NationStates Jolt Archive

No real surprise here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770


We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
By SIMON WALTERS, Mail on Sunday

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen ) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101.

On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.

In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Osama Bin Laden if he approached them, it was decided the Al Qaeda leader would be given a platform to explain his views.

And the BBC's 'diversity tsar', Mary Fitzpatrick, said women newsreaders should be able to wear whatever they wanted while on TV, including veils.

Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism was raised at the summit of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce, who recently wore on air a necklace with a cross.

The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'.

There was another heated debate when the summit discussed whether the BBC was too sensitive about criticising black families for failing to take responsibility for their children.

Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme which blamed black youths at a young offenders', institution for bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.

But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the BBC should not use white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to 'contextualise' why black youngsters behaved in such a way.

Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: 'The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.'


EDIT:

Just adding these links...

Also, the BBC spends taxpayer pounds to block critical reports of its coverage. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/15/nbeeb15.xml)


and don't forget the British Judge who had to reprimand the BBC for their coverage:

BBC reporter Gilligan resigns after judge criticizes "sexed up" language Winston G. Collier at 3:25 PM


Reuters: "BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, who said in a radio report that the government "sexed up" the risk posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons, has resigned."

Gilligan is the third BBC figure to resign in the wake of the Hutton report following the departures of chairman Gavyn Davies and director general Greg Dyke. Although apparently a victory for the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the report has been seen in some quarters as a significant assault on press freedom. BBC News has Gilligan's resignation statement, which says in part:
...the BBC collectively has been the victim of a grave injustice. If Lord Hutton had fairly considered the evidence he heard, he would have concluded that most of my story was right.

The government did sex up the dossier, transforming possibilities and probabilities into certainties, removing vital caveats; the 45-minute claim was the `classic example' of this; and many in the intelligence services, including the leading expert in WMD, were unhappy about it....

This report casts a chill over all journalism, not just the BBC's. It seeks to hold reporters, with all the difficulties they face, to a standard that it does not appear to demand of, for instance, Government dossiers.


http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004_01_30_indexarch.php

just going to bump this...the other one should be deleted though

Thus we get into the debate about who forms who. Does the media reflect public opinion or vice versa.

But yes, it does seem these days that a liberal bias is acceptable, whilst any other is not. I've just begun reading a book entitled "Blood, mud and poppycock" which sucessfully uses statsicial and historical evidence to prove that much of the view about the Great war that is taught in the British education system is a myth (IE the lost generation and that generals and officers never took part in the fighting). Essentially, the world does need to be wary of these sorts of pervaynece of myths

Don't you just love how the article makes it clear in the first sentence that Chrsitians per se oppose multicultural society?

Earth to Daemonocracy, come in Daemonocracy. Your thread is right here. :p

Just reflecting society's well-known liberal bias. But frankly, I'm completely astounded that the Daily Mail can accuse anyone, anyone of bias. The hypocracy is completely amazing.

While no media organisation can be perfect, I'd rather take the as close as possible to neutral BBC than the rantings and spin of the Daily Mail.

Don't you just love how the article makes it clear in the first sentence that Chrsitians per se oppose multicultural society?
Well, the "Christians" that write the Daily Mail are.

Well, the "Christians" that write the Daily Mail are.

Actually, my Dad's in newspapers and knows exactly the kind of people who do write the Daily Mail. And let me give you a hint- their office is a completely human-free zone.

It's a Daily Mail op-ed.

Why not post a Viz article?

If you'd like to have an informed opinion, then why not have a butchers at The Editors (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/) blog, which discusses all this in a much more grown-up fashion than, for instance, the Daily Mail?

Well, the "Christians" that write the Daily Mail are.

I also like it how they paint those poor executives "admit" that their bosses aren't all white and straight! Oh, the shame!!!

Actually, my Dad's in newspapers and knows exactly the kind of people who do write the Daily Mail. And let me give you a hint- their office is a completely human-free zone.
Hence the double-quotes ;)

They would like you to think that they represented the Right-thinking, god fearing, Common-Sense, hard-working, Honest-to-Goodness British Middle Classes, when really... Yeah. If the Daily Mail and its not-quite-as-bad-but-we-try-harder enemy the Daily Express are anything to go by they really aren't very nice people at all. And not terribly bright, when it comes to it.

I apologize if I've got this wrong, because I'm not up on UK newspapers, but I thought the Daily Mail was like the National Enquirer or The Star. You know, a sensationalist gossip rag, not a real paper.

I thought you guys had The London Times or whatever for non-tabloid news, and the Guardian and whatever its rightwing counterpart is for tabloid news, and The Daily Mail for supermarket checkout line entertainment.

I also like it how they paint those poor executives "admit" that their bosses aren't all white and straight! Oh, the shame!!!
Some of them are even "young people", although how they find time to work at the BBC between doing drugs, stealing cars and mugging decent old ladies I don't know.

the BBC is liberal compared to the Mail?

now there's a surprise ;) :p



however...
Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.
good thing too :D

Earth to Daemonocracy, come in Daemonocracy. Your thread is right here. :p

LOL, felt like i was gripping a slippery brick of soap there for a second. :D

Germany has had the good fortune to find a leader capable of bringing together the forces of the entire country to work as a collective body for the common prosperity.

Daily Mail chiefs blasted over Nazi X-mas party. (http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=6038&grp=1)

Make your own Mail. (http://vodex.net/mailmaker/gallery.php)

Does Britian even need a Taxpayer funded organization such as the BBC? It obviously does not represent the overall views of the British people and culture.

Also, the BBC spends taxpayer pounds to block critical reports of its coverage. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/15/nbeeb15.xml)

BBC mounts court fight to keep 'critical' report secret
By Chris Hastings and Beth Jones
(Filed: 15/10/2006)



The BBC has spent thousands of pounds of licence payers' money trying to block the release of a report which is believed to be highly critical of its Middle East coverage.

