Just to say that I have zero tolerance of trolls who come to this site for the specific purpose of disrupting it. I will block you and the site will be disinfected. Can I ask readers to email me if you see someone who is repeatedly engaging in such trolling tactics?
NO TROLLS WANTED…
Bookmark the permalink.
These trolls never answer your questions and seem to speak in a cryptic blurred language best avoided.
One of the trolls is acting according to form. Will not address the issues but resorts to insults.
I think something went wrong with their education; their teachers/tutors thought assertive statements were a contribution to debate.
I do favour the idea of having a place for them to be diverted to – so their malevolence will not disrupt discussion
I won’t address the issue?
No, it’s the people on this site who won’t address the issue. Hence why any sniff of resistance is erased. Just like the BBC and Islam.
Calling people ‘retards’ (several times) would be enough for me to ban somebody.
So that’ll be you, Xavier.
No worries GWF
I think Xavier’s weary comments got Zapped!
He was very dull anyway.
Xavier got Zapped again!
Xavier, make a genuinely constructive point without abuse and you will be read.
Actually, he did. He stated that he received little to no constructive feedback and I would tend to agree with him.
Seems to me there’s a kind of witch hunt going on here.
Actually, he did. He stated that he received little to no constructive feedback and I would tend to agree with him.
Seems to me there’s a kind of witch hunt going on here.
MoreHamHead
How would you know that Xavier received little or no private feedback when Xavier got Zapped.
Unless of course you are Xavier under a different name.
Accusations of alias now. Wow.
I’m not suggesting that this poster is a sock puppet for Ukip Xavier, but I was a little wary of this new poster, who certainly gets the benefit of the doubt until he/she has posted enough to form a better opinion.
Some time ago I completely misread the tone of post/er here who subsequent posts have confirmed is right-thinking.
No-one wants trolling as a feature of this website but I notice that rather than just ignoring those being described as “trolls” many commenters engage – or try to engage – with them. Such a response achieves exactly what the trolls want which is disruption of a particular thread or threads.
It’s obvious that the BBC canteeneers – employed or not by the BBC – seek to defend the BBC in all possible ways. After all that’s why they comment here. One means of defence is trolling; another – and quite legitimate – is to point out inaccuracies in commenters’ contributions. Of course, being defenders of the BBC they rarely (never?) engage in genuine discussion or admit that the BBC has, not just its own viewpoint, but a Narrative to which it adheres strictly. Adherence to the Narrative means that there are certain subjects on which the BBC has a settled view and will rarely report – let alone allow non-Narrative comment on – unadorned facts contrary to the Narrative. Such subjects include “climate change”, the eternal innocence of “genuine” followers of Islam, the all-consuming guilt of Israel and so on.
Consequently, DV’s threat concerning trolling is wholly welcome. However, just because the BBC canteeneers are annoying, a wholesale banning of their contributions would, I believe, be a mistake. Certainly, IMHO it would be better to ignore the quasi-trolling and just refuse to respond. They’ll soon get sick of it: or rather their employer will seek other means to disrupt the highlighting of its bias, partiality and (forget about the bias) its basically crap journalism.
I would leave their comments on but put a header to it like Troll Comment .
This has been tried Nibor, didn’t work. Happy for you to try it though.
Umbongo, some good comments but I would disagree with you on your comment
‘ Certainly, IMHO it would be better to ignore the quasi-trolling and just refuse to respond.’
Our posters do get irritated by the trolls comments and feel they have to defend themselves from the ridicule and abuse.
You are right in what you say, but many of our posters are human and find the wholesale level of self control in not responding to abuse very difficult to overcome. The trolls know this and are very good at drawing a poster into conflict. They tend not to answer a question but swerve towards an abstract area only remotely associated with the point.
I do applaud them, they are very good at what they do.
A firm hand is the only way to deal with them. Like an irritating fly they need to be Zapped.
David is right in stating his intentions. How dare they upset the blessed David and Alan.
This is a wonderful site and we must protect it from these BBC miscreant acolytes.
‘So deranged and mentally ill’ … ‘psychiatric evaluation’. Another Leftoid trainee psychiatrist. Classic Leftoid abuse from a classic childish Leftoid.
“Another Leftoid trainee psychiatrist.”
“Classic Leftoid abuse from a classic childish Leftoid.”
More abuse from Biased BBC’s biggest slimeball!
Slimy Grimy – ignore the vast amounts of passive aggressive comments from the mongs on this site, but get offended like a Muslim in heat when a “troll” says something slightly unpleasant.
I take your point but, call me old-fashioned, it’s about “sticks and stones” and “words”. The more the genuine commenters are abused – and I agree it’s not pleasant – the more the abusers weaken their case (such as it is). Responding in kind, tempting though it is, is precisely what the quasi-trolls want since not only does it disrupt the thread, it diverts the commenters away from highlighting yet another example of BBC bias to merely exchanging insults with the canteeneers.
Unfortunately, where the BBC’s defenders have been quiet over a few days, some genuine commenters seek out the trolls by mentioning in their comments that there has been a recent absence of trolling and baiting the currently absent trolls. Many times the trolls rise to the bait: why wouldn’t they, it’s what they do and the whole process starts again. I agree that persistent disruption for the sake of it should see DV removing the “contributor” in question but a general cull of BBC defenders would, I think, be counter-productive. Ignore them.
I don’t get the impression that is what DV has in mind (witness the persistent poo-flinging activities since his post). While I agree with you that a blanket ban would be a very bad move, ridding us of those whose only purpose here is to disrupt and deflect our purpose can only be to the good – I think we can (almost) all agree on that.
Actually I would disagree. I think it’s far more effective not to censor them and expose their tactics and for other members to engage with them less.
Thank you David Vance – exactly what was called for!
