doesn’t fit their agenda does it pal?


      • Scott says:

        he keeps saying I am some other posting under another name even though I have told him I am not

        Funny, because that’s exactly what you’ve done to me – you were coruscating somebody else, using homophobic language against them, because you were insistent that he and I were the same person.

        So why is it okay for you to definitely accuse others in the basest of terms, but when others only suggest that you may use alternative pseudonyms they’re somehow worse than you? What kind of deluded sense of self-entitlement leads a person to behave in such a manner?

        I’d say it’s a double standard, but that would imply your actions have any standards at all.


        • D1004 says:

          Oh hello Scott ! Not related to ‘the truth’ by any chance ? Or just passing perhaps ? Just a coincidence then. I will admit to thinking both you and scott(y) are one and the same, you will admit its a bit of a coincidence having such similar names and similar viewpoints do you not ? Not sure what homophobic tract I have written about him or you for that matter, I rip into you because you wilfully attack the role of this site and throw your self appointed righteous dislike at all and sundry. I see once again you chuck your insults about, little troll. Do you ever wonder why you are disliked ? Nothing to do with being Gay, just behaving like a knob. Go away and play on the guardian page.


          • Scott says:

            Not related to ‘the truth’ by any chance ?

            Nope. I’m not related to “headbanger” either, who was the person you abused because you thought they were me.

            I will admit to thinking both you and scott(y) are one and the same, you will admit its a bit of a coincidence having such similar names and similar viewpoints do you not ?

            Whoever poses as “scotty” is someone who comes out with hackneyed cliches about gay people in a barely literate manner. It looks like it’s a Biased BBC regular who wants to pretend that he’s me. Which, when you think about it, is rather a pitiful way to spend one’s time. Still, at least he’s so incompetent at it, only a complete idiot would be fooled… Oh.

            I rip into you

            Nice to see you admit it. But apparently it’s okay for you to behave in a manner you believe you have the right to deride other people for. Why is that? Why do you believe that you shouldn’t be held to the standards you apparently seek from others?

            (Hint: “because so many other Biased BBC regulars are similarly hypocritical” won’t cut it as an answer…)


            • D1004 says:

              No dear Scott, because you as you very well know, are a twitching, troublesome troll. You are only here to hate, to destroy , to twist to your destructive liberal views, the views that have let to child rape, to murder on tubes, buses and in Paris. This site stands against such views, so why do you come and spew your ideas? Because you are a troll, you hate views which are not yours but instead of just departing and going elsewhere, you just like an old penny keep turning up to troll, troll, and troll again. Well bully for you Scott.
              And as regards troublesome Scotty, you say someone on this site takes time to pretend to be you……Scott you have problems, you need to see a doctor, seriously. In the name of god why would anyone bother doing that, you have far too big an opinion of your worth to think that. Still keeping up the insults I see troll. Begone.


              • Scott says:

                In the name of god why would anyone bother doing that

                You’d have to ask them that. As you’d have to ask the person who posted under the name “Scott Matthewson [sic] is a cunt”. And you’d have to ask the person who posted my home address, my work address, my route of travel between the two, and encouraged Biased BBC commenters to harass my employers.

                But apparently I’m the one in the wrong, I’m the one who “needs help” – and all because I don’t let you get away with being a homophobic little shit, and get called a troll for my trouble.

                Now, when are you going to answer my question? Why is it that you can behave abominably to others, but seek to police those who do not behave as badly as you?

                Are you capable of answering in the manner of a sane adult, or are you just going to be abusive again?


                • I Can See Clearly Now says:

                  Scott, you are mixing two discussions. Some folk here may have a strong aversion to homosexuality; I don’t know. I don’t. Homosexuals don’t do me any harm and I don’t annoy them. But that’s not enough for the blob; I’m expected to celebrate homosexuals, along with ethnics, feminists and other groups they consider noble. I’m expected to celebrate gay marriage without question. Well; I just want to tolerate homosexuals, I don’t want to celebrate them… or ethnics, or feminists, or anyone else. Such celebration, in effect, basically amounts to accepting that they should have an easier path through life than me by virtue of them being victims. Well, sorry, I had no easy path; anything thing I got – very little – I got on merit. I expect no more, or no less, for anyone else. Furthermore, I reserve my right to question gay marriage. The LibLabCon, and their counterparts across the world, dropped all other business to push the legislation through. At the same time, they, or the BBC etc. on their behalf, launched a campaign of vilification against anyone who questioned it. Well, I consider it significant that male-female relationships maintained the human race since it began. I don’t ask you to agree with me; but are able to tolerate me having a different view to yourself?

                  The main characteristic of the folk here is that they are determined to maintain their right to think for themselves and to question those who would impose a Common Purpose agenda on them. The UK is in danger of becoming like 70’s East Germany. In the long term, when the blob leave you no right to think anything for yourself, I predict you will see that the tolerant folk here were right.