The corporation is mounting a landmark High Court action to prevent the release of The Balen Report under the Freedom of Information Act, despite the fact that BBC reporters often use the Act to pursue their journalism.

The action will increase suspicions that the report, which is believed to run to 20,000 words, includes evidence of anti-Israeli bias in news programming.

advertisementThe court case will have far reaching implications for the future working of the Act and the BBC. If the corporation loses, it will have to release thousands of pages of other documents that have been held back.

Like all public bodies, the BBC is obliged to release information about itself under the Act. However, along with Channel 4, Britain's other public service broadcaster, it is allowed to hold back material that deals with the production of its art, entertainment and journalism.

The High Court action is the latest stage of a lengthy and expensive battle by Steven Sugar, a lawyer, to get access to the document, which was compiled by Malcolm Balen, a senior editorial adviser, in 2004.

Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, who is responsible for the workings of the Act, agreed with the BBC that the document, which examines hundreds of hours of its radio and television broadcasts, could be held back. However, Mr Sugar appealed and, after a two-day hearing at which the BBC was represented by two barristers, the Information Tribunal found in his favour.

Mr Sugar said: "This is a serious report about a serious issue and has been compiled with public money. I lodged the request because I was concerned that the BBC's reporting of the second intifada was seriously unbalanced against Israel, but I think there are other issues at stake now in the light of the BBC's reaction."

The BBC's coverage of the Middle East has been frequently condemned for a perceived anti-Israeli bias.

In 2004, for example, Barbara Plett, a Middle East correspondent, was criticised for revealing in an episode of Radio 4's From Our Own Correspondent that she had been moved to tears by the plight of the dying Yasser Arafat. MPs said it proved that the corporation was incapable of presenting a balanced account of issues in the Middle East.

Figures released by the Information Commissioner's Office show that there have been 105 complaints about the BBC's attitude to the Act since it came into force in January 2005. Only four of these have been dismissed and the rest are being examined. The BBC has lodged at least 25 complaints about the way other organisations have dealt with its requests.

The BBC declined to say how much it was spending on the High Court action. "We will be appealing the decision of the Information Tribunal," a spokesman said. "This case has wider implications relating to the way the Act applies to public broadcasters."

The BBC has been accused plenty of times in the past as being Anti-Israel.

The Daily Mail editor's wet dream would be a 7 foot tall gypsy Muslim paedophile in a hoodie wandering the streets selling radioactive lucky heather to middle-aged supermarket checkout ladies and young children.

Just think of the amount of 'Shock Horror' headlines they'd be able to milk out of such a person!



Anyway, back to the article:
Oh heavens me! They're in favour of multiculturalism! Those evil leftist bastards!
I can only wait for the new logo from the Daily Mail: "There's no black in the Union Jack"
Worse, they wouldn't want to offend Muslims. Have they no shame?
Let's just ignore the fact that it's more of a security issue than a religious one. We'll just anything we've got to attack them with.
Oh, and they'd interview Osama if they had the chance: Like no network in the world, not even Fox, would pass up that one. What does the DM expect them to do? Try to kill him on camera?
And I'm totally astounded to find out that the Arts have an 'abnormally' large number of gays. I never, for the life of me, suspected that actors, for example, are more likely to be gay than construction workers.

Does Britian even need a Taxpayer funded organization such as the BBC? It obviously does not represent the overall views of the British people and culture.

Also, the BBC spends taxpayer pounds to block critical reports of its coverage. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/15/nbeeb15.xml)



The BBC has been accused plenty of times in the past as being Anti-Israel.

Shouldn't that be the decision of the British tax payer? If they didn't want it, or didn't want to pay for it, there are plenty of democratic options.

Anything has a liberal bias compared to the Daily Mail.

and don't forget the British Judge who had to reprimand the BBC for their coverage:

BBC reporter Gilligan resigns after judge criticizes "sexed up" language Winston G. Collier at 3:25 PM


Reuters: "BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, who said in a radio report that the government "sexed up" the risk posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons, has resigned."

Gilligan is the third BBC figure to resign in the wake of the Hutton report following the departures of chairman Gavyn Davies and director general Greg Dyke. Although apparently a victory for the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the report has been seen in some quarters as a significant assault on press freedom. BBC News has Gilligan's resignation statement, which says in part:
...the BBC collectively has been the victim of a grave injustice. If Lord Hutton had fairly considered the evidence he heard, he would have concluded that most of my story was right.

The government did sex up the dossier, transforming possibilities and probabilities into certainties, removing vital caveats; the 45-minute claim was the `classic example' of this; and many in the intelligence services, including the leading expert in WMD, were unhappy about it....

This report casts a chill over all journalism, not just the BBC's. It seeks to hold reporters, with all the difficulties they face, to a standard that it does not appear to demand of, for instance, Government dossiers.


http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004_01_30_indexarch.php

No real surprise here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

I'm not too concerned about grammar in your posts or the posts of others, but if I'm going to trust the journalism of some rag or another, I'd prefer it if they actually cared a bit about, you know, JOURNALISM. This newspaper doesn't even appear to have an editor. Shall I begin showing the grammatical errors in this article? Or the fact that it's an unsubstantiated tabloid article? Please use a remotely reliable source when trying to discredit something this widely respected.

and don't forget the British Judge who had to reprimand the BBC for their coverage:



http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004_01_30_indexarch.php

That'll be the Hutton report which nobody, and I do mean nobody, believes was a fair investigation.

It was, after all, the government launching an investigation into how the BBC reported the government's actions.

What's most fucking disgusting is that those three are pretty much the only ones to lose their jobs over the Iraq war (when they were right all along), and Blair has kept his, when he was wrong all along.

and don't forget the British Judge who had to reprimand the BBC for their coverage:



http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004_01_30_indexarch.php

Oh, it's going to be this kind of thread, right? You're going to keep posting evidence on how ebil and degenerated the mutlicultural, non-homophobic, despicable BBC is, without ever answering to any of the comments made.
That must really get you off...

Oh great. The Telegraph, now.

