BBC Left-wing bias? It's written through the BBC's very DNA, says Peter Sissons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative

This...it's corrupt because it's not following what it stands for

corrupt
Pronunciation:/kəˈrʌpt/
adjective
1 having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain:

They are acting dishonestly (by saying they are mutual when they in fact Left-wing) in return for whatever it is they gain?

---

That is an extremely weak reply - I don't think that being 'biased' is against the law even if indeed they are. The reality of the situation is that most employees went to university and so have more left wing leanings probably. I will be interested to see if any enquiry is launched into the BBC by the publication of this article.
For my part I have never seen any actual 'bias' myself as they seem to reflect all opinons across the spectrum. What they think in private is another matter and nothing to do with us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

What has the part in bold have anything to do with the BBC?

You have no evidence at all that the BCC operates a racist policy when it comes to hiring staff. Just because nobody has taken the pandemic tax evasion by the horns and sorted it does not mean that I should not vote for who I want. They are the party that suit me with most of their policies. It would be very crass of me to say just because I don't agree with them on that then I should vote for somebody else? How can any party satisfy everybody 100%. It is not double standards as your interpretation of racism does not equate with mine.

This where I get my definition of racism:

Oxford Dictionary

---

The part in bold i'm telling you that it goes on within government, mainly thanks to the last government which implemented 'equality' policies (such as the Labour cabinet has to be 50% female) yet you are always one of the first to have a shot at the BNP for being racist etc yet you vote for a party which is even worse in the sense that is has actually implemented these policies whereas the BNP only talk of implementing them.

The evidence for it happening at the BBC along with the BBC picking people based on their age is Sissons himself stating it, along with numerous examples of 'ageism' within the BBC; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ation-BBC.html & another example of the BBC trying to be politically correct; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-race-row.html - and no I don't agree with Ross on that, I think people should be chosen solely on ability and not race.

As for Labour and the corporations dodging taxation, funny how you never had anything to say about it when Labour were in office yet you'll constantly go on the attack at the Coalition for it - what is the point of even complaining then? ahh yes, to score political points against the blue team so the red team can get into office and do.. exactly the same - because that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Find one that supports what you say. I have had so many discussions on this with you and have never agreed as it seems your definition is one that you have decided upon.

@ Conservative what evidence do you have to support this?

---

I just told you, 'positive discrimination' which is another word for racism, which you've told me in the past you support and i'm afraid 'positive' discrimination is racism as you are picking somebody for a job based on their skin colour and not their ability. It is wrong.

Either the BNP, BBC and Labour government are racist/sexist/homophobic or they're not - you can't pick and choose.

Slightly inevitable though seeing as the BBC is public sector and journalists mindsets are generally left wing (Like teachers for instance). I don't dispute the bias but I also deem it near enough impossible to get rid of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

That is an extremely weak reply - I don't think that being 'biased' is against the law.

---

It's not weak? Lol. I did not say it was against the law, however they are CORRUPT because they claim to be something (ie; Mutual) but are something else (biased) in return for I'm assuming personal gain.

I'd have no problem with it if - as Undertaker said - they were independent and didn't rely on the tax payer. But they do and honestly I think it's a disgrace that a tax-payers channel is biased - it should be completely mutual.

---------- Post added 22-01-2011 at 12:22 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

I disagree. It is the largest network in the world (I think so) and it probably generates a lot of money aswell. There is also lots of benefits from the tax, i.e. no adverts, iplayer, lots of resources on the site and on the whole it is a positive thing in the country. The way in which it is run may not be good, but old dogs can learn new tricks.

---

If they were completely mutual - I have no problem. But using tax payers money as Labour Propaganda when hiding behind its pretence of being mutual is really absurd. Yes - there are no adverts, there's iPlayer, there's all the stuff on the site and tbh I like a lot of the programmes but if they're using MY (family's) money to pay for something other than we're told we're getting - it's disgusting. We're told it's a network that does not lean either way in politics but it clearly does lean to the left. As you would guess - I'm right wing and therefore I feel that actually why should I - when I have to - pay for my license? All it's doing is funding a network which is intent on getting across the message of a party that I don't like..?

