David Vance has appealed over the years to contributors to moderate their language, so I’m just echoing that appeal here. There’s nothing to be gained by competing with the comments section under many YouTube videos, and swearing probably drives some people away from the site who would otherwise contribute.
More disturbing are attacks on political figures which can be interpreted as promoting violence and even assassination. This blog is not a hate site, never was and I’m sure never will be.
We have to also consider the disturbing moves on the part of the ‘government’ towards a police state, where people can be hauled out of their homes, shoved before a kangaroo court without genuine legal aid and jailed for expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion.
Passionate argument against the foul BBC and its ilk is what we should be aiming at, so let’s try not to be diverted from that course.
I second everything you have said,this site is one of the few that doesn’t attract the idiots from other web sites that swear and rant full of hate for fellow man/woman.
Its hard sometimes but lets keep out personal attacks and keep this site clean. We owe it to ourselves,how would we spead the word against the BBC and the others that lie,cheat, and bring Great Britain down every chance they get.
Hear, hear, well said.
Its a shame that this had to be stated. But taken along with “We have to also consider the disturbing moves on the part of the ‘government’ towards a police state, where people can be hauled out of their homes, shoved before a kangaroo court without genuine legal aid and jailed for expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion” –
the reminder plus the knowledge of the state’s intent, frightens people from free discussion. The suppression of free speech is now a realty as self censorship kicks in.
Its on such occasions that I regret we dont have the First Amendment.
I agree that we need to keep the language civil, but when you have Yvette Cooper, the very epitome of an Islington champagne socialist, putting forward bills to try and prevent Brexit, it doesn’t half try your patience.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47789298
Is there a site anywhere that has copies of the election literature of these liars promising to respect the result of the referendum? Now that they’ve given up even paying lip service to these pledges, it’s time to plaster copies all over their constituencies.
We need to start NOW working to ensure they are kicked out next election. Which could be very soon.
And the Brexit parties must come to some arrangement not to split the vote. And some sort of pact to get Brexit voters from both right and left on board. For instance, standing on the basis that, if elected, they will concentrate their efforts on ensuring Brexit and doing little else other than the bare minimum to keep the country running.
Roland,
It would be a wonderful moment of karma if she were to be deselected but if she was, I wouldn’t put it past the BBC to reward her for all her hard work by then finding her alternative employment as their go-to mouthpiece on all things political.
I can just see her sitting next to Kirsty Wark and Emily Maitlis talking nonsense, she’d fit right in.
Truth can stand alone & doesn’t need coarse language to support it.
I agree with Language – I will do my utmost to avoid it.
Yvette cooper needs deselecting when her constituency voted 63% leave.
And the Tory remainer MP for Harlow represents a constituency which voted 68% leave – I suppose he thinks they are all thick
Can I still not accidentally link to BBC tweets where they swear?
The last time I thanked or reminded writers about language on the site it got worse so I stopped.
Although I try to apply a light hand to moderation I am feeling a line being drawn where other peoples’ quotes are put into comments here but I’m against censorship or restrictions where possible –
And with YouTube now imposing restrictions on TR I feel it even more .
@Fed
Your imput and patience has been noted Fed.Dont we still have Libel and Slander laws?…so,with that in mind perhaps everybody contributing on here should try and keep it ‘civil’?We have to take the consequences for the things we write and perhaps think a bit longer before typing……………..I knows its hard currently and we all have our moments of ‘rage’.
Keep up the good work Fed…………
Hear, hear again.
Just to add that when writing on a web-site owned by someone else, where no editing takes place, it is the writer’s responsibility to self-edit and bear the site owner in mind.
Fedup2,
Re the query above from Guest Who I’d prefer to see commentary on links with swearing rather than having them posted here. Then anyone who wants to can check those links out where they originate. But I don’t make the rules.
Grim news about Tommy Robinson’s YouTube channel. I also subscribed to Paul Joseph Watson and pressed the bell symbol for notifications for his new videos but I don’t get any so I suppose YouTube has blocked info on them coming through to his supporters.
The left really seems intent on proving that it only believes in freedom of speech of those it agrees with.
We might have to return to posting letters via snail mail sometime soon.
True
I have seen those cut and paste comments from other sites which include strong language and have been tempted to delete them knowing that someone will moan .
