BBC bias in question (which way do they lean?)

1. No, whether someone is a 'victim' should be ascertained before broadcast. Let me put that another way: if someone is professing to be a victim then their (alleged) persecutor should be provided with an equal, unbiased, right of reply.

What we're seeing the BBC do too often is present a narrative rather than an opportunity to debate an unfairness and so reach some form of remediation/conclusion.

Too often, victim status is asserted on behalf of the victim in order to reinforce a narrative. In fact, one could reasonably at the moment, I think, go as far as to assert that the BBC is seeking out 'victims' who suit its narratives. The fair responses which should be allowed are either simply not invited/aired, or those who attempt to respond are shouted down or vilified.

To refer to one of my recent posts, that's why I've lost trust.

2. Racism is not a meaningless word. Yes, it's about hatred and bias but it has as its base ethnicity so it's a specific form of hatred/bias.

However, it is well on its way back to becoming a meaningless word because of the way it is used in the MSM, which includes the BBC. I thought we'd got past the meaningless/perverted use of the word when Labour got itself unelected but what we're seeing at the moment is an attempt to reassert 'racism' as a useful catch-all term with which to stifle debate.

My black lady friend has moved out of the South London echo chamber into the (relatively) leafy suburbs and has brought with her her constantly reasserted assertions. She's now having to learn a) that not nearly everyone in the suburbs is a white racist b) that 'white privilege' is a catch-all and therefore derogatory term which some people quite rightly are offended by and c) that some of those 'privileged' white people haven't had it as easy as her, and that to assert white privilege to such people is going to provoke a reaction.

The problem is that if you're steeped (or have been) in PC-speak, generalisations flow only one way. So-called 'white fragility' is just another construct designed to deflect from what is actually righteous indignation over being pigeon-holed.

The conversation ended with her in tears and asking me if I thought she was intelligent. My response was that my opinion doesn't, or shouldn't matter to her. My sole right, or role, is to judge her as a person and how she behaves towards me and others - and her ambition, in fact both of our ambitions, should be to see people as people and not use skin colour as the first and overriding criterion.
People hate it when confronted with reality - they sit in their little bubbles, surrounded with the same echo chamber yapping away to them and telling them what to think. Then they get out, meet new people - and see their world and world view come crumbling down around them.
I liked your tale by the way - it's always good when you make a lefty victim cry - I love their salty tears.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
People hate it when confronted with reality - they sit in their little bubbles, surrounded with the same echo chamber yapping away to them and telling them what to think. Then they get out, meet new people - and see their world and world view come crumbling down around them.
I liked your tale by the way - it's always good when you make a lefty victim cry - I love their salty tears.
To be fair, I think it's more a case of her not having had to deal with her assertions being challenged before.

It's easy to dismiss challenges as '-ims'. The Pie video above nails it.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
1. No, whether someone is a 'victim' should be ascertained before broadcast. Let me put that another way: if someone is professing to be a victim then their (alleged) persecutor should be provided with an equal, unbiased, right of reply.

What we're seeing the BBC do too often is present a narrative rather than an opportunity to debate an unfairness and so reach some form of remediation/conclusion.

Too often, victim status is asserted on behalf of the victim in order to reinforce a narrative. In fact, one could reasonably at the moment, I think, go as far as to assert that the BBC is seeking out 'victims' who suit its narratives. The fair responses which should be allowed are either simply not invited/aired, or those who attempt to respond are shouted down or vilified.

To refer to one of my recent posts, that's why I've lost trust.

2. Racism is not a meaningless word. Yes, it's about hatred and bias but it has as its base ethnicity so it's a specific form of hatred/bias.

However, it is well on its way back to becoming a meaningless word because of the way it is used in the MSM, which includes the BBC. I thought we'd got past the meaningless/perverted use of the word when Labour got itself unelected but what we're seeing at the moment is an attempt to reassert 'racism' as a useful catch-all term with which to stifle debate.

My black lady friend has moved out of the South London echo chamber into the (relatively) leafy suburbs and has brought with her her constantly reasserted assertions. She's now having to learn a) that not nearly everyone in the suburbs is a white racist b) that 'white privilege' is a catch-all and therefore derogatory term which some people quite rightly are offended by and c) that some of those 'privileged' white people haven't had it as easy as her, and that to assert white privilege to such people is going to provoke a reaction.

