Can I politely ask readers to try and not swear or engage in banal ad hominem on this site? It only brings the many great points made here into disrepute and allows our critics to have a go at the site? I am VERY keen on maintaining your right to free expression but please, think twice before you vent and go nuclear and so provide our opponents with free material to undermine the site. Thank you.
CIVILITY PLEASE
Bookmark the permalink.
Completely agree. It’s tempting at times to let rip but that’s exactly why certain provocative elements come on here so they can grab their soundbite to use for discrediting the site elsewhere – not that they’re incapable of making up their own bigoted insults (‘sad old men’ comes to mind as one of the milder but probably most repetitive examples). Scott was a classic case in point.
Sometimes they think they are being subtle: for example, having lost an argument (99.999% of the cases) they disappear only to pop up again later in another thread trotting out (pun intended) the same tired old mantras, propaganda and moral relativism i.e. the ‘wilful child syndrome’. Irritating beyond belief, but deliberately so. Don’t rise to the bait.
Unfortunately for them, as defenders of the BBC, their own lack of discipline and especially ad hominems often reveal hard-left beliefs which only go to reinforce the purpose of this site i.e. to expose the BBC as a biased, leftist, pro-Labour, PC-obsessed organisation not fit for purpose.
Tired old mantras eh. You’ve just listed all yours in the last paragraph. This is why you are incapable of mounting any coherent criticism of the Beeb.
Check out the Glasgow media groups work if you want to know how it’s done.
Sorry but sometimes throwing away cherished toys can lead to better things.
There can no longer be any real discussion between what is now called the Western liberal left and the slowly growing opposition. The views are too far apart now.
For now the liberal left is in the ascendancy but inevitably the world turns.
They control the media and education ,law and government. There is nothing I want from them. There is nothing to discuss.
Think of it as a culture war for the future of the West. It helps to make sense of things. I give the liberal left the same right to struggle as I expect for myself. May the strongest prevail in the end.
This is the way the world is and has always been. Not an idealised world but a real one.
To be blunt the BBC is as irrelevant to me as the rest of the fantasy world of the liberal.
I looked at the Glasgow Media group. No point in engaging with them. My world view is so far from theirs as to make any conversation pointless and for the sake of both sides that is the way it should stay.
At least it adds to the variety of this strange world.
As regards the Flatearther insults. I remember that Astronomer Sir Patrick Moore joined the Flat Earth Society, and that he found the members where polite and well behaved even when their beliefs where challenged by Sir Patrick. In fact I believe Sir Patrick suspected that the majority of the members of the Flat Earth Society where not genuine Flatearthers.
Like all intelligent people, Sir Patrick was a UKIP supporter who knew that Man-Made Climate Change was Bunkum because Climate Change was known to correlate with Sunspot numbers.
Although Sir Patrick was worshiped as a hero by the BBC’s current favourite scientist, Brian Cox, Cox is known to be an ideologue who reacts with emotional violence towards any scientist who regards the Climate religion as Bunkum.
Rather than engage in polite debate, unlike members of the Flat Earth Society, Cox supports the BBC’s Censorship Policy.
Cox knows better than to bite the hand that feeds him.
Another ‘scientist’ in denial of the scientific method.
You being a scientist not
Do you have any scientific training ? Seriously if you have let us know, you are seen as a troll, in all honestly you have not helped yourself here by your attitude, but, if you have more to bring then you might redeem yourself ,start again by trying not to browbeat those you see as beneath you and start talking to us as fellow countrymen, huh ? We (I ) are here to object to the failings of those we are forced to pay for attempting to lead us ( the stupid ) by the nose Into a socialistic nivarna which is not working.
Like all intelligent people, Sir Patrick was a UKIP supporter
Oh Richard. Your knack for comedy really does know no bounds. All intelligent people, eh? Every single one?
Hilarious.
Ok then, my definition of Intelligence is therefore: The elimination of the dogma of speculation, assumption, consensus and belief from the thought process, and then replacing these thoughts with judgement obtained by the scientific method, where correlation’s point to the answers, and the facts and evidence are obtained by observation and the results from experiments which then provide the proof for a correct answer to whether man-made Climate Change is Bunkum or not.