Honest debate, correcting matters of fact, or arguing about the merits of BBC policy is one thing, but coming here to take a shotgun of abuse to everyone who posts or comments ( a favourite tactic), or simply to push one agenda to the exclusion of all else, is something very different. Above all, to divert attention from the main issues of the day so as to shift the focus away from the BBC’s poisonous influence on British life, is an act of deliberate sabotage and there is no reason why the rest of us should have to wade through it.
I generally try to respond to the contrarians…Jerrod, Xavier, zero et al with politeness and attempt to refute any obvious points of inaccuracy…I understand and accept genuine difference in opinion.
What I tend to receive in return is insult or ad hom, “You`re a….”
Generalisation “You`re all………”
Or the reply is ignored or, strangely, answered by one of the other contrarians. (I notice this is a common pattern in other interactions I`ve observed)
“C`est la vie” is my view, though I do understand peoples irritation and urge to retaliate in kind, at repeated responses like those above and the refusal to engage with the Blogs obvious theme which is BBC bias.
The other irritation that I share with others, is the refusal to accept that behaviours as described above amount to “trolling” as opposed to brave, upstanding argument with a dangerous enemy…which I think is our contrarians self generated image of what they are doing.
Sad really that open debate can`t take place, but most lefties appear to have taken the view propagated by the Guardian cif pages that “debate” means entering an echo chamber rather than engaging in an exchange of views on a subject.
“You’re a leftoid twat!”
“Leftist scum!”
“Evil Islamic apologist!”
“Brainless liberal moron!”
All things, among others, I’ve been called. Did I see you calling out your peers on their blatant abuse? No. Not once. Nothing but tumbleweed.
A “troll” says a nasty word, however, and the whole site is in uproar.
Where I come from (the real world), that’s called hypocrisy.
Your problem, UKIP Xavier, is that you are unable to distinguish between fact or fiction or between correct or incorrect labelling.
You have little or no experience of the real world or you would recognise that the BBC’s bias and refusal to tell us the whole truth is the reason for this site’s existence, and you would also realise that Al Beeb’s support of the EU and Schengen is well-known here and is why we rail about the presence of so many Norwegian/Dutch/French/Italian/German Somalis who DO have properly diagnosed mental problems which cost us dear in terms of education, policing, NHS funding and murder and who but for the EU would not have the right to infest our country.
You are, clearly, a troll! Bye!!
Slimy Grimy, is there a point to your post or are you just rambling? Perhaps you missed your medication this morning.
I’ve pointed out BBC bias before. As I keep saying though, it doesn’t fit your narrative that only leftoid twats (that’s what YOU called me… funny no one called you out on it though) can disagree with you. I’m no friend of the BBC, the EU or Muslims but since the only way you can attack me is to constantly lie about me, by all means keep doing it.
Slimy Grimes, the vilest, most repugnant poster on this site. Can only make a point by bullying, lying and ignoring any evidence against him.
Oh dear, UKIP Xavier, that looks remarkably like abuse to me. I don’t believe I have ever called you a twat, although you are one, but I am prepared to be countered on that. I have posted my opinion about you based on your ramblings here. I’ve always made it perfectly clear that these are my opinions, not facts, so they cannot be lies because I don’t claim them as truths. As for bullying, I’m upfront about not believing anything you post here and I will continue to do so until I see contrary evidence.
As others have pointed out, you answer every poster with remarks about their state of mental health whereas it seems ever more evident that it is you who is in need of help.
Xavier,I seem to remember you calling a new member, whose posting was polite,- ‘a retard.’
As I have said before, my wife who has retired as an NHS nurse, now works in a children’s hospice ( finds it hard to retire fully), many of these brave children are physically and mentally retarded, many suffer from cancer. Most of these children are going to die at a very young age.
Your throw comments around like ‘retard’ around like confetti. For hypocrisy just look in a mirror.
As I have said before, keep your comments constructive, answering the question without abuse, then pro BBC posters like yourself will gain pleasure from the site.
*sigh*
STILL telling yourself I’m “pro-BBC” because you simply cannot accept that someone can disagree with you without being an undercover leftist BBC Islamic apologist. You people are absolutely pathetic. And save your emotional blackmail, it doesn’t work. People here have said far worse things about Muslims, transgenders, gays et al., but you were curiously quiet at casting condemnation on them.
You’re pitiful.
Wronged,
You see, the troll just responds with further abuse in that self righteous tone they all have.
‘You people are absolutely pathetic’ and to your sensible and temperate remarks about children who deserve our compassion the troll responds with a dismissal about ’emotional blackmail’, then follows the standard UAF trash about people saying worse things about moslems etc.
ps. Xavier is actually Jerrod; the restricted speech is a giveaway.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is something common to these wretched people of a leftish persuasion which is worth mentioning. They confuse (as did the soviet thinkers) emotional outbursts with moral arguments. Hence, you draw attention to a moral issue or matter of principle and they respond with reference to your emotional blackmail. And guess what; the trolls never recognise their confusion.
In fact they share this with a large number of politicians – note Cameron who always addressed a moral issue with a reference to how he felt about it, how it made him feel sick. We are losing sight of moral argument.
Xavier, your comments are very offensive yet again. Zapped again Xavier.
Saying to someone
‘ You simply aren’t intelligent enough to formulate another plan of attack. Your script is a piece of shit. Work on it, or continue to get laughed at.’
Now this isn’t very nice is it Xavier?
You must try harder to be more pleasant to people Xavier.
C`est la vie. X
I actually missed the funniest part of your comment first time round. “…means entering an echo chamber rather than engaging in an exchange of views on a subject.”
Are you for real? Are you actually for real? Are posts from “trolls” on this site being deleted or am I imagining it?
And you think this place isn’t an echo chamber. Wow.
Xavier another of your postings has been zapped, I am not mentally ill nor do I need psychiatric help. Your diagnosis is wrong, but is most definitely offensive.