The problem is that if you're steeped (or have been) in PC-speak, generalisations flow only one way. So-called 'white fragility' is just another construct designed to deflect from what is actually righteous indignation over being pigeon-holed.

The conversation ended with her in tears and asking me if I thought she was intelligent. My response was that my opinion doesn't, or shouldn't matter to her. My sole right, or role, is to judge her as a person and how she behaves towards me and others - and her ambition, in fact both of our ambitions, should be to see people as people and not use skin colour as the first and overriding criterion.
Rabbie Burns had that covered nearly three centuries ago:

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
 
I think it was the Hackney Labour party, last year, that set up a working class group because they were getting tired of the rich middle class members telling them what to think and how to act.
I don't know about the Labour Party, but XR tried to seek out 'working class' members to give it public credibility, as it was, and still is, coming across as a middle-class hobby.


eta. here's your special group

 

Awol

LE
1. No, whether someone is a 'victim' should be ascertained before broadcast. Let me put that another way: if someone is professing to be a victim then their (alleged) persecutor should be provided with an equal, unbiased, right of reply.

What we're seeing the BBC do too often is present a narrative rather than an opportunity to debate an unfairness and so reach some form of remediation/conclusion.

Too often, victim status is asserted on behalf of the victim in order to reinforce a narrative. In fact, one could reasonably at the moment, I think, go as far as to assert that the BBC is seeking out 'victims' who suit its narratives. The fair responses which should be allowed are either simply not invited/aired, or those who attempt to respond are shouted down or vilified.

To refer to one of my recent posts, that's why I've lost trust.

2. Racism is not a meaningless word. Yes, it's about hatred and bias but it has as its base ethnicity so it's a specific form of hatred/bias.

However, it is well on its way back to becoming a meaningless word because of the way it is used in the MSM, which includes the BBC. I thought we'd got past the meaningless/perverted use of the word when Labour got itself unelected but what we're seeing at the moment is an attempt to reassert 'racism' as a useful catch-all term with which to stifle debate.

My black lady friend has moved out of the South London echo chamber into the (relatively) leafy suburbs and has brought with her her constantly reasserted assertions. She's now having to learn a) that not nearly everyone in the suburbs is a white racist b) that 'white privilege' is a catch-all and therefore derogatory term which some people quite rightly are offended by and c) that some of those 'privileged' white people haven't had it as easy as her, and that to assert white privilege to such people is going to provoke a reaction.

The problem is that if you're steeped (or have been) in PC-speak, generalisations flow only one way. So-called 'white fragility' is just another construct designed to deflect from what is actually righteous indignation over being pigeon-holed.

The conversation ended with her in tears and asking me if I thought she was intelligent. My response was that my opinion doesn't, or shouldn't matter to her. My sole right, or role, is to judge her as a person and how she behaves towards me and others - and her ambition, in fact both of our ambitions, should be to see people as people and not use skin colour as the first and overriding criterion.
These people flipflop depending on the debate. They say they are victims of a white supremacy present amongst the general public. When, as you did, you point out that white people are just as disadvantaged as black people, they then switch to saying that the discrimination is institutional, with the rules favouring white people. When you counter this with the obvious fact that they are talking more bollocks, that racial equality has been specifically written into law, they will drop the subject completely and try another tack.

What I have noticed is that the Woke are actually crap at debating. They are not only defending a tenuous concept, they really do live their lives in a virtuous bubble, talking only with likeminded snowflakes and using social media to reinforce their prejudices.

The result is that they have no experience of robust debate, and as a result are crap at it, finding it much easier, and more virtuous, to shout “bigot!” and to run away. Tearing these people apart in a public debate would be a piece of cake, if only a public debate was permitted. That it isn’t permitted proves the point.
 
Last edited:

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
@Auld-Yin, a tongue-in-cheek response there but the difference is that I feel safe that I can post it because you’ll probably laugh or have a comeback.

There is plenty I feel unable to comment on at present, however innocuously.

That, right now, is the problem.
You're OK. The last part of your post is the scary bit. We live in a Caucasian society which has had its issues but in general is very tolerant and accepting. Trouble is the influx of non Brits in the past two decades is destabilising our society. Our society is being attacked, using said tolerant attitude. It is hard, will be hard for some time, but I reckon society will re-stabalise itself in due course. Whether we will get back to the tolerant society, or even allowed to get back to that society, is a matter for the future.
 