This thought process seems to be present in about a zero percent of LibDems and Greens, 10 percent of Labour types, 30 percent of Tory types and 100 percent of UKIPers.
The 100 percent for UKIPers is based upon the fact that this thought process is needed for people to understand the stupidity of dogma in obtaining a judgment, which would cause them to vote UKIP whether or not they were experts in the subject, and also this will remain 100 percent until UKIP starts to attract careerists for safe UKIP seats, or dogmatic people are motivated to vote UKIP to keep the Labour or Tory out.
The 100 percent for UKIPers is based upon the fact that this thought process is needed for people to understand the stupidity of dogma in obtaining a judgment
This is the same UKIP that fields candidates who come up with bunkum such as “PE prevents people becoming gay.”. Great deal of scientific method in evidence there, isn’t there…
Richard, I’m sure you’re a lovely person, but you do seem to have formed a twisted view of what constitutes intelligence. Might be better to cancel that Mensa membership and spend the fees on exploring the world a bit, as some context would do you the world of good.
As with Jeremy Clarkson, UKIP candidates who come up with bunkum are usually making jokes at the expense of the stuck up Politically Correct types.
But as for any correlation with PE and Gays, I would think that any correlation would make more sense if Gays were more likely to hate PE than non-Gays, rather than seeing it as proof that those doing PE are less likely to be Gay now, and therefore in the future.
So yes Scott, you have identified an error in interpreting correlations in data as regards the before choice of Gays being misrepresented as a cause of being Gay.
But at least the UKIP candidate was intelligent enough to notice that a correlation can lead to an answer.
Or global warming denial. Even the cod ,who have moved permanently out of the North sea, know about global warming. That just leaves the Kippers who apparently are incapable of understanding the (any) evidence based research.
One thing about global warming. There willl be winners as much as losers. This is presumably inevitable in the process. Not that we ever hear about it from anyone.
Some parts of the world will benefit others not. Or is it simply doom for us all?
What you will notice is a lot of foreign goods will start to disappear.Coffee and other commodities will grow in cost as the weather disrupts stable growing environments. Given a 0.8 degree growth in temperature is already creating devastating effects ,southern US in drought 11 out of the last 14 years and the water table drying out in many continents eg US,China,India etc you will star to see considerable deaths within 20 ish years. Northern countries such as Canada , USSR,as it probably will be by then will prosper. But by then the permafrost will melt and highly warming methane will leach out. By that time the planet is en route to a slow an inevitable death. Politically 2 degrees is the limit but practically significantl disruptive changes will and are occurring before we get to that.
End of century ,probably min 4 Degrees.by that time it’s all over. It takes 36k years for co2 to be absorbed into rock. Tread carefully around cockroaches.They are your next of kin.
Perhaps the doubling of the human population every few years will have more effect on food sufficiency than climate change? The ‘wonder-of-nature’ boffins used to explain to us plebs that population of any species is automatically controlled by disease and famine. Why should humans be any different? Statism rampant again.
Population control is a factor but so is cultivatable land a fifth of which has been lost since the last century. Market conditions determine who will survive as commodities rise in price the first 2 billion will die of hunger. You’ll have a few more red nose days but it will be fruitless. Malthus is right I’m afraid.
Population control is a factor …
Not with the BBC. It’s impossible to think that the BBC cares about the plight of the great unwashed; otherwise they would address over-population. They simply use CC to promote statism.
Is not the drying out of the water table purely the result of the rise of the human population and their drawing of the water ? Not wanting to make any stupid cheap points here , just trying to understand what’s going on.
Yup. I read somewhere they suck out about 100cm per year and 1cm is replenished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
He won’t have to react to many then,since no one believes that global warming isn’t happening.
The sun! – the real climate changer .
It doesn’t corellate the with sunspots at all and I have been an astronomer for over 50 years. Don’t cherry pick your data to come up with answer you want.