C`est la vie….you didn`t pay attention before responding? quelle suprise! X
Perhaps Xavier is a senior police officer. They seem to be able to diagnose mental illness with merely a glance at the perpetrator
David
This is censorship, however described.
Genuine comments on BBBC frequently note the, increasing, Newspeak tendencies on The World’s Most Trusted Broadcaster.
I believe your proposed actions is a mistake; a mistake which would lower BBBC to the same level as the entity which it is the purpose of this website to attack with all means at our disposal.
Genuine contributors here are all old enough, ugly enough and tough enough to take some insults from the trolls. There are not many trolls currently and we all know who they are.
The action you propose also increases the workload of the administrators of this site.
I ask you to reconsider whether the action you propose will be counter-productive. Trolls, should, in my opinion, be met with a considered, argued, response which counters any points they make. If a troll has a genuine point this should be admitted. Responding to trolls with insults is a mistake which will put off neutral visitors to this website.
What I do think should be censored is purposeless bad language, from all of us.
Thank you for reading and continuing to provide a forum for the exposure of the most treasonous organisation in Western history.
Actually, this is a nice little corner for the trolls and anyone who wants to engage with them. Perhaps Jerrod might pay a visit.
Truthseeker, your post is well intentioned but if you allow trolls to grow in number, as they seem to be doing, with the explicit aim of being disruptive and causing unhappiness. The site will die.
Edmund Burke said ‘that for evil to exist good men do nothing’, or words to that effect. I am all in favour of people (trolls) disagreeing with posters on this site, what I object to is their refusal to answer questions which are pertinent to the subject, their offensive remarks, normally cited in their first and last sentence, their downright refusal to accept another viewpoint wholeheartedly when there are clearly grey areas in the argument, this I find unacceptable. It is rude.
Tough action needs to taken against people with such extreme and unwarranted, unjustified, non consensual opinions. Their actions are intended to disrupt. People with this agenda should not be accommodated.
Furthermore new members will be put off, if when they post politely, they receive a tirade of abuse form a troll. This has sadly happened.
BTW Truthseeker, I maybe wrong,but I don’t recall many occasions you have engaged yourself in discussion with the trolls!
“I am all in favour of people (trolls) disagreeing with posters on this site,”
So you have just admitted that anyone who disagrees with the majority opinion on this site is a troll? Thanks for proving me right.
Your bleating is pathetic. Plenty of people have given you answers to questions. Insults and offensive remarks have been given in retaliation to abuse given by people on this site. And you saying that other people won’t accept other viewpoints is just plain humorous. This is one of the biggest echo chambers I’ve EVER seen. It rivals the likes of Reddit and the Guardian.
X
“. Insults and offensive remarks have been given in retaliation to abuse given by people on this site.”
I see the truth now, WE started it, every single time, no doubt. Well X, what do you expect from racists and bigots? We just proved your point, as you expected.
————————
“This is one of the biggest echo chambers I’ve EVER seen.” So you can see a website on the internet?
OK, tell us how large it is, and how much larger than the Guardian site which you have also seen with your paranormal vision.
———————–
“Plenty of people have given you answers to questions.” I can only think of four, regular, contributors who fit the troll description. So plenty is as low as four now?
This “answers to questions” is a totally misleading description of what occurs. Jerrod next to never provides facts, he supplies opinions, usually puerile opinions. Then, when his opinions are countered or rejected he cuts/pastes some previously filed bile in upper case and sends it to BBBC. Jerrod is a good example because, according to other BBBC contributors (I have not seen this myself) he does exactly the same, using the same name, on at least one other website.
OED Troll “A person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post:” I think Jerrod is a troll, you think he is answering questions.
So no, I do not find your response accurate or cogent.
But please continue to contribute.
As Harold Wilson so nearly said Xavier………….
…………one mans troll is another mans doughty defender of free speech.
W
I merely stated my opinion, you may reject that if you wish.
I am not sufficiently expert on the history of BBBC to know whether the trolls are more numerous, more industrious or more abusive than in the past.
Obviously my recent responses to Jerrod, in which I ridiculed his hyper use of the terms racist and bigot, were insufficiently humorous or stiletto-like to remain long in the memory.
Although I’ve only started to post here recently I have followed this site for several years and not only do I think banning the trolls is a bad idea, I think this whole thread gives them an importance they do not deserve.
I’ve noticed over the years that their whole purpose is to disrupt, hinder or derail certain threads and try to goad others into arguments, I can see it starting to happen above already. Although I understand it’s not always possible to ignore them, I believe the best way to deal with them is to interact with them as little as possible. By all means argue with them if you want but bear in mind that their tactics are not to win the argument, it is to disrupt and derail.
Also I would hate to see this site start banning people and sink to the same level as the BBC. One of the main complaints about the BBC is that it stifles dissenting voices, so unless the trolls are being nothing but abusive then let them have their say.
…unless the trolls are being nothing but abusive then let them have their say.
This gets to the crux of the matter. A troll is abusive by definition and there is therefore no such thing as a non-abusive troll.
A troll:
*contributes little or no reasoned arguments
*seldom backs opinions with evidence
*delights in disrupting sites and hurling insults at others
*lacks the capacity to acknowledge the merits of an opposing point of view
For years I did battle with the uncompromising left and far left at the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ site. In the end they told me my account was “disabled” when I tried to post a comment. I queried this, wanting to know the reason for the disabling and whether it was permanent. I was informed that it was indeed a permanent ban and the reason was that I was a “troll.”
Here’s why I wasn’t:
*I was reasonably polite with my opponents, refraining from mockery and abuse
*I posted logical arguments, backed with evidence
*My intention was not to disrupt the site but to defend people, nations and principles dear to me from the vicious attacks by so many on CIF and to demonstrate why the latter were wrong in the beliefs they held.