Here are some more examples;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...dle-class.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-time-low.html
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/whatYouSay/2

They [the BBC] are obsessed with race and political correctness, enough is enough as it is getting ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The part in bold i'm telling you that it goes on within government, mainly thanks to the last government which implemented 'equality' policies (such as the Labour cabinet has to be 50% female) yet you are always one of the first to have a shot at the BNP for being racist etc yet you vote for a party which is even worse in the sense that is has actually implemented these policies whereas the BNP only talk of implementing them.

The evidence for it happening at the BBC along with the BBC picking people based on their age is Sissons himself stating it, along with numerous examples of 'ageism' within the BBC; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ation-BBC.html & another example of the BBC trying to be politically correct; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-race-row.html - and no I don't agree with Ross on that, I think people should be chosen solely on ability and not race.

As for Labour and the corporations dodging taxation, funny how you never had anything to say about it when Labour were in office yet you'll constantly go on the attack at the Coalition for it - what is the point of even complaining then? ahh yes, to score political points against the blue team so the red team can get into office and do.. exactly the same - because that makes sense.



I just told you, 'positive discrimination' which is another word for racism, which you've told me in the past you support and i'm afraid 'positive' discrimination is racism as you are picking somebody for a job based on their skin colour and not their ability. It is wrong.

Either the BNP, BBC and Labour government are racist/sexist/homophobic or they're not - you can't pick and choose.

---

Seriously just because because you think that that it is racist doesn't actually mean that it is. I don't have to chose because I use the Oxford English disctionary of racism which means that I am entitled to my view that the BNP is racist. All I have is 'you have told me? How reliable is that? Now get off your soap box please and stop the impassioned rhetoric unless you can find a valid definition from a reliable source that backs up your view on what racism is. Also I have always complained about the 'fat cats'. Why I complain even more now is because of all the cuts that are now considered necessary none have been aimed at these people. If there was ever a time to do so, in balance to prove fairness, it is now. I am not interested in scoring political points - this is what I genuinely believe.

Before I reply properly, I do think that because yes, discrimination based on race I view as racism no matter what the organisation/party at it. The BNP could argue the same case, 'well just because you think its racism doesn't mean its racism' - we stick the the universal definition; that to discriminate based on somebodies racial skin colour is racist. The definition you appear to read from is 'Racism: something the BBC, government and government organisations/organisations that I like are exempt from'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Seriously just because because you think that that it is racist doesn't actually mean that it is. I don't have to chose because I use the Oxford English disctionary of racism which means that I am entitled to my view that the BNP is racist. All I have is 'you have told me? How reliable is that? Now get off your soap box please and stop the impassioned rhetoric unless you can find a valid definition from a reliable source that backs up your view on what racism is.

---

I have just told you that positive discrimination is racism, it clearly is - the BNP had a membership policy based on race and that was labelled racist, while the Police have the same policy for job applicants favouring ethnic minorities just for the fact they are a minority/different skin colour. If you decide something based on race (such as a job) then it is racism and just because its fashionable for the Police/BBC/government to hire based on race, sexuality, age or gender doesn't mean it makes it right. If you do think it is right [which you've said before in a debate on this topic] then I ask you to stop being essentially hypocritical and stop slamming the BNP when they themselves have racist policies.

Again, either the BBC/BNP and government are all racist/sexist/ageist or they're not - you cannot pick and choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Also I have always complained about the 'fat cats'. Why I complain even more now is because of all the cuts that are now considered necessary none have been aimed at these people. If there was ever a time to do so, in balance to prove fairness, it is now. I am not interested in scoring political points - this is what I genuinely believe.

---

No you have not lmao, you barely ever complained about the last government and now have everything to say on this present government despite there barely being any difference between them both other than the colour of the rosette they wear. If you had complained about this during the Labour government then you'd have more of a case and if you stopped voting Labour then you would have an even more principled case - you seem to feel very strongly on it yet only when the blue side is in office do you make it out to be such an issue.