What about the so-called Maunder Minimum (circa 1645-1715) when sunspots were scarce and Northern Europe does seem to have experienced various phenomena associated with cooler temperatures? For instance, ‘Frost Fairs’ on the Thames, fitting of wheels and axles on barges in pictures of the time, skating on frozen canals in the Netherlands, later marriage as it became harder to save capital from extra harvest to start a family, references to “these Summers that are no Summers”, etc.
I agree that swearing is not on. Otherwise the site could be in danger of starting to look like a YouTube comments brawl. The propagandists of the left are in dire need of being chastised but it’s far moreeffective to do so without batting insults back and forth.
I mentioned on the pages of this esteemed blog that Kevin Connolly saw fit to insult Netanyahu on Outside Source, mocking the applause he habitually gets from Congress and quoting an unnamed Washington official’s personal attack on the Israeli PM – and this a mere fortnight before the Israeli elections.
I sent him the following email:
To Mr. Connolly,
I refer to your broadcast re Benjamin Netanyahu on Outside Source on March 3rd. I guess it raised few nudge-nudge, wink-wink smirks among your like-minded BBC colleagues but I don’t believe that mockery of the Israeli Prime Minister should be part of the BBC’s duties as an ‘impartial’ public service organisation broadcasting worldwide.
Do try to stick to your job and refrain from insulting the embattled leader of an embattled country. Israel has enough enemies without BBC reporters conspiring to find ways to swell their ranks.
He didn’t respond but I assume he received it since it didn’t bounce back at me. Perhaps he would have responded if I’d been more reserved in my criticism and given him some leeway, for example by mentioning that he did at least quote a couple of pro-Netanyahu people.
Well done, TT – keep chipping away….
Thanks, Jonny. These hacks like to think of themselves as journalists. There is at least a slight chance that enough direct criticism will moderate their ingrained bias.
I think he’s got a lot more to worry about than Kevin Connolly.
But you may like to take comfort in how little the
Palestinians feature on the Beeb.
I agree.
I’ve been quite shocked at the language used on Biased BBC, the personal attacks, the suspicion and the unwillingness to consider that a post may have faults, be a poor argument or even contain a faulty or completely wrong-headed opinion. Set against this have been some helpful insights into the workings of the BBC, a better understanding of some of the things the Corporation is doing or trying to do and pieces of excellent writing or prose with flashes of wit & humour.
If you continue to major on abuse, dismiss any argument against viewpoints or held beliefs and persist in insulting any poster who doesn’t fit or is suspected of being a troll, not only will you give enemies ammunition & evidence to use against Biased BBC you will eventually end up talking only to yourselves with a shrinking community and a reducing number of visitors.
If you continue to major on abuse, dismiss any argument against viewpoints or held beliefs and persist in insulting any poster who doesn’t fit or is suspected of being a troll, not only will you give enemies ammunition & evidence to use against Biased BBC you will eventually end up talking only to yourselves with a shrinking community and a reducing number of visitors.
There is little danger of that. BBC bias, along with other left-wing media bias so rife in the West, is becoming well-known in many quarters – and this site is but one contributor to that general awareness.
“and this site is but one contributor to that general awareness.”
As you rightly point out, there are alternatives. Just a couple of clicks to dismiss Biased BBC from Favourites or Bookmarks. 😉 That’s all it takes.
I’m tempted to also thank others who have subsequently underlined David Vance’s request and the point of my original post. Ummmhh …..
Strange that you quote so much right wing media such as the mail ,telegraph and Fox News all of which have great prominence.
I think your reds under the bed stance needs more than assertion. A bit of evidence might help particularly since most states are turning right wing.
HaHa – the Torygraph hasn’t been right-wing since Call Me Dave hugged a husky!
“Yourselves”?
Now try reversing that argument. You might get a glimmer of the frustration that causes people to lose patience with the Corporation and its apologists.