If the trolls here could start to behave in a reasonable fashion there would ne no problem – but that would obviously require a transformation they don’t seem capable of.
I don’t think they should be banned outright, but I would urge my esteemed colleagues here not to respond to them directly.
Sorry TrueToo I should’ve worded my last post better, what I meant by “abusive” was the use of abusive language.
No problem. I agree 100% with this:
I believe the best way to deal with them is to interact with them as little as possible.
Off topic completely I know but I can’t resist, brilliant film. 🙂
Not a fan of the Olympics then?
Troll hunting appears to be a growing sport these days.
We had better watch out or the ‘League Against Cruel Sports’ will be after us . 🙂
I think this is an overdue discussion about the ‘troll’/traitor/skidmark on the underpants of life.
I personally have no problem with these losers, and I actually enjoy annihilating the vermin when they scurry out from their sewer.
Anyone posting on this website and excusing, allowing and willing to let their own people to be butchered and raped… And all because they want to see themselves as a “morality and tolerance supremacist”….are utter shit in my eyes. At any other time in our history they would have been taken out and shot for treason.
We all found this website because of the sensorship of what we are being told and prevention of free speech and tolerance…both fought for, for centuries by our forefathers. The fact that the vile Al Beeb are assisting our political elite when they should be trying to protect us shows that this organisation is rotten to its very core.
Our establishment are using the death cult as a way of taking away all of our freedoms and destroying everything that makes us British….but this rabid, manic, psychopathic beast will never go back in its cage. The fact that we are fighting back, and the scum that troll this website are trying to stop us from saving our country, is enough for us to own these scrotums as soon as they scurry out of their sewer
> Anyone posting on this website and excusing, allowing and willing to let their own people to be butchered and raped… And all because they want to see themselves as a “morality and tolerance supremacist”….are utter shit in my eyes. At any other time in our history they would have been taken out and shot for treason.
The trouble is, nobody says anything of the sort. You ascribe such beliefs to people and then start laying into them as a result. It’s very hard to conclude anything other than you want to be abusive, and so you fabricate a reason why your own abusive behaviour is acceptable by telling yourself that the people you accuse are beyond the pale.
That’s why David Vance’s calls against trolls are so misguided. There is, as I’ve said over and over again, a culture of abusive behaviour from those same people who moan about “trolls”. But if you are of the same political persuasion as the prevailing voices on here, such abusive behaviour goes ignored, or even excused. Meanwhile, anybody even so much as attempting to disagree gets labelled a “troll” regardless of their behaviour. And when that happens, what incentive is there for people you don’t like to change their tone?
If you want decent behaviour from all on this site, then demand it from everyone. Don’t ignore the right-wing abusive idiots just because you happen to agree with their politics, unless you want to come across as a hypocrite who says they want to see decent behaviour, but really just wants to drive away dissenting voices because they want everyone to agree and tell them how wonderful they are.
Head troll comments once again without a single reference to BBC bias.
I was responding to Tothepoint, who didn’t mention BBC bias either.
But thanks for providing an illustration of Biased BBC commenters’ double standards, and how such hypocrisy is rampant through this site.
So enlighten us. How many times have you come actually here to discuss the BBC?
Judging by the way he miraculously pops up when one of his more favoured topics appears (Islam, militant gay causes) I would think he is constantly monitoring this site.
The fact that for 99% of its content he is unable to come up with a defence of the BBC speaks volumes.
And as a general observation: how odd that the defenders of the BBC who visit this site are all leftists.
This troll likes to generalise, but cannot argue. It is unique as its insults are akin to plagiarisms from toilet graffiti. (According to some of its posts it spends a lot of time in those places) Still, I see some of the left in Merseyside are promoting ‘fisting against the Tories’, so it does seem that those of us deemed to be hypocrites are a bit bigoted when it comes to enlightened alternative life styles. Far be it that I should abuse this troll.
But I hope the troll remembers how it comes here and doles out insults and draws false generalisations, whilst never once responding to the substantive issue in the post it dislikes. You disagree once with any of the left sites of its Komrads and you are blocked – permanent. Yet the troll returns here time and time again and avoids giving answers, wails about the moral high ground, hypocrisy, displays ignorance about moral and political debate, but hurls insults. That is trolling. This site is tolerant; this troll is not. And other than draw a few bob from its BBC bosses it has no need to be here.
Make this clear:
‘Anyone posting on this website and excusing, allowing and willing to let their own people to be butchered and raped… And all because they want to see themselves as a “morality and tolerance supremacist”….are utter shit in my eyes. At any other time in our history they would have been taken out and shot for treason’.
I support this statement which correctly describes this troll, who constantly tries to rubbish any attempt to point the finger of blame those responsible for these atrocities, and at the BBC who have distorted and concealed the facts. Maybe the troll did not actually say these words, but its reason for posting here is clearly to defend and advance such a position.
Ah. So although I “did not say these words”, it’s okay to be abusive towards me because you think I somehow agree with them?
As usual, G.W.F., your inability to distinguish between reality and your own fictions prevents you from recognising your own hypocrisy. Ironic from someone who’s so keen to label others as liars that you cannot recognise exactly the same fault in yourself.
Still, if David Vance wants a site that contains nobody but a few self-righteous hypocrites whose ability to engage with those of differing opinions is as negligible as yours, he’s going the right way about it.
Biased BBC: not really about BBC bias, but about a sad collection of losers treating to convince themselves that they’re anything but. And a failed politician who can’t bear to admit that the only way he can sound authoritative is by surrounding himself with the deranged, the deluded and the frankly downright lying hypocrites.
Jerrod Fister, fist off mate with your accusations of hypocrisy. You never fail to support jihadists and child rapists, fist off
An example, if any more were needed, of GWF’s ability to engage in constructive argument, or lack thereof.