Why bother eating, Daemonocracy?

The Daily Mail editor's wet dream would be a 7 foot tall gypsy Muslim paedophile in a hoodie wandering the streets selling radioactive lucky heather to middle-aged supermarket checkout ladies and young children.

Just think of the amount of 'Shock Horror' headlines they'd be able to milk out of such a person!



the one who also murdered Princess Diana and plots against the royal family in drug-fuelled communist rage?



they'd probably find a way to blame the Labour government for that. and if they couldn't, they'd just make something up. they're good at that ;)

The Daily Mail editor's wet dream would be a 7 foot tall gypsy Muslim paedophile in a hoodie wandering the streets selling radioactive lucky heather to middle-aged supermarket checkout ladies and young children.

Just think of the amount of 'Shock Horror' headlines they'd be able to milk out of such a person!



Anyway, back to the article:
Oh heavens me! They're in favour of multiculturalism! Those evil leftist bastards!
I can only wait for the new logo from the Daily Mail: "There's no black in the Union Jack"
Worse, they wouldn't want to offend Muslims. Have they no shame?
Let's just ignore the fact that it's more of a security issue than a religious one. We'll just anything we've got to attack them with.
Oh, and they'd interview Osama if they had the chance: Like no network in the world, not even Fox, would pass up that one. What does the DM expect them to do? Try to kill him on camera?And I'm totally astounded to find out that the Arts have an 'abnormally' large number of gays. I never, for the life of me, suspected that actors, for example, are more likely to be gay than construction workers.

in response to the Bold, yes that would be nice.

as for Gay Construction workers...well... ;)

as for Gay Construction workers...well... ;)

What?

What does that mean?

That you're a gay construction worker?

Frankly I'm surprised the Daily Mail was this lenient in their article. I suppose they left the demands for blood and the exile of the 'Liberals' to the editorial, as per usual.


Really, the article is crap and full of so many ad hominems and biased crap I'd suspect a parody...if it weren't the Daily Mail and therefore unfortunately true...

Oh, it's going to be this kind of thread, right? You're going to keep posting evidence on how ebil and degenerated the mutlicultural, non-homophobic, despicable BBC is, without ever answering to any of the comments made.
That must really get you off...


if you say so

What?

What does that mean?

That you're a gay construction worker?


i was thinking of the village people. a pop icon. come on now.

It's even harder to read minds over the internet.

Does Britian even need a Taxpayer funded organization such as the BBC? It obviously does not represent the overall views of the British people and culture.

Yes it does, and it is up to the British People, through Parliament to decide otherwise. It just so happens that for 80+ years Labour and Tory governments have renewed its charter. Any attempt to abolish a British icon like the BBC would be a public outrage.

Also, the BBC spends taxpayer pounds to block critical reports of its coverage. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/15/nbeeb15.xml)

Would a private company spend its customers' money any differently?

The BBC has been accused plenty of times in the past as being Anti-Israel.

If I were accused of being a rapist, would that make me a rapist? Thought not.

Shouldn't that be the decision of the British tax payer? If they didn't want it, or didn't want to pay for it, there are plenty of democratic options.
Aren't they forced to pay for it via the TV license? AFAIK, unless the TV is just for something like movie-in-home showing only, the UK government extracts the pound of flesh from everyone who purchases a TV in the UK in order to fund the BBC. So I don't see that there are any democratic options, given that governments seldom, if ever, willingly give up such things--even with vote.

and don't forget the British Judge who had to reprimand the BBC for their coverage:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004_01_30_indexarch.php

The Hutton whitewash, where Blair got one of his friends to make it look like it was all the BBC's fault? Yeah, nice try.

Incidentally, the BBC isn't taxpayer funded. It's funded by the television licence. If you don't have a television, you don't pay for it... Which is excellent for me, because I get BBC Radio and *.bbc.co.uk for free, as I don't have a telly.

Anything has a liberal bias compared to the Daily Mail.

Yes, but the mail, like the telegraph, doesn't pretend that it is impartial. It flat out acknowledges that it hates the BBC and the labour party - possibly also Cameron's Useless Tories for being to blairite.

The BBC pretends it is impartial. There is nothing wrong with bias in reporting, as long as you don't pretend you have a neutral viewpoint.

Actually, my Dad's in newspapers and knows exactly the kind of people who do write the Daily Mail. And let me give you a hint- their office is a completely human-free zone.
Oh come on, everyone knows that no human could seriously write for the Daily Mail. Nobody's that hypocritical, or far enough up their own arse.

...Oh heavens me! They're in favour of multiculturalism! Those evil leftist bastards!...

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'.

So if they are so in favor of "Multiculturalism", why such contempt for the symbol of their own Nation and culture?

The Daily Mail, famous for supporting the fascists, would call the BNP liberal.

If one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the left. Or the right. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view.

True multiculturalism means embracing the best that all cultures and beliefs have to offer.

Only through me can you achieve a power greater than--sorry. Got a little carried away there.

Just reflecting society's well-known liberal bias. But frankly, I'm completely astounded that the Daily Mail can accuse anyone, anyone of bias. The hypocracy is completely amazing.

While no media organisation can be perfect, I'd rather take the as close as possible to neutral BBC than the rantings and spin of the Daily Mail.

Yet, the daily mail has not accused anyone. The BBC has admitted it for themselves.

Also the daily mail are an independent newspaper who can be as biased as they like, the BBC is the UK's national channel and is pratically funded by the government, you should expect them to be impartial.

We've had an "Irish" version of the Mail in my homeland for a few months now, I don't find it "extremely conservative" or whatever, though maybe it's tailored to suit Irish readers. People can be just as sensationalist about the Mail as the paper itself can be about things like law and order, immigration, etc.

Liberal bias at the Beeb? Quelle surprise :fluffle: <-- multicultural love-in...

Yet, the daily mail has not accused anyone. The BBC has admitted it for themselves.

Also the daily mail are an independent newspaper who can be as biased as they like, the BBC is the UK's national channel and is pratically funded by the government, you should expect them to be impartial.