Those of us who have been here for some years will remember the occasional BBC types who have graced us with their presence. True, they haven’t lapsed into some of the ripe, barrack room spleen-venting we see here from time to time, but for insulting sophistry, circular reasoning and insufferable arrogance they were almost all prize winners.
Small wonder that the occasional fuse blows.
Small wonder that the occasional fuse blows.
It’s always been the Biased BBC regulars who have exhibited by far the worst behaviour. And not only do they blame the targets of their abuse for their behaviour, but others compound the issue by turning a blind eye.
It’s more than the occasional fuse. It’s endemic.
I don’t know whether there’s been a specific event that has triggered Vance to issue one of his irregular calls for civility. But based on this site’s history, any improvement in behaviour will be short-lived.
Please, this time, prove me wrong. When one of the Biased BBC regulars goes off on one because he has no other way of coping with people who disagree with him, stand up to them. Tell them that their behaviour is unacceptable.
Or just blame everybody else, and see this site descend once more into a morass of bad behaviour, dominated by one or two rotten little souls with anger management issues. Your choice.
I reckon you post here more often than I do. Does that make you one of the regulars?
No I don’t
Hmmm, Scott posts at 9-24pm and 9-44pm, he gets a reply at 9-54 pm and wonder of wonders, slumming it with the plebs on the top of a London bus ( so ethnic darling ! ) posts a reply at 9-57 pm as if by magic ! Ah, what a coincidence unless we can think of some other reason ?
I don’t know who Manonclaphamomnibus is, but he’s not me.
As with all the other occasions where you’ve mistakenly accused other people of being me, you’re wrong. So at least you have consistency in your favour, to make up for the lack of anything else.
Scott ! Luvvie, you forget the times you have mistakenly inferred that I am just a convenient cover for some other poster, when all the time I have said I am just me ( for all my faults ). Anyway, till the next time sweet, in the words of the beloved Stan Lee ” hang loose ! “
you forget the times you have mistakenly inferred that I am just a convenient cover for some other poster
Nope – I just threw your faulty reasoning back at you. Sorry if you didn’t understand, I thought it was a fairly straightforward and easy to understand action. Apologies if I misjudged your ability to comprehend.
Scott darling, once again you seem to being somewhat spiteful when we are supposed to be in a new age of friendship. Once again you are found wanting in your cheap remarks against me, sorry old fruit I really do find your line somewhat difficult to understand, maybe you could spell out to a simpleton such as your target the point you wish to get over ?
Hello Scott, back again ? Wonder of wonders neither a bunny boiler nor a bloke living on a bus but himself ! “Bad behaviour ….dominated by one or two rotten little souls with anger management issues ” does somewhat describe yourself rather perfectly don’t you agree ? Anyway nice of you to ‘drop in ‘ call again when at a loose end and alone on a Saturday night , bye for now, toodle pip !
Well I was thinking rather more of the likes of Pounce, who flies off the handle if you disagree with him and descends into a mass of four-letter words.
And then, people like you ignore his behaviour and choose instead to come out with nonsense about how everyone whose posts you don’t like are all from the same person.
But go ahead. The more you ignore people like Pounce’s behaviour, the more you let everybody think you’re a coward who’s too afraid to stand up to a pathetic bully. Your choice.
Scott darling, one is not supposed to throw around insults like calling me a “coward” and Pounce “a pathetic bully” are you sweetie ? You really must get into the meme and feel the love hun. Anyway my point is not to draw attention to your slipping (again) into insult but the point that Pounce brings things that you do not,
he has a military background,
He is able to use this to point out the BBCs inability to understand military issues,
He explains which the bbc cannot the situation on the ground in places like Syria,
In otherwords he expands the knowledge base, I’m afraid you do not darling, you just wibble.
Never mind, if you can try and find a subject on which you can enlighten the people assembled here I’m sure we will be rapt with interest. But please darling, enough of the insults sweetie, its so last year love.
TTFN.
I think he has a crush on Pounce.
he has a military background,
And how does that allow him to call people cunts with the frequency that he does? How does that justify his threatening behaviour?