                • D1004 says:

                  Scott, for the last time, if you have abuse from someone else that’s between you and them, I do not know the person who called you a @@@@, nor do I know anything about any problems you might have suffered as regards to your daily interactions with the real world. Presuming you live in London, I cannot stand the place and have been there twice in the last 8 years. Speaking for myself and no other I have zero interest in chasing a troll in real life, nor encouraging others to do so. My problem with you is purely down to YOUR behaviour whilst on this site. As I said and you have ignored, you bring nothing, you are against everything this site stands for, you chuck insults around and expect to be treated with sympathy. Well hard luck, but you try the patience of a saint. As I said to you when you reappeared again, you come across as sad and needy. If you have problems with this site let them go, you are only hurting yourself.
                  My personal attitude to homosexuals is best expressed by the message from I Can See Clearly, namely live your life but do not rub it in my face and expect me to applaud.
                  That’s my final communication with you. From now on I am going to follow my own advise and will not feed the troll.


                  • Scott says:

                    My personal attitude to homosexuals is best expressed by the message from I Can See Clearly, namely live your life but do not rub it in my face and expect me to applaud.

                    You forgot “Use it as a homophobic stick to beat someone with when they make a comment I don’t like, even if they’re not the person I thought they were and are far too stupid to even notice.”

                    That’s my final communication with you. From now on I am going to follow my own advise and will not feed the troll.

                    Well, I suppose that’s one way to avoid answering the question of why you behave so abominably yourself, but try and hold others to standards you yourself clearly can’t meet. “Oh no! He’s asked me a tough question! I’ll call him a troll! That’ll mean I can avoid the issue of my own appalling behaviour!”

                    You brave, brave man.


                • I Can See Clearly Now says:

                  In the name of god why would anyone bother doing that

                  You’d have to ask them that. As you’d have to ask the person who posted under the name “Scott Matthewson [sic] is a cunt”. And you’d have to ask the person who posted my home address, my work address, my route of travel between the two…

                  Just noticed a link from 2010 where someone with a similar name used Twitter to announce they were unsubscribing from BiasedBBC’s RSS feeds. If that was you, and the tweet was public, can you complain if folk have your details?


    • Scott says:

      I look forward to Vance/Alan’s next post post starting ‘I have nothing against homosexuals…’oh but you have.

      You’ll be waiting a long time. All the BBC has to do is document the slow but effective progress on something like marriage equality and Vance goes ballistic. Probably using the title “WHAT A GAY DAY” for his post – that’s a particular favourite of his.

      And when BBC News ran a feature a few months ago about gay people struggling to live in various Middle East countries, all Biased BBC commenters wanted to do was excoriate the BBC for running it.

      It seems that, when it comes to writing (or at least, copying and pasting) paragraphs and paragraphs of ill-thought anti-Islam propaganda for his small, like-minded audience, Alan doesn’t care too much for consistency. Who would have thought it…


  13. Philip says:

    Erhh.. There is no such thing as Marriage equality we are all different. It’s about children stupid, love between sexes (not amongst sexes), moral values that will protect your rights both in old age rather than die of incubated disease, no right to die on NHS prescription drugs, the right for children to be born without inherited Aids, the right to be born free from harm and abuse by those in the media, government or teaching profession who practice abuse by right of position. Nothing good will come of it. But you have the advantage of the EU legislation – the chance for you to prove yourselves worthy of civility and respect. This is balanced by daily news reports (not on the BBC) by those in positions of power and trust who commit sex crimes against children. I admire those who may be homosexuals – but choose not to abuse children in any way. Your constant demand for more rights is a reminder that none of us has a right to demand a right to anything in life… life is not worth living if you don’t have a Mother and a Father to respect and protect. It’s not equal, but its balanced.


    • Scott says:

      There is no such thing as Marriage equality

      Yes there is. I know this can be hard for Biased BBC commenters to appreciate, but typing out your own beliefs and prejudices don’t make them true.

      I admire those who may be homosexuals – but choose not to abuse children in any way.

      As in “pretty much all of them”?

      Come back when you’ve got a reasoned argument, rather than just a collection of tired phrases that only serve to show you don’t understand adult relationships.


      • Philip says:

        Dr Who? no it’s Scott Matthewman exposing himself again. Tardy activist of the pink parts, warrior of the nether regions, guru of the BBC drama party twitter feed and part time Theatre ticket salesman and drama blogget . One day you’ll meet yourself and think he’s queer, bitter and twisted – and you’ll get along fine. Its not Marriage but hey, you can be equal in another dimension Scotty! You have the power of the closet, the eye for ‘Adult’ XXX relationships obviously I must be a ‘bigot’ in respecting and protecting Mothers and Fathers and children as a family unit. That is the only ‘right’ to life you had. Everything else is false. Dr Who does not exist Scotty, it’s the BBC.


  14. Philip says:

    Scott understands adult relationships?