Yes but many seem to think, "who cares about them being impartial as long as they agree with your views"?

Yet, the daily mail has not accused anyone. The BBC has admitted it for themselves.

Also the daily mail are an independent newspaper who can be as biased as they like, the BBC is the UK's national channel and is pratically funded by the government, you should expect them to be impartial.

Can you link to where the BBC admitted it for themselves? And, no, a tabloid newspaper isn't going to cut it.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities,



'Darkies' and 'Poofs' - every mail readers nightmare.....

Anybody see that episode of extras with Les Dennis where he comments on who runs the BBC?

and don't forget the British Judge who had to reprimand the BBC for their coverage:


And don't forget the subsequent report and events that proved them essentially correct.

Wasnt that Judge one of the bastards who did a coverup on bloody sunday?

Can you link to where the BBC admitted it for themselves? And, no, a tabloid newspaper isn't going to cut it.

It may be bias, but it's record for producing false information with fake sources are relatively low compared many other papers. I find the paper credible enough to believe.

Wasnt that Judge one of the bastards who did a coverup on bloody sunday?

He represented the Ministry of Defence, if that's what you mean.

Of course the Daily Mail is biased but the BBC is just as bad the other way. They've always pushed a pro-muslim, multicultural agenda. In the typical liberal way they've looked at anyone who isn't black, muslim, gay, ect. as chavs and scum who don't deserve to live. They're entirely supportive of the shithole that this country's rapidly becoming.

All new agencies are bias somewhat, but the BBC is the least bias IMO.

Of course the Daily Mail is biased but the BBC is just as bad the other way. They've always pushed a pro-muslim, multicultural agenda. In the typical liberal way they've looked at anyone who isn't black, muslim, gay, ect. as chavs and scum who don't deserve to live. They're entirely supportive of the shithole that this country's rapidly becoming.

I can always count on you for a fresh dose of fascist paranoia. OHNOES! It's a shithole because there is more than one culture! Because of eeeevil Muslims and blacks and gays! CONSPIRACY!

It may be bias, but it's record for producing false information with fake sources are relatively low compared many other papers. I find the paper credible enough to believe.

And the comparisons to America's "National Enquirer" are amusing, considering how that "tabloid" breaks more stories and has more rock solid sources than the mainstream media could ever hope for. :p

I can always count on you for a fresh dose of fascist paranoia. OHNOES! It's a shithole because there is more than one culture! Because of eeeevil Muslims and blacks and gays! CONSPIRACY!
Yes, and I'll bet that you live in some nice leafy middle class suburb where you never come into contact with anybody non-white, yet still lecture people on the virtues of multiculturalism. Try realising the realities in this country - so many areas (And many more to come) have been turned into shitholes by liberals who hold nothing but hatred and contempt for ordinary working class people.

I can always count on you for a fresh dose of fascist paranoia. OHNOES! It's a shithole because there is more than one culture! Because of eeeevil Muslims and blacks and gays! CONSPIRACY!

Is this the Multiculturalism you were talking about? Al-Quds day? (http://publicansdecoy.livejournal.com/448298.html)

Yes, and I'll bet that you live in some nice leafy middle class suburb where you never come into contact with anybody non-white, yet still lecture people on the virtues of multiculturalism.

No, actually I come into contact with more "non-white" people than you've probably seen in your entire White Pride community life.

Nice try though, mister "You don't know what it's like, they have DIFFERENT COLOR SKIN! ZOMG"


Try realising the realities in this country - so many areas (And many more to come) have been turned into shitholes by liberals who hold nothing but hatred and contempt for ordinary working class people.

Working class? What is this now, some sort of fusion of socialist marxist crap with bigoted jackboot crap about how you're being kept down by the evil Muslim upper class? Do continue, I find it amusing.

Yes, and I'll bet that you live in some nice leafy middle class suburb where you never come into contact with anybody non-white, yet still lecture people on the virtues of multiculturalism. Try realising the realities in this country - so many areas (And many more to come) have been turned into shitholes by liberals who hold nothing but hatred and contempt for ordinary working class people.I agree with GT and I've not grown up in a leafy middle class suburb where you never come into contact with anyone non-white.

I agree with GT and I've not grown up in a leafy middle class suburb where you never come into contact with anyone non-white.

Same here, the white people in my school are a minority.

Is this the Multiculturalism you were talking about? Al-Quds day? (http://publicansdecoy.livejournal.com/448298.html)Scroll a few pictures down to see how that's a wonderful example of multiculturalism :p

ROFL

I'm laughing at this cos my uncle's director of sound for BBC News24.

And personally I don't really care who has what bias, but I guess News should be impartial.

And the comparisons to America's "National Enquirer" are amusing, considering how that "tabloid" breaks more stories and has more rock solid sources than the mainstream media could ever hope for. :p

Would you care to answer the charge that the subsequent showed that the central thrust of the BBC argument was in fact correct, or are you just going to lay down more smoke?

I dont see why this is bad. The BBC is still the best news source out there.

Working class? What is this now, some sort of fusion of socialist marxist crap with bigoted jackboot crap about how you're being kept down by the evil Muslim upper class? Do continue, I find it amusing.

It sounds to me like classic right wing sKin talk, to be honest. Poor white street fighting men...blah blah blah.

It sounds to me like classic right wing sKin talk, to be honest. Poor white street fighting men...blah blah blah.

Yeah, the white working class doesn't exist, right? We're all rich and any white person who claims they're finding it hard just to maintain their family or themselves is a liar. Only non-whites can be oppressed. Good to see a balanced attitude on the thread.

It sounds to me like classic right wing sKin talk, to be honest. Poor white street fighting men...blah blah blah.
I'm not talking about street fighters, I'm talking about ordinary working class people. People who have to suffer the social disintegration of modern Britain. Disintegration caused by the liberal elite who like to celebrate our dynamic, vibrant, multicultural society, lecturing people on how they're scum for not wanting to see their communities turned into something that doesn't even look like Britain any more. Of course, these liberals won't actually live in the areas where they see the consequences of the society they've helped create.