If he contributes to a discussion, fine. But when he next explodes with insults and threats – the actions of, yes, a pathetic bully – stand up to him. Otherwise you are, by inaction, acting like a coward.
Don’t feed the sanctimonious troll
Scott please don’t call me a coward darling, I grew up in an environment where the use of swear words was common, likewise in my work life. Maybe you have never come across it ? Anyway if you have a problem with it take it up with him, don’t expect me to fight your battles for you, I would not expect you to do it for me. Bye for now hunny bun.
That’s all they are doing,talking to themselves! anyone that try’s to inject reason is regarded as left wing.sad but true.
Resist the urge to feed the bbc employed trolls. I know it’s tough, but deny them the chance to turn the thread into one about themselves.
You could start by not accusing all and sundry of being “BBC employed trolls” just because they don’t agree with you.
if we’re not allowed to swear, how do we tell this prick to fuck off?
Darling ! One must resist ones urges to be unkind ( I admit I have the same feelings ) but must reach out and try and communicate with the tortured soul who obviously wants us all to love him ( but not in a uncouth psychical way ) but finds it hard to fit in with us. We need to give some love to the poor chap, come on people we must reach out to Scott and show him we care ! .
You don’t.
Instead, you behave like an adult.
Do let us know how you get on with that.
“behave like an adult”
As I lay down my weary head, I’d just like to thank you for your IT insights on another thread. Clearly an area of some expertise.
Yours in civility,
Gusset Who (as you may recall was once coined)
The prosecution rests its case, M’lud.
Perhaps the site needs to be more heavy-handed on those who repeatedly post simply to get a reaction and not to discuss. I’m thinking here particularly of Bunny and Bus Man (who very occasionally tries to make a point but was largely spamming the site recently).
I think I have to agree with that. Scott clearly has ‘issues’ and rarely contributes anything of value to the discussion. His stock in trade seems to be hurling around insults, which are no less unpleasant for being made without recourse to swearing. Clowns like ‘Bunny’ could easily be dispensed with, too.
That said, I’m glad I don’t have to make the decision as I’m deeply opposed to censorship of any kind. That is, after all, one of the things the BBC does all the time – censoring points of view disagreed with by its self-styled ‘elite’. It would be hypocritical for us to do the same.
In the end, I suppose it must be down to a judgement of intent. If a poster is unwilling to engage in debate or is simply here to dispense insults, especially if they are actively disruptive, I think there is a good case to be made for their surgical removal.
That, of course, becomes hard when you get the odd one who is bright enough to have a strategy. ‘Reith’ was like that. He would occasionally engage in braincell to braincell combat but ducked out the moment his employer was caught bang to rights – as it often is.
If they are unwilling, say, to defend the Corporation’s craven behaviour over the ‘jihadi brides’ or the Rotherham case(s) , why treat them with any seriousness the next time they claim the BBC is unbiased and (an old chestnut this) that no complaints of bias have ever been established?
It’s that sort of slight of hand that is enough to make anyone lose their temper.
Roland. I’m Guilty. It’s me!
Guilty of using expletives. And venting my spleen.
Dave has made a polite request, which I shall endeavour to respect. I don’t apologise for my language, but as some ‘regulars’ prefer a less industrial strength to their prose, I will oblige them when posting in future, however tempting it may be to use the four letter noun beginning with a ‘c’ when certain establishment figures’ actions are under discussion. Dave’s site, Dave’s rules. ‘End of’ (as the yoof say) as far as I’m concerned.
For the record, I guess there have been at least three ‘manonaclaphamomnibus’, ‘Manonaclaphamomnibus’, ‘ManonClaphamOmnibus’ or whichever in the past week. One appears to be genuinely attempting to engage and I would suggest (if I am right) that she/he anonymously change their ‘moniker’ and re-engage that way.
No there’s only one but the devices I use format the name differently and I am a crap speller
Not changing anything.Sorry for confusion.
Well, there is the old saying… ‘and then three come at once’.
It is best not to go tit-for-tat if you wish to respond to a troll. They want you to lose your temper and slag them off with crude insults, so as to come over all offended and claim the moral high ground in reply.