The coming days are going to be even more fraught so I will repeat your plea when I put up the midweek thread in a while ( I get told off for doing that too early as well but it’s the price of being a volunteer and trying not to spend more time with the site than is sane ).
Fedup2,
I’m glad we are on the same wavelength on this matter.
True ,
Yes there needs to be to maintain the integrity of the site and the cause …
I don’t swear in forums. It is counterproductive.
It doesn’t bother me if others do, especially those from the bbc, because it serves them poorly.
Btw, link a tweet and it will appear in full. Hence hard to avoid.
From Hogwarts to New Zealand, not mentioning bad things others say could be seen as a weakness. Sources say.
Guest Who,
Btw, link a tweet and it will appear in full. Hence hard to avoid.
Yes, I learned that when we had a previous debate on the issue. But of course it’s possible to just post the hash tag with a description of the offending tweet minus the language so that people here can go to Twitter and check for themselves.
I think that’s a reasonable way of handling the issue. Then valuable contributions such as BBC hacks tweeting their bias in iffy language can still be posted here.
Twitter can apply or not apply its own rules to its users, depending on its own bias, but of course it doesn’t face the risks that we ordinary mortals face.
Fedupo2
Despite what I wrote above, I understand your prescription. Its a shame that you are put in this situation.
Pity we dont have the 1st Amendment.
Remember we aren’t being commissioned by BBC ‘Comedy’!
Al Beeb don’t do comedy .
@Taff
Have you not watched FAMALAM?……its absolutely hilarious (not).
Agree over bad language. We have the skills here to hit hard without it. But I recall from last week some BBE jinny saying how the alt or far right are concealing their hate speech with irony etc. They are coming for us, so we have to be careful where to stand.
I understand from the anti fascist gangs on the social media that you can identify a far right hate speaker when they say that Islam is not a race. The rabid left, who have the ear of the BBC and many politicians, can be defeated with reference to their stupidity, but best not to give them ammunition.
Agree over bad language. We have the skills here to hit hard without it. But I recall from last week some BBE jinny saying how the alt or far right are concealing their hate speech with irony etc. They are coming for us, so we have to be careful where to stand.
I understand from the anti fascist gangs on the social media that you can identify a far right hate speaker when they say that Islam is not a race. The rabid left, who have the ear of the BBC and many politicians, can be defeated with reference to their stupidity, but best not to give them ammunition.
Is Islam a race?
NCBBC
No it is not. But according to the left, those who say it is not a race are concealing their racism.
That’s lefty logic. Watch out for it.
I would agree that we avoid swearing on this site, and most definitely, appeals to violence of any kind.
We must strive to be a quality site that -in the first instance- holds our apparently unaccountable state broadcaster to account. I doubt the ‘regulator’ bothers.
However, we are also aware that, in opposing overt violence of any kind, there is a sort of covert ‘violation’ done by people in positions of power, who break promises and act in bad faith – against the interests of the ‘ordinary man/woman’.
When political parties, for instance, publish manifestos which are the basis of individuals attaining power, only for us to find them ignoring key platforms, we have a right to feel aggrieved. So, we the ‘little people’, suddenly perceive that language has no meaning, and that a sort of fraud has been perpetrated against us.
(Example: the referendum was an exercise in DIRECT democracy. When parliament claims that it has the right to make and shape a final decision, because it is the institution of REPRESENTATIVE democracy, it performs a little magic trick, and hopes we are too stupid to notice the usurpation of power. We are also well aware that this has worked because of the connivance of the government.) In fact, we are constantly told how stupid we are!
In the business world, such a fraud would have serious financial consequences.
It is that which gives life to sites like this, the feeling that our trust has been violated. By people in politics and the media who claim to SERVE us and are PAID by us.
And this, we do not like. And we have every right- in a democratic state- to say so.
“Passionate argument against the foul BBC and its ilk is what we should be aiming at, so let’s try not to be diverted from that course.”
Sayeth the moderator.
The moderator, who will, no doubt, produce some evidence of how successful this strategy has been hitherto.
Who believes that our enemies are interested in any arguments, except their own?
Silence.
If the souls of our war dead are viewing the current situation what action would they advise?
“Write to your MP and complain about treachery”?
I do not think so.