I'm not talking about street fighters, I'm talking about ordinary working class people. People who have to suffer the social disintegration of modern Britain. Disintegration caused by the liberal elite who like to celebrate our dynamic, vibrant, multicultural society, lecturing people on how they're scum for not wanting to see their communities turned into something that doesn't even look like Britain any more. Of course, these liberals won't actually live in the areas where they see the consequences of the society they've helped create.I'm sorry. If you really want to go running around in a leather jerkin, join a renaissance fair.

I'm not talking about street fighters, I'm talking about ordinary working class people. People who have to suffer the social disintegration of modern Britain. Disintegration caused by the liberal elite who like to celebrate our dynamic, vibrant, multicultural society, lecturing people on how they're scum for not wanting to see their communities turned into something that doesn't even look like Britain any more. Of course, these liberals won't actually live in the areas where they see the consequences of the society they've helped create.

Those consequences being... "non-whites" existing in Britain? Oh no, they don't even "look British." Damn "liberals."

You can play up the "working class" all you like, it doesn't change the fact that you're just using any excuse to rattle on about your short-sighted bigotry.

Yeah, the white working class doesn't exist, right? We're all rich and any white person who claims they're finding it hard just to maintain their family or themselves is a liar. Only non-whites can be oppressed. Good to see a balanced attitude on the thread.

I am white and "working class". I suggest you read that post in context.

I'm not talking about street fighters, I'm talking about ordinary working class people. People who have to suffer the social disintegration of modern Britain. Disintegration caused by the liberal elite who like to celebrate our dynamic, vibrant, multicultural society, lecturing people on how they're scum for not wanting to see their communities turned into something that doesn't even look like Britain any more. Of course, these liberals won't actually live in the areas where they see the consequences of the society they've helped create.

And what did Britain look like?

Yes, and I'll bet that you live in some nice leafy middle class suburb where you never come into contact with anybody non-white, yet still lecture people on the virtues of multiculturalism. Try realising the realities in this country - so many areas (And many more to come) have been turned into shitholes by liberals who hold nothing but hatred and contempt for ordinary working class people.

Really? I'll tell you what. I grew up in a community where I never every parent. Every single one. My family was one of about half a dozen white families. The rest were of various races, leaning heavily toward hispanic or black. We had a few Muslim families and a few Asian families, about as many as white families. My neighborhood had some crime and tons of poverty. But it was fine until suddenly people started sewing distrust of each of the races. Suddenly racism sank its ugly teeth in and the parents of different races stopped intermingling. According, to some of our 'working class' friends this would make our community better, no? Of course not, distrust and malcontent don't and can't make a community better. Monocultural groups started to form that were at first distrustful of one another, then moreso, and then violence. My senior year was the last year my high school didn't have guards. It was the first year we had specialized proms for individual races. When I got out of the military I went back and my poor but beautiful little town look like a warzone.

That was just about ten years ago. About three years ago a multicultural group went in to start forming community action groups and to bring our community back together. They started taking teenagers to the parks to repaint the equipment and to clean up the trash. It looks like the place I grew up in twenty years ago and it's steadily improving.

Please, tell me, even logically how you can in any way claim that being distrustful of your neighbors (and whether they live 1000 miles away or .1 they are your neighbors), how making so that people of various 'groups' aren't treated as part of the same community, the same world, the same people is going to help in any way? How will that bring the peace you claim is your goal? Why would people suddenly blend in as you claim is your goal when they are constantly being told how evil they are? Why would people treat you any better than the level of distrust and disgust you push upon them?

You set up self-fulfilling prophecies that treat certain cultural groups as second-class people and then you pretend like it proves you right when they rebel against this treatment or fall into dispair. You have a choice, you can bring people into the fold and help them see the benefits of tolerance, love, equality and a free community or you can prove to them that they don't want to be part of the community at all and that the community has no benefits for them, so much so that they shouldn't want it to exist. One of those will have the peaceful outcome you pretend to care about. I guarantee you it won't be the latter.

I'm not talking about street fighters, I'm talking about ordinary working class people. People who have to suffer the social disintegration of modern Britain. Disintegration caused by the liberal elite who like to celebrate our dynamic, vibrant, multicultural society, lecturing people on how they're scum for not wanting to see their communities turned into something that doesn't even look like Britain any more. Of course, these liberals won't actually live in the areas where they see the consequences of the society they've helped create.

Ah, yes, the good old 'remember when' arguments. You do realize that most cities tend to be much more strongly liberal than rural areas where this is much, much less likelihood of a multicultural community. I'd like some evidence that the majority of support for multi-culturalism comes from people who don't live in multi-cultural communities. Go ahead. Given how prevelent you claim your worldview is, it should take just moments to prove it.

I don't know about GB, but in the US the vast majority of liberal live in cities and tend to be on a lower economic rung than conservatives. Many of my white, rich coworkers say I'm a traitor for not being a conservative.

To be honest The Times has a bloody left-wing bias compared to the Mail.

Why does this even matter?

And what did Britain look like?
I can't say for sure because I'm only quite young myself. All I can say is that from what I've heard, Britain was a far better place to live when we were monocultural.

Really? I'll tell you what. I grew up in a community where I never every parent. Every single one. My family was one of about half a dozen white families. The rest were of various races, leaning heavily toward hispanic or black. We had a few Muslim families and a few Asian families, about as many as white families. My neighborhood had some crime and tons of poverty. But it was fine until suddenly people started sewing distrust of each of the races. Suddenly racism sank its ugly teeth in and the parents of different races stopped intermingling. According, to some of our 'working class' friends this would make our community better, no? Of course not, distrust and malcontent don't and can't make a community better. Monocultural groups started to form that were at first distrustful of one another, then moreso, and then violence. My senior year was the last year my high school didn't have guards. It was the first year we had specialized proms for individual races. When I got out of the military I went back and my poor but beautiful little town look like a warzone.
I don't know how to answer that, but America is a different case. It's a country made up of immigrants, a country with no culture of its own. The town I grew up in was different. It's a town with a large muslim community and they ruined the town. They've turned areas of that town into their own islamic enclaves, and their corrosive influence on the rest of the place turned the town into a crime ridden dump. I suppose the liberals will tell us it's all we deserve.

