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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-Sissons.html

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

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...92_634x454.jpg
Peter Sissons (left) and Gerard Houllier (right) receive doctorates in Liverpool, 2002.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Sissons

For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current ­affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to ­answer the question that nags at many of its viewers — is the BBC biased? In my view, ‘bias’ is too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the ­pervading culture. The better word is a ‘mindset’. At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left.

By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. ­Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on ­running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.

If you want to read one of the few copies of the Daily Mail that find their way into the BBC newsroom, they are difficult to track down, and you would be advised not to make too much of a show of reading them. Wrap them in brown paper or a copy of The Guardian, would be my advice. I am in no doubt that the majority of BBC staff vote for political parties of the Left. But it’s impossible to do ­anything but guess at the numbers whose beliefs are on the Right or even Centre-Right. This is because the one thing guaranteed to damage your career prospects at the BBC is letting it be known that you are at odds with the prevailing and deep-rooted BBC attitude towards Life, the Universe, and Everything.

At any given time there is a BBC line on everything of importance, a line usually adopted in the light of which way its senior echelons believe the political wind is ­blowing. This line is rarely spelled out explicitly, but percolates subtly throughout the organisation. Whatever the United Nations is associated with is good — it is heresy to question any of its activities.

The EU is also a good thing, but not quite as good as the UN. Soaking the rich is good, despite well-founded economic arguments that the more you tax, the less you get. And Government spending is a good thing, although most BBC ­people prefer to call it investment, in line with New Labour’s terminology.

All green and environmental groups are very good things. Al Gore is a saint. George Bush was a bad thing, and thick into the bargain. Obama was not just the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, he was the BBC’s. Blair was good, Brown bad, but the BBC has now lost interest in both.

Trade unions are mostly good things, especially when they are fighting BBC managers. Quangos are also mostly good, and the reports they produce are usually handled uncritically. The Royal Family is a bore. Islam must not be offended at any price, although ­Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.

The increasing ­tendency for the BBC to interview its own reporters on air exacerbates this mindset. Instead of ­concentrating on interviewing the leading players in a story or spreading the net wide for a range of views, these days the BBC frequently chooses to use the time getting the thoughts of its own correspondents. It is a format intended to help clarify the facts, but which often invites the expression of opinion. When that happens, instead of hearing both sides of a story, the audience at home gets what is, in effect, the BBC’s view presented as fact.

---

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...47_306x423.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...27_306x423.jpg
Queen Elizabeth II (left) was not a favourite at the BBC, while Blair (right) was a BBC favourite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Sissons

Not that talent alone is enough to get on at the BBC. The key to understanding its internal promotions system is that, for every person whose career is advanced on ability, two are promoted because it solves a problem for management. If Human Resources — or Personnel, as it used to be known — advise that it’s time a woman or someone from an ethnic minority (or a combination of the two) was appointed to the job for which you, a white male, have applied, then that’s who gets it. But whatever your talent, sex or ethnicity, there’s one sure-fire way at a BBC promotions board to ensure you don’t get the job, indeed to bring your career to a grinding halt. And that’s if, when asked which post-war politician you most admire, you reply: ‘Margaret Thatcher’.

What the BBC wants you, the public, to believe is that it has ‘independence’ woven into its fabric, running through its veins and concreted into its foundations. The reality, I discovered, was that for the BBC, independence is not a banner it carries ­principally on behalf of the listener or viewer.

---

The story continues if you follow the link.

So now we've had Mark Thompson (BBC Manager) admit BBC bias in the 1980s against the Thatcher Ministry which the left denied (even on this very forum only a few years ago) and now we have Peter Sissons with this attack on the BBC exposing what it really is. Noel Edmonds has also refused to pay his TV license as did UKIP MEP Gerard Batten on the grounds of BBC bias after which the BBC cowardly decided to prosecute his wife instead of Batten himself.

Global Britain which is owned by former UKIP leader Lord Pearson and managed by Lords Stoddart and de Broke also tracks BBC bias concerning the European Union of which you can find information on here. I myself spotted outright bias during the General Election where the BBC was covering a UKIP story and just decided to link the party to the BNP out of the blue despite the BNP not having anything remotely to do with the story they were covering.

If you watch the paper reviews on the BBC or whenever they decide to review a story/the papers, you'll see they give the Guardian often more time than the other papers (the best selling of which are right-wing) or near equal time when in reality the Guardian has appalling and falling sales numbers, kept at the 250,000 mark by schools/universities buying them up along with its website income of which govt organisations such as the BBC pay them to advertise their ridiculous jobs on.