This has worked so succesfully I expect 500 current MPs will swiftly take the Chiltern Hundreds.
Our consent is withdrawn.
Their laws are now obsolete and must be ignored.
Our new laws must be forged.
If you are advocating ‘direct action’ then I think the clear message of David Vance and others is take your rallying calls elsewhere.
If I have misunderstood then I’m sorry, I’m sure you are as free to make what arguments you like the same as anyone else here. It might help to imagine that your mother was reading them!
JimS
“It might help to imagine that your mother was reading them!”
What I remember most about my mother is her dying from neglect in a NHS hospital.
LastChanceSaloon,
The site has been going for close to two decades. Look for the evidence and you’ll find it. I don’t have the time or the inclination to lead you to it.
Conservative home an interesting read tonight lol!
https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/04/watch-she-reaches-across-the-commons-to-corbyn-but-is-the-prime-ministers-move-a-feint.html
from one contributor 2 hours ago:
“QAs I understand it May’s latest is to get together with Corbyn to agree for Labour to support her WA “in the national interest”. Not sure what inducements she could offer him but the DUP and Northern Ireland are shafted. As is the Conservative Party.
Between that consummation it is hard to see how any other legislation can pass since the DUP will not back it.
The only arrangement that is probable is that they agree to hold a general election, the Tories find a new leader who is prepared for years in opposition and Corbyn and his coalition mates can take over this nonsense with the EU.
Corbyn, of course, would be delighted to cut Ulster loose as will Sturgeon.
End of the Union.”
TM – inept and out of her depth AND a cowardly quisling.
night all.
Lastchance – as a co volunteer moderator I think you are a bit high on your horse looking for production of evidence to show the success of this site . I wish it was that easy .
Apart from the civil disobedience of refusing to pay for the State Broadcaster – what would you propose ? Disrupting programmes ? Naked protests in Salford and WC1 ?
It is a long haul – same view if ones personal politics are as Rightwing as mine – such as the dismantling of the welfare state to wean people off state dependency and compliance .
Sometimes people write on this site that it’s a waste of time and effort . I’d reply ‘thanks for the view” maybe find somewhere more rewarding to make comments …but I don’t own this site so I don’t have that right ( there is a Latin legal term but can’t remember it and not needed – just s sounds less brutal ).
Order order
https://order-order.com/2019/04/02/theresa-may-moves-soften-brexit-even/#disqus_thread
Moggmentum
“https://twitter.com/moggmentum”
The gloves are off.
A time to live and a time to die.
Agree to both self censoring of language, and not making ‘hateful’ comments.
To be fair, it can be hard to know what is ‘acceptable’ and what isn’t, especially when there are double standards constantly on display from the likes of the BBC, most the rest of the MSM, and many politicians.
I think we’re basically a decent, law abiding bunch on here tho’, and on those rare occasions when I’ve seen a posting which seems out of order, there always seems to have been a general consensus that the mark has been overstepped, and I’ve been impressed with the way it’s been handled with decency and maturity by everyone involved.
Personally, I’m grateful to the site administrators for keeping this going. I’m surrounded in work by SJW’s, and even though Mrs Dazzer does her best, she isn’t really interested in any of this. For me, this is like Winston Smith writing his diary tucked up in the corner out of sight of the telescreen, but deep down knowing that Big Brother is aware of it.
I have seen a few posts over the last week that could of had the police knocking at the poster’s door. I saw one in particular that said they wanted to drag May out of Downing Street and talk some sense into her. I know this is quite a common expression, but about 2 weeks about, a man posted exactly the same comment and was reported to the police (which Maxi could quite easily do). Police came to his door and warned him. I can’t find the video on YouTube, but it was exactly the same.
And always remember, the internet never forgets.
But then we’ve had that stupid woman who started the pathetic revoke Article 50 petition. It was found that she’d posted on Twitter saying that she’d like to shoot May at point black range. There were also posts by her asking about where she could obtain legal air guns with which she could (one presumes) shoot people.
Of course the police will not do anything about her because she’s a Remainian. But if you were a Leaver and you posted on Twitter that you’d like to shoot May point blank then the police would be banging on your door before you know what’s happening.