Please, tell me, even logically how you can in any way claim that being distrustful of your neighbors (and whether they live 1000 miles away or .1 they are your neighbors), how making so that people of various 'groups' aren't treated as part of the same community, the same world, the same people is going to help in any way? How will that bring the peace you claim is your goal? Why would people suddenly blend in as you claim is your goal when they are constantly being told how evil they are? Why would people treat you any better than the level of distrust and disgust you push upon them?

You set up self-fulfilling prophecies that treat certain cultural groups as second-class people and then you pretend like it proves you right when they rebel against this treatment or fall into dispair. You have a choice, you can bring people into the fold and help them see the benefits of tolerance, love, equality and a free community or you can prove to them that they don't want to be part of the community at all and that the community has no benefits for them, so much so that they shouldn't want it to exist. One of those will have the peaceful outcome you pretend to care about. I guarantee you it won't be the latter.
Hahaha.... love and tolerance! That's some the funniest and most sickening, sentimental crap I've ever heard. Peace will never be achieved by letting people walk all over you. The problems that we're facing in this country are because the people of Britain have been complacent. We've let these undesireable elements sink their claws into this country and so many areas are now living with the consequences. The only solution to this is a new movement where the working class is mobilised and won't pay lip service to all this pathetic love and tolerance crap.

Really? I'll tell you what. I grew up in a community where I never every parent. Every single one. My family was one of about half a dozen white families. The rest were of various races, leaning heavily toward hispanic or black. We had a few Muslim families and a few Asian families, about as many as white families. My neighborhood had some crime and tons of poverty. But it was fine until suddenly people started sewing distrust of each of the races. Suddenly racism sank its ugly teeth in and the parents of different races stopped intermingling. According, to some of our 'working class' friends this would make our community better, no? Of course not, distrust and malcontent don't and can't make a community better. Monocultural groups started to form that were at first distrustful of one another, then moreso, and then violence. My senior year was the last year my high school didn't have guards. It was the first year we had specialized proms for individual races. When I got out of the military I went back and my poor but beautiful little town look like a warzone.
I don't know how to answer that, but America is a different case. It's a country made up of immigrants, a country with no culture of its own. The town I grew up in was different. It's a town with a large muslim community and they ruined the town. They've turned areas of that town into their own islamic enclaves, and their corrosive influence on the rest of the place turned the town into a crime ridden dump. I suppose the liberals will tell us it's all we deserve.

Please, tell me, even logically how you can in any way claim that being distrustful of your neighbors (and whether they live 1000 miles away or .1 they are your neighbors), how making so that people of various 'groups' aren't treated as part of the same community, the same world, the same people is going to help in any way? How will that bring the peace you claim is your goal? Why would people suddenly blend in as you claim is your goal when they are constantly being told how evil they are? Why would people treat you any better than the level of distrust and disgust you push upon them?

You set up self-fulfilling prophecies that treat certain cultural groups as second-class people and then you pretend like it proves you right when they rebel against this treatment or fall into dispair. You have a choice, you can bring people into the fold and help them see the benefits of tolerance, love, equality and a free community or you can prove to them that they don't want to be part of the community at all and that the community has no benefits for them, so much so that they shouldn't want it to exist. One of those will have the peaceful outcome you pretend to care about. I guarantee you it won't be the latter.
Hahaha.... love and tolerance! That's some the funniest and most sickening, sentimental crap I've ever heard. Peace will never be achieved by letting people walk all over you. The problems that we're facing in this country are because the people of Britain have been complacent. We've let these undesireable elements sink their claws into this country and so many areas are now living with the consequences. The only solution to this is a new movement where the working class is mobilised and won't pay lip service to all this pathetic love and flowers crap.

Ah, yes, the good old 'remember when' arguments. You do realize that most cities tend to be much more strongly liberal than rural areas where this is much, much less likelihood of a multicultural community. I'd like some evidence that the majority of support for multi-culturalism comes from people who don't live in multi-cultural communities. Go ahead. Given how prevelent you claim your worldview is, it should take just moments to prove it.

I don't know about GB, but in the US the vast majority of liberal live in cities and tend to be on a lower economic rung than conservatives. Many of my white, rich coworkers say I'm a traitor for not being a conservative.
I can't give you statistics on this because some things can't be measured through statistics. I can only talk through experience in my own home town. There was always a lot of tension between people of different communities. Most of the people I knew didn't have particularly positive feelings for the muslims of the town. In my experiences it's been these middle class liberals who think they know better than everyone else.

Here's what I don't get, I keep hearing about how the internet, television, movies, newspapers, magazines, etc. all have a liberal bias. If conservatives are so representative of the people then why are the people so biased against them? Certainly, it's not only rich elitests that have access to this site and the majority of the internet. Certainly not every journalist is a rich elitest. Certainly not everyone working on every movie is a rich elitest.

In fact, if they're so overwhelming taking over everything who elite can they really be?

And what did Britain look like?

http://www.puzzlehouse.com/images/webpage/stonehenge.jpeg

See? Ah, but that was before those bastard Normans came. And before the evil liberal agenda included those evil alien-culture Irish and Scottish into Britain. And of course, before the evil Muslim conspiracy began polluting White Britain with Impurities.

:sigh:

Here's what I don't get, I keep hearing about how the internet, television, movies, newspapers, magazines, etc. all have a liberal bias. If conservatives are so representative of the people then why are the people so biased against them? Certainly, it's not only rich elitests that have access to this site and the majority of the internet. Certainly not every journalist is a rich elitest. Certainly not everyone working on every movie is a rich elitest.