The second part of the story concerning what is basic racism (much like the BNP had or has with its whites-only policy for membership) just shows the hypocrisy of both the BBC and the government when they slam the BNP for its stance on colour-related membership, yet its perfectly fine for government organisations like the BBC to hire based on sexuality/race/gender. A lot of people see the BBC as not biased/impartial, well with the evidence stacking up against it month on month maybe its time for you to think again - just look at its coverage on 'global warming' being the most apparent bias story.

Time to break up the BBC and sell it off which will end the stealth tax which keeps the BBC alive; the TV license.

Thoughts?

That is excellent news which should balance all the 'right wing bias' created by Rupert Murdoch and his vast media empire of TV stations and most of the press.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

That is excellent news which should balance all the 'right wing bias' created by Rupert Murdoch and his vast media empire of TV stations and most of the press.

---

I'm no fan of Murdoch but the difference being that Murdoch doesn't rely on a stealth tax to air his media views/sell his news - he can do exactly that, sell news. Isn't Murdoch the one who supported and helped the Labour Party to victory in 1997 and beyond anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

That is excellent news which should balance all the 'right wing bias' created by Rupert Murdoch and his vast media empire of TV stations and most of the press.

---

Rupert Murdoch is a completely different situation though. He does not claim to be mutual or fair. He quite clearly shows he is right wing and good for him.

However, the BBC is SUPPOSED to be a completely mutual, centred, channel in which they show no support for ANY party and attack them/praise them equally. However this is NOT what they do. And quite clearly because I remember a thread a few months ago here saying they were biased - because now, with the Lib Dem - Conservative Government it's all "OMG inflation, debt AHHHHHH!" but before during the Labour Government did we ever see "Huge loans! Unpayable debt! Brown is spending all our money!" No.

I agree that the BBC should be broken up and sold. And get rid of the unnecessary tax which is funding a corrupt and biased TV network.

Yes indeed he did, the man is more powerful than any government, unfortunately. The BBC have always been 'politically correct' in that if they present a news article about disability it will be the 'blind' reporter who gives it. You have no evidence to back up your point that they hire based on sexuality/race/gender. However, they do fire based on it as the recent court case has shown. Again we only have your word for it when they review the papers - it is always the 'Guardian'. When I watch it they review at least 4/5 papers across the spectrum. There is bias everywhere in life, Dan. You are biased and so am I towards different viewpoints. This is just another BBC bashing exercise which you post at regular intervals. Perhaps you post a thread about the tax evading from high flyers which is pandemic in this country and costs way more than the BBC. :P

Nick Griffin on the BBC after the Question Time shambles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HMCpI8nFUs

Fair play Nick Griffin isn't exactly the most liked politician in Britain but the BBC has no right to deliberately change the format of the program to be COMPLETELY against the BNP and Nick, the video shows Nick blasting the BBC & Cameron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Yes indeed he did, the man is more powerful than any government, unfortunately. The BBC have always been 'politically correct' in that if they present a news article about disability it will be the 'blind' reporter who gives it. You have no evidence to back up your point that they hire based on sexuality/race/gender. However, they do fire based on it as the recent court case has shown. Again we only have your word for it when they review the papers - it is always the 'Guardian'. When I watch it they review at least 4/5 papers across the spectrum. There is bias everywhere in life, Dan. You are biased and so am I towards different viewpoints. This is just another BBC bashing exercise which you post at regular intervals. Perhaps you post a thread about the tax evading from high flyers which is pandemic in this country and costs way more than the BBC. :P

---

I do not pretend to be unbiased and nor do the papers, including the Guardian. The BBC on the other hand pretends to be unbias, when quite clearly it is not so as Peter Sissons has now pointed out after 20 years working for the corporation, as Mark Thompson the BBC Director General pointed out and as its coverage quite clearly shows. I don't have a problem with the BBC being bias, but aslong as it makes its own earning rather than relying on a state tax in order to keep it funded.

The discrimination point, we know these things go on Rosie come on - my aunty's mate who is black was offered a position in the Police and they told him to his face that he was being offered it in order for the police to fill in a quota, honourabley he turned it down as he wanted the job based on merit rather than his skin colour. The BBC is constantly slamming the BNP for racial discrimination but is just as bad as Sissons points out.

Double standards will not do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Perhaps you post a thread about the tax evading from high flyers which is pandemic in this country and costs way more than the BBC.

---

I already commented on that, and my opinon still stands which is; you shouldn't be moaning about it concerning the Coalition allowing them to get away with it when Labour also allowed them to get away with tax avoidance.