Sex-obsessed, lying GWF is the kind of person David Vance thinks of as “not a troll”, apparently. I guess that when everybody’s living under the same bridge, the low light levels make it hard to make out troll-like features in one of your own…
GWF,
You are a man of education and experience. Why are you wasting time with silly little boys like Jerrod ?
GWF,
Why are you wasting time dancing with angels ?
Grant,
I agree it is a waste of time. But this piece of perverted scum who comes here to rubbish anyone who criticises the BBC – specifically its cover up of jihadist atrocities – needs to be called out. Anyone giving it a like might be aware that it has not responded to a single request for evidence. Which makes it the worst of all the trolls here.
And how am I “perverted scum”, GWF?
Is it because I react to people’s comments with comments about them looking for sex in public toilets? Oh, no, that was you, so that can’t be it.
Maybe it’s because I talk about fisting as a means of detracting from my own bad behaviour? Oh, no, wait – that was you again.
So pray tell me, how am I perverted scum and you’re not?
This troll is concerned over remarks about fisting. I understand that among the political groups and alternative life stylers who have featured on the BBC are the Class War Anarchists who have been politely interviewed by Andrew Neil. Although this troll does not produce arguments it takes a default position which involves hurling insults at those who criticise its cherished institutions, including grooming gangs and what I deem to be the sexual perverts in Class War.
Now I believe that the BBC has in part nurtured them, and I have called out our troll for its opinions which it has so far avoided other than post abusive comments about the administrators of the site and of course myself.
I see this post as a contribution to a critique of BBC Bias.
So you’d rather dig into your personal photo collection than explain how I’m “perverted scum”?
If Grant’s right and you’re a man of “education and experience”, why are so you incapable of behaving like it? Instead, you take potshots at people who have nothing to do with me and claim that this is justification for your frankly childish behaviour.
If David Vance was honest about wanting to take a stand against trolls, he’d start with you.
Your komrads not mine Jerrod; their photos not mine.
I invite you to criticise the BBC for giving them breathing space for their obnoxious approach to politics.
I haven’t heard of them or seen them interviewed. How can I then condemn them? To do so on no evidence would go against that evidence-based approach you hold dear in others, if not yourself.
Now, for how much longer are you going to avoid the question of why I am “perverted scum”?
Jerrod is a prick. It was apparent very soon after he appeared on this site that he had nothing to say of any meaning. His comments may as well be written in invisible ink as far as I’m concerned..I just dont see them.
Curious that your first post on this thread is to insult someone whose posts you claim you don’t read.
Thanks for illustrating that what Biased BBC insists is troll-like behaviour exists in people like you, to whom for some reason David Vance turns a blind eye.
I really do not know where to begin.. Or if I should be wasting my time on this loser…
But I always own Jihadi when we exchange posts, mostly because he’s the worlds biggest bell-end, but also because he has to go against everything we write on here…regardless of what it is we are talking about. A world class prized prick is Jerrod, and a specimen who just wants to feel important…. But all we think of him is that he’s an embarrassment and that all he brings to this website is the vomiting reflex. If we say we have been to Tenerife, this is the sort of tosser who will say he has been to Elevenerife….
Jihadi is angry because I always make him look stupid and inept. It’s impossible for someone who believes he is superior to act any other way, when someone calls you a “deviant, liar, scumbag, traitor, psychopathic weirdo, who is the very reason our country is failing…” and Jerrod knowing every single word I say is true. It must destroy him that he has spent his whole life thinking he is better than a whole section of his own people…. And then to know that not only was his weird ideology wrong, the people he thought he was better than were right all along, but most hurtful of all is that these same people just think he is a fucking joke.
Jerrod you have spent your entire time on here trying to disrupt our discussions and and trying to protect Al Beebs message. You are a sympathiser and protecter of mass rape, killing, genocide. Every day that you try and prevent or distract the conversation away from what is happening to the west, you are making it happen. You are even more to blame than any Muslim that murders our own people, because without bastards like you, they wouldn’t have a chance to carry out their hatred.
I have no doubt that at the beginning you meant well… All your life has lead you to become a traitor to your own people and the cause of its down fall. That must make you feel much worse than I ever could. Still… If you are willing to sacrifice and abandon your own people and identify this quickly, you will have no problem when the time comes to fight or submit you spineless bastard!
Allahu Akbar Jihadi. I have no doubt you are well versed in Islamic phrases already…
There is, as I’ve said over and over again, a culture of abusive behaviour from those same people who moan about “trolls”. But if you are of the same political persuasion as the prevailing voices on here, such abusive behaviour goes ignored, or even excused.
Your lack of self-awareness is a wonder to behold. What actually happened, Jerrod – just for the record – is that a minority of posters on here finally ran out of patience and started to respond in kind to your endless stream of childish, offensive name-calling.
Please note, however, that the majority of us have refrained from doing so, even to spittle-flecked rants such as this:
…doesn’t matter that you’re a prejudiced little worm who can’t treat people with fairness and equality, because MUSLIMS….We all know from all your previous rantings that you’re an obsessed little bigot who is clearly so insecure about his own place in the world that he has to obsess about anyone and everyone who is different from you. Don’t go changing, johnnythefish……If you started behaving like an adult instead of a moron, the Biased BBC Club for Bigots in Self-Denial would have to rescind your membership cardRather a narcissistic, if not downright sociopathic, approach to life…We get that you hate Muslims. You whine on enough about that…..is it a mere byproduct of your narcissism complex and your inability to comprehend that not everybody is as in love with your delusions as you are..
Until you adopt a more civil tone and begin to argue your case coherently and with a few facts rather than unrestrained, emotion-driven, childish temper-tantrums, in my book you should definitely be banned. Enough is enough.