In fact, if they're so overwhelming taking over everything who elite can they really be?Jocabia, you are aware that Somewhere is a Nazi, not a conservative, no?

I can't say for sure because I'm only quite young myself. All I can say is that from what I've heard, Britain was a far better place to live when we were monocultural.Britain hasn't been monocultural since the Celts invaded, if not longer.

Soooo... When and where does the BBC employees admit to liberal bias?

I can't say for sure because I'm only quite young myself. All I can say is that from what I've heard, Britain was a far better place to live when we were monocultural.

Yes, but you aren't and never were unless you've been talking two people nearly a millennia old. In America, we have that too. Everything was perfect in America 100 years ago, unless you were black, female, poor, non-Christian, gay or liked any of these people.



I don't know how to answer that, but America is a different case. It's a country made up of immigrants, a country with no culture of its own. The town I grew up in was different. It's a town with a large muslim community and they ruined the town. They've turned areas of that town into their own islamic enclaves, and their corrosive influence on the rest of the place turned the town into a crime ridden dump. I suppose the liberals will tell us it's all we deserve.

And isolating them further will help prevent these enclaves against all logic?


Hahaha.... love and tolerance! That's some the funniest and most sickening, sentimental crap I've ever heard. Peace will never be achieved by letting people walk all over you. The problems that we're facing in this country are because the people of Britain have been complacent. We've let these undesireable elements sink their claws into this country and so many areas are now living with the consequences. The only solution to this is a new movement where the working class is mobilised and won't pay lip service to all this pathetic love and tolerance crap.

No one is asking you to let them 'walk all over you.' People are asking you to simply let them be them. Yes, talking about them the way you do will certainly encourage them to embrace your culture. I know whenever I go to place where I'm outnumbered and everyone talks about me like you're talking about them, I wouldn't seek to find someplace where I felt safe, an enclave of sort. Instead I would try to walk around alone as often as possible because that's the safest thing to do.

You think this is a new movement? How arrogant. The people in charge have always managed to prevent you from focusing on the people who are ACTUALLY taking advantage of you by splitting up the working class and get them to battle against each other. If you think you're fighting in some new form of war, you are either painfully ignorant of history or just pretending to be.


I can't give you statistics on this because some things can't be measured through statistics. I can only talk through experience in my own home town. There was always a lot of tension between people of different communities. Most of the people I knew didn't have particularly positive feelings for the muslims of the town. In my experiences it's been these middle class liberals who think they know better than everyone else.

Um, yes, they can be measured by statistics. People in cities vote. According to you, the vote in cities should be MUCH more conservative than the rural vote since multi-cultural communities are more common in cities. There are ways to come up with mountains of proof for your position if your position is based in the real world. The fact that you can't is more demonstrative of the flaw in the position than the lack of available support. According to you majoritively white communities vote with a liberal bias since they aren't experiencing the effects you claim. The facts actually show the opposite.

I recognize that you have to believe liberals are living in ivory towers and just don't know what you know or else your whole world view falls apart, but all facts contradict your claims.

Yes, but you aren't and never were unless you've been talking two people nearly a millennia old. In America, we have that too. Everything was perfect in America 100 years ago, unless you were black, female, poor, non-Christian, gay or liked any of these people."No dogs and no Irish" sound familiar?

snip .... We've let these undesireable elements... snip

Ouch..

Jocabia, you are aware that Somewhere is a Nazi, not a conservative, no?
Ah yes, the old Nazi slur which is aimed at anyone who likes to challange the status quo and not fit neatly into the left wing-right wing world view.

Britain hasn't been monocultural since the Celts invaded, if not longer.
I was waiting for someone to come out with the usual left wing myth that this country has been a multicultural cesspit since for our entire history.

I was waiting for someone to come out with the usual left wing myth that this country has been a multicultural cesspit since for our entire history.

Sorry? Myth?

You're funny. Perhaps you should try standup.

Ah yes, the old Nazi slur which is aimed at anyone who likes to challange the status quo and not fit neatly into the left wing-right wing world view.Considering that you'd willingly vote for the BNP, I don't find the "slur" that innappropriate.
I was waiting for someone to come out with the usual left wing myth that this country has been a multicultural cesspit since for our entire history.And? Evidence to the contrary? Back up your claim or revoke the "myth" bullshit.

Ah yes, the old Nazi slur which is aimed at anyone who likes to challange the status quo and not fit neatly into the left wing-right wing world view.

Ah yes, the old "They just don't understand me! They're too stupid to comprehend the dire threat that Blacks, Muslims, Gays, Liberals and anyone else I want exterminated poses! Slander, I say!" defense.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...


I was waiting for someone to come out with the usual left wing myth that this country has been a multicultural cesspit since for our entire history.

Multicultural, yes. Unless your definition of "culture" is things like "black" and "white." Which it apparently is.

Ah yes, the old Nazi slur which is aimed at anyone who likes to challange the status quo and not fit neatly into the left wing-right wing world view.
"Multicultural cesspit" sounds like a pretty Nazi phrase. Full of Untermenschen, eh?
I was waiting for someone to come out with the usual left wing myth that this country has been a multicultural cesspit since for our entire history.
Ehm.. it has been, forever.

Even back 4000 years, there were the Celts and Picts, as well as the Irish and some Gallic people... that sounds awfully multicultural to me...

I can't say for sure because I'm only quite young myself. All I can say is that from what I've heard, Britain was a far better place to live when we were monocultural..

Britain hasnt been 'monocultural' in centuries.


I don't know how to answer that, but America is a different case. It's a country made up of immigrants, a country with no culture of its own. The town I grew up in was different. It's a town with a large muslim community and they ruined the town. They've turned areas of that town into their own islamic enclaves, and their corrosive influence on the rest of the place turned the town into a crime ridden dump. I suppose the liberals will tell us it's all we deserve...

How exactly did they turn it into a "crime ridden dump"?