But you still harp on about it and vote for the party that allowed it to happen, so why complain in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I do not pretend to be unbiased and nor do the papers, including the Guardian. The BBC on the other hand pretends to be unbias, when quite clearly it is not so as Peter Sissons has now pointed out after 20 years working for the corporation, as Mark Thompson the BBC Director General pointed out and as its coverage quite clearly shows. I don't have a problem with the BBC being bias, but aslong as it makes its own earning rather than relying on a state tax in order to keep it funded.

The discrimination point, we know these things go on Rosie come on - my aunty's mate who is black was offered a position in the Police and they told him to his face that he was being offered it in order for the police to fill in a quota, honourabley he turned it down as he wanted the job based on merit rather than his skin colour. The BBC is constantly slamming the BNP for racial discrimination but is just as bad as Sissons points out.

Double standards will not do.


I already commented on that, and my opinon still stands which is; you shouldn't be moaning about it concerning the Coalition allowing them to get away with it when Labour also allowed them to get away with tax avoidance.

But you still harp on about it and vote for the party that allowed it to happen, so why complain in the first place?

---

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

Quote:

---

Pronunciation:/ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
noun
[mass noun]
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior:
a programme to combat racism

---

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?

Quote:

---

which is funding a corrupt and biased TV network.

---

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


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?

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative

Rupert Murdoch is a completely different situation though. He does not claim to be mutual or fair. He quite clearly shows he is right wing and good for him.

However, the BBC is SUPPOSED to be a completely mutual, centred, channel in which they show no support for ANY party and attack them/praise them equally. However this is NOT what they do. And quite clearly because I remember a thread a few months ago here saying they were biased - because now, with the Lib Dem - Conservative Government it's all "OMG inflation, debt AHHHHHH!" but before during the Labour Government did we ever see "Huge loans! Unpayable debt! Brown is spending all our money!" No.

I agree that the BBC should be broken up and sold. And get rid of the unnecessary tax which is funding a corrupt and biased TV network.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative

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.

---

Sorry I don't see much real substance in your posts. They are too non specific and lack any real evidence such as when did they 'print more money'?

Positive discrimination is not about anybody's religion or their race. Ethnic minorities are made up of many races and religions so thats just a spurious argument.

Whether it is right to positively encourage more gay people, ethinic minorities, women, disabled people into the public services /parliament is a very emotive issue. From my point of view anything that makes our the services/representation in our country truly reflect the cultural diversity of it has my vote. You may not agree but then you don't have to but present an argument that it is more positive to have a country that is better served by keeping a huge majority of white men running it and working in the public services not just say it is 'racist' and unfair. You and Dan can't keep coming down on this argument without presenting the benefits of the existing system.

Personally I think it'd be hard not to show some bias. If you have to be informative you have to pick at the details. Although in saying that, the BBC covered the election by following the main three parties, completely ignoring large (but small :P) parties like UKIP, the Green Party, BNP (they blasted them, but didn't report on them) and so forth. They may suggest they were following "public opinion" on the parties, the big 3, but they should attempt to cover other parties to make their appeal shine through, because many people may agree with The Green Party, UKIP or BNP, but not necessarily know what they stand for in greater detail. The general public are too lazy to follow manifestos or research parties, they like their information easy to access and to the point, and the BBC is one place that should provide for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conservative

Rupert Murdoch is a completely different situation though. He does not claim to be mutual or fair. He quite clearly shows he is right wing and good for him.

---

err. idk if you guys have the same impression of him as we do in the states, but that dude runs Fox News, whose slogan is "fair and balanced." most people find this slogan to be for the lulz, since anyone with half a brain knows that Fox News is anything but fair and balanced. maybe it's fairly obvious that he's right wing, but he certainly thinks hes being fair and mutual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Personally I think it'd be hard not to show some bias. If you have to be informative you have to pick at the details. Although in saying that, the BBC covered the election by following the main three parties, completely ignoring large (but small :P) parties like UKIP, the Green Party, BNP (they blasted them, but didn't report on them) and so forth. They may suggest they were following "public opinion" on the parties, the big 3, but they should attempt to cover other parties to make their appeal shine through, because many people may agree with The Green Party, UKIP or BNP, but not necessarily know what they stand for in greater detail. The general public are too lazy to follow manifestos or research parties, they like their information easy to access and to the point, and the BBC is one place that should provide for it.

---

exactly. i'm a journalism major, and i can tell you for a fact there isnt a single unbias publication on the planet. if there were an unbias paper, it'd have to be written by robots. but we're human, which means it is literally impossible not to insert bias.