We post on a site trying to point out bias by the largest broadcaster in the world – it’s the BBC for *&@k’s sake. Of course we are going to get trolls, if we don’t get trolls we are doing something wrong. They are simply launching baited lines in a small pool, we can see the hooks, we can see the bait….it looks so tempting….just a few lines of a rant, I’ll show him. Don’t do it ignore them, it’s hard I know – but by trolling us it means we are winning the argument in wider society.
More people, myself included discovered this site after being overwhelmed by the constant BS about Brexit (now it’s get Trump), more people are logging on and reading all the time, but we are still tiny in number, what does it say about the trolls that they have to come to a relatively small site like this (no offence intended guys ) and goad us ? It means they understand the growing number of people who do not trust of our national broadcaster and our looking for an alternative view and they can not stand it. Remember no matter how much they may annoy, intimidate or bully you, they are wasting their limited time on this Earth, baiting people they despise and arguing views they cannot understand (and know they will never change). Roll with it, unlike them we believe in free thought and speech.
It is easier said than done but just ignore them.
if we don’t get trolls we are doing something wrong.
Agreed, but the trolls used to be more clued up though equally vicious. The troll of trolls on this site, in my opinion, was one ‘John Reith’ – probably a senior BBC person – who did battle with us for some time years ago. A really violent battle ensued when Reith accused contributors to this site, myself included, of being apologists for murder for taking Israel’s side over the accidental killing of UN personnel in Lebanon in 2006. The sneering and false accusations from Reith, along with the unwillingness to consider facts like the proximity of Hezbollah to the UN site, marked him as a troll supreme.
Though Reith was intelligent and a good debater, he apparently failed to understand the damage he was doing to the reputation of the BBC with his one-sided bashing of Israel. Or perhaps he did understand and simply didn’t care.
Not in his wildest nightmares would Reith ever have criticised the killing of UN personnel by Hezbollah. That marked him as a typical anti-Israel BBC hypocrite.
I agree. I too have always been convinced that Reith was someone quite serious within the BBC. He wasn’t a troll because he was clearly here to bat for the BBC. I also suspect he was pulled from the site by his masters because he became a liability.
I also suspect he was pulled from the site by his masters because he became a liability.
Yes, I’m sure he thought he could easily demolish our arguments. Turned out that he was often the one demolished. After all, he was trying to defend the indefensible.
On reflection, perhaps he wasn’t a typical troll; but he certainly displayed powerful troll tendencies at times.
Yeah but guys, you beat him. Whatever the reason, you are still here and he isn’t. No matter how good a debater, or intelligent he was, a turd is still a turd, no matter how much glitter you sprinkle on it. I am neither intelligent or a good debater so I choose to ignore trolls.
I’m not sure it’s a good idea to ban people unless there’s a history of serious trolling, and by that I mean outright serial abusiveness.
I just tend to skip past any comments by the usual suspects, and I wish other people would too. I can’t remember any thread where they have contributed anything useful. Most of the time it’s them pointing out a tiny mistake or misattribution from another comment, then it just gets hijacked into a pointless back and forth name-calling session.
It’s just disruptive tactics (plus some concern trolling), focusing on the minutiae. There is no point trying to deflect accusations that you are not being racist/sexist/homophobic/all those other bad isms, or occasionally being factually wrong.
The SJWs who annoy us on here think we’re all damned to hell anyway for having the temerity to think doubleplusungood thoughts, so you may as well be hung for a sheep than a lamb!
If anything it’s worth keeping them to remind us how deluded some people can be, if we believe them when they say they truly can’t see political bias in the BBC’s output.
There is one very simple solution to this problem
A block/ignore button
Let them rant away to themselves
Could we have a page at the back? A “sport section”? The Trolls called me out a couple of times on my odd contribution. I seriously lack the eloquence of chrisH or the imagination of helena handbasket. However I’m a Plumber and know how to fix a blocked Bog!
Chwarae teg (fair play) worrywart. Some of the rest of us have a problem with putting our thoughts onto the screen.
Keep posting – I’m just a thick scientist and cannot compete with some of the wordsmiths, I still enjoy the banter.
WRT Trolls – don’t feed them – if you happened to meet one, you would need to run in the Olympics to catch it!
I learned from a previous blog site never to engage with trolls. Wastes time, encourages them, doesn’t change anyone’s mind, theirs, yours or the readers. Imo.
peter,
Exactly, well said !
I don’t have time to read the whole thread but if everyone would just ignore them, as I do, they will just go somewhere else to get their kicks. They are just a bunch of attention-seeking children who will never grow up. Just ignore them !
Can we have a separate area of the site for ‘discussion and debate’ to separate that out from ‘examples of BBC bias’?
Personally I’m not that interested in following the back and forth between posters. I wouldn’t ban it, just relocate it so I have less scrolling.
‘the site will be disinfected. ‘
How very Erdogan of you.
That would be the popular leader of Turkey you and your fellow Remainiacs at the BBC want inside the EU, would it?
Kikicho,
Now try posting something on ANY of the left sites, like Left Unity, UAF etc. something which mildly criticises the leaderships position, not abusive not false. You will be permanently blocked. So don’t pull the Erdogen stunt here. Your komrads – maybe it is you under other names – come here and abuse people and moan if people are removed for doing so.
I’d like to add my support for ignoring trolls, or whatever we want to call them. I don’t think they should be banned.
I am generally against censorship, and believe banning people for expressing opposite views would put us at the same level as the Guardian or BBC.
If the mods want to warn posters who make abusive comments against other posters, and then banning them if they persist, this would seem a sensible compromise.
I second manchesterlad. Ignore trolls. Waste of time, waste of space, just gives them the oxygen of publicity.
I was trolled by Xavier the other day when I explained why as farmers we need the BBC to produce accurate forecasts for the days ahead. Left me thinking ‘what a very silly little boy’.