Now with all the evidence at hand, do you agree that the BBC should have its license fee taken away?

Racism is not an "opinion" racism is a fact - you cannot have an opinion on something that is racist or not. It either is or isn't. And positive discrimination - racial, age, sex or otherwise is discrimination. And from the racial aspect - racist. Just because an ethnic minority gets the job ahead of a white person because of their skin colour - doesn't make it OK. That's racist to the white person - because it's not judging on merit, it's judging on skin colour/race.

You cannot have an "opinion" on something that is a fact - as I said. Positive discrimination - if it is racial - is racism like it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Before I reply properly, I do think that because yes, discrimination based on race I view as racism no matter what the organisation/party at it. The BNP could argue the same case, 'well just because you think its racism doesn't mean its racism' - we stick the the universal definition; that to discriminate based on somebodies racial skin colour is racist. The definition you appear to read from is 'Racism: something the BBC, government and government organisations/organisations that I like are exempt from'



I have just told you that positive discrimination is racism, it clearly is - the BNP had a membership policy based on race and that was labelled racist, while the Police have the same policy for job applicants favouring ethnic minorities just for the fact they are a minority/different skin colour. If you decide something based on race (such as a job) then it is racism and just because its fashionable for the Police/BBC/government to hire based on race, sexuality, age or gender doesn't mean it makes it right. If you do think it is right [which you've said before in a debate on this topic] then I ask you to stop being essentially hypocritical and stop slamming the BNP when they themselves have racist policies.

Again, either the BBC/BNP and government are all racist/sexist/ageist or they're not - you cannot pick and choose.



No you have not lmao, you barely ever complained about the last government and now have everything to say on this present government despite there barely being any difference between them both other than the colour of the rosette they wear. If you had complained about this during the Labour government then you'd have more of a case and if you stopped voting Labour then you would have an even more principled case - you seem to feel very strongly on it yet only when the blue side is in office do you make it out to be such an issue.

Now with all the evidence at hand, do you agree that the BBC should have its license fee taken away?

---

Dan, just because you think 'positive discrimination' as you put it is racist and that you have told me before that it is, is no reason for me to change my mind as you have absolutely no evidence of a valid definition of racism to back up that view. It is your opinion, which of course you are entitled too but you need to actually find an accepted definition of racism that supports your opinion to make it credible. You can keep going on about it but it does not make it racist without this. I believe that the BNP are racist because they stand for the 'indigneous' people of the UK. That comes under the racism definition of 'thinking that one race are superior to another. It is also not up to you to tell me to stop slamming the BNP. I did not bring the subject up on them and have never posted a thread about them as far as I can remember as posting threads to 'bash' another political party is not my style. If the subject comes up I comment on it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I am not also entitled to my opinion. :P

I complained about Brown on more than one occasion and said that Labour Party were going in the wrong direction under him. I also said he could not make a decision without backtracking. I also said that I may consider voting for another party if he remained leader. I also have agreed that the EU policy is not all it should be. There is a big difference in approach with this government who are cutting too quickly and too fast imo.
It will become the party of inflation and of general discontent amongst the population with more strikes and protests than we have seen at anytime since the 1980s. The blue side are not in power - it is a coalition.

Should the BBC have it's licence fee taken away because of one newspaper article? Is this as serious question because if it is I would like you to explain why it would be fair and equitable to do so without an investigation or enquiry and just accepting the views of one man saying it is?

@ Conservative - it may not be okay for you but it is not racist as explained above.

They're not cutting too much too fast - what about Labour's policy - print money like there's no tomorrow - that would've made inflation worse just like in Germany in the 1920s - so much money was printed that eventually the currency was worthless. That's where we'd be heading under Labour.


Obviously there would have to be an enquiry before the license fee was taken away but there should be one - just because of all the evidence against them.

And it IS racist - because it is putting people above other people because of their race/religion.