This leaves two choices – either you don’t rise to the bait, or you throw a robust, articulate counterclaim which forces them to think that bit harder.
I have to admit… I like having Scott here. I think he’s a fundamentally decent individual. I suspect he sees his core values pretty much as we see ours, except – from where we sit – he’s just another naïve, deluded leftie. But engaging in debate with opponents like Scott is surely central to the way of life we seek to preserve? The true enemy don’t debate; they seek to manipulate and dominate.
Scott is not our enemy… and we are not his.
Mark’s ‘robust, articulate counterclaim which forces them to think that bit harder’ is the best approach. If we have to think a bit harder as a consequence, that’s all to the good.
I’m afraid Scott doesn’t visit this site to debate with the regulars. Reasoned debate is not his style. He is more the condescending, patronising type who believes he possesses intellectual and moral superiority. Arguing with him results in accusations of homophobia, racism and all the other Alinskyite labels designed to avoid answering any pertinent questions. If that doesn’t work then he resorts to abuse and insults. Some contributors, and I’ll include myself in this, have given as good as we got, only for him to act the innocent victim and whine about the insults and abuse he’s received. He will then kick the arse out of his victimhood , referring to the abuse he’s received in post after post. Don’t let anyone be fooled into believing Scott wants to engage in reasoned debate or even argument. He just wants to wind up those he sees as his ideological enemies. Allow him by all means to post on this site, just don’t engage with him. Arguing with him just gives him a legitimacy he doesn’t deserve.
An excellent summary. He always tries to present himself as a victim – bleat bleat bleat. Seldom deals with the issues.
An attention-seeking troll, he always has been. Probably reflecting his consuming gall about an under-achieving and petty life.
He always tries to present himself as a victim – bleat bleat bleat. Seldom deals with the issues.
You sem to have conveniently forgotten those occasions where I contribute to a discussion, and all you do is come along to harangue me. In effect, making yourself the troll.
And when I ask you (as I have done on many, many occasions) why you do not target any other people who exhibit far worse behaviour, you will not (cannot?) answer.
You are the real troll. But, as so often with Biased BBC regulars, you take no responsibility for your own behaviour.
I rest my case!
Interesting you point to core values. If you have core values in research your research is worthless. Which is pretty much why this site is failing so miserably to critique the Beeb. It’s called confirmation bias and it is universally evident in virtually every post. You cannot prove biased bbc simply by stating the same nonsense over and over again.
It isn’t research. We are not here to ‘prove’. We simply observe and report. The sky is blue, the grass is green, the sun is shining. Professor Hawking is working on a full explanation of why the sun works as it does, but we just observe the light and feel the heat. Feel free to argue that the sun doesn’t exist if you like.
You aren’t talking about what you can see.Thats the point. You are selecting what is important to your world view . If you were just interested in grass all you will see is grass.
If you were so interested in grass you would probably be a BBC employee.
As a female (I think that is relevant) who never swears out loud (I find bother said with vehemence quite effective) I never click ‘like’ if I object to the language.
Likewise.
The BBCis beginning to take hits now over all sorts of matters- Clarkson. Saville, Cliff Richards, executive salaries, wasteful expenditure etc etc. Let alone poor political analysis.
It is fighting back in the best way it knows how. Even on this site.
The future of the BBC looks uncertain. Technology makes the tax redundant and it knows it. Subscription is so easy to institute and returning billions to the pockets of the nation is just what is needed.
We no longer need the BBC. Television which I assume is the major part of the business is getting worse and worse. The whole thing is ripe for a real axe to be taken to it.
Every other nationalised industry has had to undergo this. Why not the BBC? It makes no sense to me to let it drift on costing the earth and delivering less.
So those who come here to abuse and patronise us are really fighting a losing battle.
Attend to the reality of the BBC’s situation and try to fit it for the next 20 odd years. I don’t envy you one bit.
Who’d make Poldark?
Who cares ?