In general I just skip the obvious posts but it does spoil open threads when there are a lot of troll remarks. I suppose that is their aim, especially as my thinking is that they are from the BBC PR department and they are tasked with disrupting this site.
Banning them? We could try but note how soon they return under different aliases.
The role of the bbc employed trolls is simply to disrupt.. Some folk are fooled into responding and engaging in a dialogue with them, and simply cant see that they are assisting the trolling.
The answer is simple, no need to ban, simply leave their comments ignored and isolated.
There again, they may then be forced to invent posts of their own, to assist the dialogue.
Hmmm…have they done that already?
It is actually quite possible to ban individuals, Deborah and if they do manage to come back to quickly ban their aliases. All it takes is the decision to do it and to withstand that appeasing instinct which, in my opinion, is a mistake once trolls cross the line.
> my thinking is that they are from the BBC PR department
I’ve explained before that I don’t work for the BBC. Can’t speak for anyone else. Have to say, that Deborah’s thinking being wrong on this score doesn’t exactly make it out of place.
As I suspected it would, this thread has become a perfect example of trolls and their tactics, and the disruption they can cause when members choose to engage with them too much.
I’ve been following this thread closely for past couple of hours and in that time the post count has gone from 78 to 93, that’s nearly a 20% increase.
They will take a phrase you’ve used and use it against you to try to draw you into an argument. If you resort to insults this makes their job even easier as they can use that to draw you in, and if other members join in the insults too then that’s even better as they can draw them in too and cause even more disruption……….and all in a thread titled “No Trolls Wanted”
This thread should be used to highlight why it’s wise to keep contact with the trolls to a minimum and the disruption they can cause when you don’t
> They will take a phrase you’ve used and use it against you
How very dare they. The idea that Biased BBC commenters are responsible for what they type, and it can be challenged? The very idea!
> If you resort to insults this makes their job even easier as they can use that to draw you in
Ah yes, if someone (like, say, GWF) resorts to insults, it’s those they’re insulting who are at fault. How very Biased BBC: no personal responsibility for some, every possible personal responsibility demanded of others.
Once again – trolling is pervasive on this site, it’s true – but the largest and most numerous culprits are regulars who are right-wing and therefore have their behaviour ignored, excused and even egged on.
But of course, Vance will do nothing about them. I wonder why. I assume he is intelligent enough to realise that he’s being a shameless hypocrite, but sometimes I do wonder if that assumption is wrong.
Or why they should simply be banned.
Tempting but I think banning people is the start of a slippery slope that should only be used as a last resort , far better to expose their tactics and let them hang themselves.
I don’t advocate (and actively despise) the sort of knee-jerk authoritarianism that is all too common on Left wing sites and social media.
However, there are one or two regular trolls here whose only purpose is to disrupt and insult. Letting them continue deters visitors and commenters, which is why they do it.
Agreed, and I understand where you’re coming from but it’s a problem that can be controlled quite easily just by interacting with them less often. Why bother arguing with someone who’s just there to disrupt? Just ignore them and they’re powerless, it’s only when people engage with them that they can cause disruption.
Less interaction = Less disruption
Sooner or later a troll will goad people into a reaction. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve seen the ‘ignore them and they will go away’ argument. I’ve also lost count of the time I’ve seen people eventually rise to the bait.
And that’s what needs to change, don’t rise to the bait……..EVER, they simply don’t warrant the attention. Someone above suggested an “Ignore” button, that is actually a very good idea, and would encourage more new posters here.
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
No problem and I understand completely where you’re coming from.
Likewise.
> whose only purpose is to disrupt and insult
I wonder why you keep quiet every time taffman interrupts a discussion, making his only contribution to a thread either a link to an irrelevant petition or another non sequitur, such as asking “why are you here?” over and over again until the topic being discussed diverts in his direction.
If you’re against disruption, you’d surely be against that. But you say nothing.
If you were against insults, you’d have said something when GWF resorted to comments about public toilets and fisting. But you said nothing.
Which leads me to believe that (a) you’re not really against disruptive behavioiur at all, as long as it’s applied in a direction you approve of; and (b) you find it hard for some reason to tell the truth about your motives.
Why are you not telling the truth? Is it because when your fellow travellers indulge their own troll-like behaviour, you’re too afraid to say anything – and now you’re too ashamed to admit it? Or do you just like having your hypocrisy on display for all to see?
I quite understand if you have difficulty answering such questions honestly. It’s not like you’re the only one of David Vance’s little right-wing troll collective who has trouble being honest, after all. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that you seem actually, genuinely afraid of being ostracized if you were to break ranks and admit that Biased BBC’s real troll problem is being ignored, because if Vance expelled all the real culprits he’s afraid he’d have no supporters left at all.
I am happy to engage with those expressing contrary opinions – it makes a site more interesting. However, the repeat trollers we have on this site do not seek to engage in civilized debate, and so are best ignored. Since it is highly likely they are paid employees of the BBC, ignoring them also deprives them of an income.
Today’s challenge for you Jerrod: a post in which you don’t make personal comments
Or one in which he discusses BBC bias. Now that’d be a novelty!
Today’s challenge for you: hold other Biased BBC regulars to account. If you dare. It seems like there is no-one with the guts to actually care about standards by calling out people like GWF who clearly believe such standards do not apply to them.
If you, David Vance, or anybody really cared about standards, we’d see action against people on all sides who were abusive. That we do not says one thing, and one thing only: when David Vance and friends say that they care about standards, they are lying. What they really care about is crushing any voice who disagrees with them, while giving carte blanche for abusive, insulting behaviour from anyone who agrees with them.
Now be a man, Anders. Show that you really do care about standards and stand up to Vance and his cronies. Show that abusive and insulting behaviour from the likes of GWF will not be tolerated.