We’ve now had had nearly three years of unremitting exposure to the scorn, derision and hatred of many of the most respected and influential groups in our society – the politicians elected to our Parliament; the people who staff our civil service, lead our educational institutions, run our largest companies, lead our charities and edit our newspapers; the people who act in our favorite films and television shows, “entertain”us with their stand-up comedy or represent us at the pinnacle of professional sports, literature, music and the arts. Three years of this unremitting negativity and hostility from opposing forces in the most powerful reaches of the country; three years of embarrassing failure after failure by the people tasked with executing the decision we made at the ballot box on 23 June 2016, and still there is no overwhelming desire among those who voted to Leave nor the country as a whole to remain a member state of the European Union. Our patience is remarkable & unremarked, until a few hurty words are bandied about, then, of course all Leavers are described as Far Right Fascists…….
”EDITORIAL GUIDELINES
Definition of ‘Strong Language’
‘Strong language’ is language that has the potential to offend. It is not possible to compile a definitive list of strong words. Language is fluid, with new words and phrases regularly entering the public vocabulary. Also, the power of established terms to offend may change over time. For example, racist abuse or pejorative terms relating to physical or mental illness and sexual orientation have become increasingly unacceptable to audiences.
The BBC does not ban words or phrases. However, it is the responsibility of all content makers to ensure strong language is used only where it is editorially justified. The acceptability of language to intended audiences should be judged with care. If in doubt consult a senior editorial figure within your department or Editorial Policy.
The strongest language, with the potential to cause most offence, includes terms such as cunt, motherfucker and fuck (which are subject to mandatory referrals to Output Controllers); others such as cocksucker and nigger are also potentially extremely offensive to audiences.
Language that can cause moderate offence includes terms such as wanker, pussy, bastard, slag etc. Care should be taken with using such terms; they may generate complaints if used in pre-watershed programmes on television or in radio or online content and will require clear editorial justification if their use is to be supported.
Language that can cause mild offence includes crap, knob, prat, tart etc. These terms are unlikely to cause widespread offence when set against generally accepted standards if they are used sparingly and on their own. However, they should not be used indiscriminately.
Additionally, words or names associated with religion, such as Jesus Christ, may cause offence to some, but they are unlikely to cause widespread offence according to generally accepted standards. Again, we should still take care to avoid indiscriminate use.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/strong-language/guidance-full
Eddy,
“Additionally, words or names associated with religion, such as Jesus Christ, may cause offence to some, but they are unlikely to cause widespread offence according to generally accepted standards.”
Does that mean that it’s okay to use the phrase “Prophet Mohammed” when blaspheming?
Eddy Booth,
Those who compile BBC guidelines should consider that the way the BBC mangles the English language is really offensive to many people.
I’m offended by the BBC continually trying to tell me that brutal Islamic terrorists are ‘militants’, ‘extremists’ or ‘fighters’.
I’m offended by the BBC portraying savagery as normal and therefore acceptable.
Realise I have come late to this posting but I never give a ‘like’ to a comment whose language I don’t like.
Deborah,
Yes, though I understand the anger that drives people to swear at the state of things and the people responsible I also don’t ‘like’ those comments. It’s also a bind having to check for them and edit them where there’s no other choice.
Yes True To- I try just to be facetious and being a bad speller try
to keep my vowels in the correct order.
Sometimes this website does look like one of those BBC football
comments sites which has moderators . But before the
“contributor” has had his post removed , you can learn that he
wishes that all the Spurs players wives had cancer and that their husbands would die in a plane crash! No -I don’t think our site
is quite like that. But I have to admit that sometimes I have to
stop myself writing about the BBC as I do when inferring on
the BBC sports points of view ,that the referee was as bent as a
corkscrew!
Foscari,
Years ago I had the misfortune to be listening to the World Service (no TV available) while England played an underdog in the Football World Cup. The BBC had been praising this underdog – could have been Trinidad and Tobago – to the skies on its website before the game.
When England scored the commentator sounded depressed, as though that was the worst thing that could have happened and as though nobody had ever told him that he was obliged to be impartial and that it would be extraordinary not to express enthusiasm, no matter which side scored.
I then understood that the treacherous BBC could not even leave its hatred of England off the sports field.
I have to be careful how I express my utter contempt for the BBC here, otherwise I would have to edit my own comment. (Hat tip to Fedup2.)