You're OK. The last part of your post is the scary bit. We live in a Caucasian society which has had its issues but in general is very tolerant and accepting. Trouble is the influx of non Brits in the past two decades is destabilising our society. Our society is being attacked, using said tolerant attitude. It is hard, will be hard for some time, but I reckon society will re-stabalise itself in due course. Whether we will get back to the tolerant society, or even allowed to get back to that society, is a matter for the future.
Is it the 'non Brits' who are doing the destabilising, or do you think it is the Brits with agenda's?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Is it the 'non Brits' who are doing the destabilising, or do you think it is the Brits with agenda's?
Very much both - one couldn't survive without the other.
 
Agree

For more balanced, less SJW PC News I recommend Sky News Australia - empasises UK MSM 'no platforming' anyone questioning SJW PC Marxist agenda

eg
Cambridge's commitment to free speech is only 'afforded to the Left'

Society should stop pandering to 'intolerant hate mobs'

Stand-off with Chinese journalist 'disappeared as soon as it appeared’

Nice seeing some of the comments about it

2observant2observant1 day agoVERY glad to see SKY Australia distancing themselves from SKY U.K. - Stay that way.


Juicy Mint
Juicy Mint
1 day ago
Why can’t Sky News broadcast these opinions in the UK?! It’s a joke.
 
You're OK. The last part of your post is the scary bit. We live in a Caucasian society which has had its issues but in general is very tolerant and accepting. Trouble is the influx of non Brits in the past two decades is destabilising our society. Our society is being attacked, using said tolerant attitude. It is hard, will be hard for some time, but I reckon society will re-stabalise itself in due course. Whether we will get back to the tolerant society, or even allowed to get back to that society, is a matter for the future.

Sadly so much of our establishment, politicians, law enforcement, education etc. etc have become so "woke" & now rampantly "virtue signalling" that many of these tolerant & accepting people are being ignored/sidelined by this relentless propaganda from the BLM. Antifa & XR, that the "man on the Clapham omnibus" i.e. most of us are wondering who do we go to to have our normally reasonable voices/opinions listened to & acted on.
Boris, if he is serious, must act to bring sensible policing & curbing of the blatant excesses by BLM etc. If he doesn't we might see a harder right party emerging which could lead to some serious problems further down the road, where no dissent is allowed!
 

TamH70

MIA
Nice seeing some of the comments about it

2observant2observant1 day agoVERY glad to see SKY Australia distancing themselves from SKY U.K. - Stay that way.


Juicy Mint
Juicy Mint
1 day ago
Why can’t Sky News broadcast these opinions in the UK?! It’s a joke.
Because Sky has employed lots of former BBC staff? I don't know where TCB - "That C-word Bowen" now works. (I haven't seen him for a while and I feel all the better for it.)
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Sadly so much of our establishment, politicians, law enforcement, education etc. etc have become so "woke" & now rampantly "virtue signalling" that many of these tolerant & accepting people are being ignored/sidelined by this relentless propaganda from the BLM. Antifa & XR, that the "man on the Clapham omnibus" i.e. most of us are wondering who do we go to to have our normally reasonable voices/opinions listened to & acted on.
Boris, if he is serious, must act to bring sensible policing & curbing of the blatant excesses by BLM etc. If he doesn't we might see a harder right party emerging which could lead to some serious problems further down the road, where no dissent is allowed!
SWMBO and I had dinner with friends on Saturday night.

All of this was a topic of conversation, needless to say, as it so dominates the news at the moment.

What was agreed upon was that the levels of vitriol currently being directed at, frankly, ordinary people has got many of them speaking in hushed tones even in their own homes.

But get this: the only 'crime' these people have committed is being white.

Because being white implies some culpability.

If there's a hard-right backlash, then sadly it will only be used as confirmation bias by the Hard Left. Yet poke the most placid of dogs and he'll eventually bite.

This domination of the media is only possible with the complicity of the media.
 
Because Sky has employed lots of former BBC staff? I don't know where TCB - "That C-word Bowen" now works. (I haven't seen him for a while and I feel all the better for it.)
Sky news and BBC news staff seem to be interchangeable.
Faisal Islam has jumped on the Sky/BBC seesaw more than once and there are plenty more of that type.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
The ungrateful James Blunt should be glad he doesn't do my job, then - he'd really have something to complain about with the quality of the wi-fi if he did.

On that slack handful of vessels where the operator actually provides it.
And the rising damp on a couple of them was terrible too.
 

Latest Threads

Top