Or, you know, take the coward’s way out. Pretend that Biased BBC’s trolling problem comes from a few left-wingers, rather than the swathes of right-wing trolls who riddle this site. Keep quiet. And then wonder why people think you’re a hypocrite.
Jerrod, Jerrod no mates,
Still going on about me. I took the piss out of you over that public toilet stuff, didn’t I? And you walked into it. But then I recall how you sunk to that level. Remember saying how you would split me in half with your 8 inch manhood should I meet you in Camden toilets? Its in the archives here for anyone with time to waste.
But you fell for it, and I proved that personal insults are all you are good for.
Now be a good man and show everyone here that you can respond to a challenge. You have been asked to tell us why you are here. It is a good question, because not one person on this site seems to have any idea why you abuse people for complaining about BBC bias.
So do tell us why you are here.
I regard anyone who goes to great lengths to disrupt an intelligent discussion concerning the BBC cover up of Islamic inspired atrocities including terrorism, grooming gangs and more, as both despicable and perverted. Your boast about the sexual invitation is there.
You are a perverted troll and describing others here as trolls won’t wash,
Now answer the question – why do you come here?
Jerrod you post about ‘digging and digging’ , Jerrod to my recollection you have never answered my simple question, “why are you here” ?
Easy isn’t it .
Or is your reluctance to answer is that you are an Al Beeb Troll – why else would you be here ?
I did not lie, the post is in the archives together with my reply where I declined your offer. End of discussion.
I have replied to your stupid and repetitive posts here because the topic is about trolls. Anywhere else I will ignore you.
Meanwhile, can you answer the question which has been reasonably put to you.
Why do you come on this site?
Jerrod, You might note that much of the discussion about Camden toilets was with you under you other identity- Zero – which you will of course deny. Hence my response to your invitation to meet at the toilets.
‘Zero, sorry I missed you at Camden public toilets as the experience could have been videoed for my colleague who has a massive EU grant to research the sexual behaviour of left wing trolls….
I note your frequent sexual metaphors eg. jerking off in unison (brilliant!) – which are relevant to her research.’
————————————
You gave the game away regarding your double identity here by referring to my horrible insults to you under your identity as zero
My point about your sexual behaviour relates to your over use of sexual metaphors when insulting contributors here.
Now, perhaps you will answer the question – why do you come here to insult people with your sexual metaphors. Why do you post here?
GWF,
And why do you bother with these people ??? They are retards. You are worth much more than them. And I say that with friendship !
Grant, May I assure you that this comment box is to be my only response to them. Otherwise, they do not exist.
GWF,
Well , I agree with you on that !
Jerrod aka Zero,
From your post to me.
zero June 19, 2016 at 3:56 am
G.W.F.
‘I’ve got eight inches of uncut, silken, white meat that would leave your asshole winking like a cyclops in the rain. Meet me tomorrow in Camden public toilets at 3pm; I’ll be good and hard and waiting for you!!! Kiss, Kiss <3'
———————————————————–
Time to end this once and for all Good bye.
GWF,
As the late , and great, Tommy Cooper would have said ” You have to laugh “. What pathetic little kids !
Hello Jerrod
Your posts on this site appear to be some sort of personal crusade in support of Al Beeb? You must spend much of your time and effort contradicting the views submitted by the regular contributors on this site and in return you experience a lot of criticism and castigation. You are very venomous to some of the more polite contributors including myself, who only contribute here because we are of the opinion that Al Beeb is very biased and exacts its funding via an unfair tax system.
I know that this will upset you but please enlighten us and let us know what exactly motivates you? Why are you here ?
Jerrod
“Today’s challenge for you: hold other Biased BBC regulars to account. If you dare”
Ok, here is one for you .
In the immortal word of the man who got us our ‘Independence’ “Why are you here ? Why are you here ?”
Sorry if you misunderstood me Jerrod but I simply don’t understand your motivation as to why you desire to post on a site that is so disagreeable to you?
Many readers of this Anti Al Beeb site would really like to know your motivation for posting, other than ‘Trolling’? As far as I can recall you have never given an answer?
A simple answer would be suffice , its not too hard is it ?
Honestly, I am not a troll, you dont feed me, I post here because because I am of the opinion that Al Beeb is very biased and exacts its funding via a very unfair tax system. (Please see my posts).
Trolls….ignore them …
Jerrod, if you have read some, many, all of my posts on this site you will know that I do not regard you as a troll but someone with a view that is valid and is such is to be considered, questioned and debated. If necessary, after post & counterpost, agreeing to differ.
You have been asked a quite reasonable question above “Why are you here?”. Please reply.
I cannot remember whether you have confirmed that you do not work for the BBC or any company associated with the BBC or a political group or Party. Perhaps you would be so kind as to do so now. Thanks.
Just so we know where we stand, I’d address the same questions in my reply to Jerrod, to the following:
Xavier
Kikuchiyo
manonclaphamomnibus
zero
anyone else who has a contrary view, and quite welcome as far as I am concerned, to most of the postings on this site.
There you are guys and gals, a chance to clear the slate and at least state your motives and confirm you are not ‘trolls’ in the proper internet meaning of the word.
Upto,
They are Trolls and retards . I just said to GWF that I do not know why he and you and others, all top posters on this site, are wasting time on these creatures. Nothing you can write will solve their mental illness !
Grant, I hear what you say, or, more correctly, ‘read what you wrote’ (if that isn’t a ‘Wise-ism – as in Morecambe & Wise) but I just thought it was too good an opportunity to miss.
Either they individually come back and state their bona fides or they leave themselves open to the penalty that David Vance wishes to apply and/or being ignored by everyone including me as I will have their invitation to do so. As I’m possibly one of the more tolerant and/or willing to debate with them, they can either engage on reasonable terms or suffer whatever fate is their due in the event of no reply.
Tbaskett? Keep an eye out!
May be OK, PG. Was making a good (legal) point on the new StW Thread.