At the current tax Poldark comes a bit dear. I certainly would not watch it anyway. 18th century Eastenders.
Penny dreadfuls in hi definition.
The same people who made Downton. And didn’t the success of that show how far from the path of successful drama the BBC has strayed!
I think there are a couple of interlinked problems here.
First is the loss of a number of excellent regular contributors – craig and David Preiser come to mind – who not only wrote (and write) well and clearly but give chapter & verse (and links where appropriate) on their comments. For instance, DP’s In their own tweets was Biased BBC gold. I know craig has set up his own blog on which DP often comments as does sue, another first-class contributor lost it seems to Biased BBC. Their continuing absence is a real loss to this site.
Another problem is the development – or rather continuation – of an increasingly disappointing response from those seeking to deny BBC bias in general or picking up commenters on alleged or actual factual errors. Manifestly the flokkers seek not to simply correct commenters or respectfully disagree with those who point out instances of BBC bias (or claim a species of BBC bias eg on “climate change”). Rather the flokkers aim to disrupt the comment threads and/or the site as a whole. They do not provide what could be a healthy counter-weight (were it possible, which I very much doubt) to the arguments comprising this site’s threads.
Although the odd reply to the flokkers – particularly pointing out any egregious errors or omissions of fact (which conduct, unsurprisingly, mirrors the identical habits of their employer) – might be useful, the most fruitful response is to ignore them and (whatever the provocation) not enter into exchanges of abuse. After all, such exchanges are exactly what they want and to give them these defeats common sense.
I should add that this is the first blog I go to of a morning and where I tend to comment following the usual item(s) of blatant bias transmitted under the Today brand. I would be bereft if this blog descended into the bear pit which the flokkers are trying to excavate.
Thanks for summing up the nature of this site.Unfortunately,the people commenting on here are completely incapable of discerning bias because of the extreme right wing lense through which everything is viewed. As I have pointed out before there are organisations which professionally carry out this work and a cursory comparison between their output and this site is startling.
I would have no beef with the content here if the site was called bigoted views about the BBC. This is surely would be the judgement of any rational person looking in.
… there are organisations which professionally carry out this work …
The Glasgow Media Group? Why do you call them ‘professional’? Do they ‘attract’ government funding? Who funds them?
I can’t see any investigation of the BBC on their site. Do you have a link?
The main point of the site seems to be a proposal for a one-off 20% tax on wealth, with a Media Kit to promote the idea.
Anybody who has failed to notice that Greg Philo (the Research Director of the Glasgow University Media Unit) is on the Far Left is an imbecile.
Be careful, or the Thought Police will have you – ‘imbecile‘ is verboten these days. Even ‘idiot’ is not permitted. The Beeb haven’t shown The Pink Panther for a while.
The latest Start The Week open thread has been hijacked by a very abusive troll, who is acting in cahoots with a more established one.
You may be right.
However, he uses ‘us’ to define himself, which must confuse the hell out of the other one. Or Madge is having a day off.
It does become rather tiring to find the useful and thought-provoking material among that particular troll’s stupid insults.
Not too sure usefulness or thought was ever the intention. Provocation… for sure.
Like playing full contact Black Maria (Hunt the NaughtieMarr to some) with the Tourettes-addled relative Frankie Boyle had to get sectioned as he was making the family look bad.
Hard to ascertain the intention behind such an assault save denial of service.
I just find it funny (and hence am guilty of prolonging the agony until a whole lot of orphaned comments are created). Whatever it is, it serves the BBC poorly, so there are compensations.
“The latest Start The Week open thread has been hijacked by a very abusive troll”
A troll cannot hijack a thread unless people collaborate by responding.
They come here claiming to find the site amusing but, in actual fact, they come because they cannot abide the expression of opinions they disagree with.
Helping them hijack the site drives others away. THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT.
The trolls’ favourite tactic is to post crude and stupid ad hominem attacks at the end of user posts – a bit like the cocky urchin who throws a banger through the letter box.
Ignoring them makes it easy to delete their posts without leaving too many orphaned comments.