Hahaha.... love and tolerance! That's some the funniest and most sickening, sentimental crap I've ever heard. Peace will never be achieved by letting people walk all over you. The problems that we're facing in this country are because the people of Britain have been complacent. We've let these undesireable elements sink their claws into this country and so many areas are now living with the consequences. The only solution to this is a new movement where the working class is mobilised and won't pay lip service to all this pathetic love and tolerance crap....

Dear o dear o dear......"you want to wakeup - they're taken over". O its years since I heard this crap.....


I can't give you statistics on this because some things can't be measured through statistics. I can only talk through experience in my own home town. There was always a lot of tension between people of different communities. Most of the people I knew didn't have particularly positive feelings for the muslims of the town. In my experiences it's been these middle class liberals who think they know better than everyone else.

Bad news is that amongst things that can be measured in statistics is crime, socio-economic status etc and so on.

http://www.puzzlehouse.com/images/webpage/stonehenge.jpeg

See? Ah, but that was before those bastard Normans came. And before the evil liberal agenda included those evil alien-culture Irish and Scottish into Britain. And of course, before the evil Muslim conspiracy began polluting White Britain with Impurities.

:sigh:

Those Irish were the start of the rot...they look white but they aren't really. Not 'proper', like 'White Street Warrior'.....

Jocabia, you are aware that Somewhere is a Nazi, not a conservative, no?

I wasn't talking to Somewhere. He didn't create this thread and isn't the only one commenting on it. It was a general point.

Ah yes, the old Nazi slur which is aimed at anyone who likes to challange the status quo and not fit neatly into the left wing-right wing world view.


I was waiting for someone to come out with the usual left wing myth that this country has been a multicultural cesspit since for our entire history.

When did it become multicultural and what was the one culture prior to when it became multicultural? I'm quite curious. Please educate me.

Can you link to where the BBC admitted it for themselves? And, no, a tabloid newspaper isn't going to cut it.
I believe that the meeting referred to by the Daily Mail is quite possibly a result of this (http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,,1885170,00.html) article from the Guardian a few weeks ago. If you want to read it, you will have to register with MediaGuardian (they ask for name, country, email address and employment status - though you can probably lie if you want).

Yes, well...people tend to be psycho paranoid about bias in the media...at least conservatives do, while ignoring Fox. It's hard not to appear liberally biased when the people doing all the stupid crap are conservative.

Ah yes, the old Nazi slur which is aimed at anyone who likes to challange the status quo and not fit neatly into the left wing-right wing world view.


I was waiting for someone to come out with the usual left wing myth that this country has been a multicultural cesspit since for our entire history.

Oh yes the great days when Whites were superior. Damn the world for trying to create a soiciety where everyone is equal. /sarcasm.

If people are still be taught this crap I fear for the future

And the comparisons to America's "National Enquirer" are amusing, considering how that "tabloid" breaks more stories and has more rock solid sources than the mainstream media could ever hope for. :p
Um... well, perhaps you are impressed by grainy papparazzi photos of Oprah's ass looking all cottage-cheesy at the beach and anonymous sources of gossip about who's banging whose ex and who just went into or got out of rehab, again, this week, and unsupported speculations about whether this or that celebrity's spouse hits them or this or that politician is going to get a divorce before or after the election. Because those are the kinds of stories the National Enquirer "breaks." (For "breaks," read "makes up.")

I wasn't talking to Somewhere. He didn't create this thread and isn't the only one commenting on it. It was a general point.
Yes, but if you keep attaching your comments to his posts, he'll answer you, and all you'll get will be white supremacist neo-nazi answers, not conservative answers.

I believe that the meeting referred to by the Daily Mail is quite possibly a result of this (http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,,1885170,00.html) article from the Guardian a few weeks ago. If you want to read it, you will have to register with MediaGuardian (they ask for name, country, email address and employment status - though you can probably lie if you want).

I can't find anything, anything on this supposed BBC seminar other than the claims of a few tabloids. I searched for the names in the OP of this thread and a BBC seminar and found nothing.

I think it's all rather convenient.

The BBC finally admits it's always/mostly right..? Yey!

I wasn't talking to Somewhere. He didn't create this thread and isn't the only one commenting on it. It was a general point.Sorry for the misinterpretation then ;)

Sorry for the misinterpretation then ;)

Apparently, others read it that was as well, so it's good you gave me a chance to clarify.

BBC has some pretty sexy design for its television graphics. :)

good thing too :D

What do you mean, "good thing too?" Are you actually saying it's a GOOD thing for the news media to be biased against Christianity?

You should be ashamed of yourself.:mad:

Christianity (REAL Christianity, NOT Roman Catholicism) IS A GOOD THING.

Multiculturalism, at least to the extent that it is intolerant of Christianity and Jews and the State of Israel and the King James Bible, and biased (to an obscene degree, I might add) in favor of Islam, atheism, Roman Catholicism, and terrorism and terrorists, MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT a good thing. In fact, it is downright sinister and evil.

The BBC finally admits it's always/mostly right..? Yey!

Are you saying it's a GOOD thing to be biased against Israel and Jews, and that they, having been persecuted, slaughtered en masse, abused, and chased across this earth for 1,878 years, should now be exterminated from the face of the earth?

That IS what you're saying if you say the BBC is "always/mostly right."

How could you even THINK of saying such a thing?

I am pro-Israel, pro-Jew, ALWAYS WILL BE, and i REFUSE TO EVEN THINK OF BEING ASHAMED OF IT.

Yes, well...people tend to be psycho paranoid about bias in the media...at least conservatives do, while ignoring Fox. It's hard not to appear liberally biased when the people doing all the stupid crap are conservative.

It's NOT paranoia; READ THE THREAD. The media REALLY AND TRULY ARE biased in favor of multiculturalism and Islam, and against Christianity and Jews and the State of Israel.

I was waiting for someone to come out with the usual left wing myth that this country has been a multicultural cesspit since for our entire history.

Cesspit is the right word for it; I hate multiculturalism, at least to the extent that IT hates and does not tolerate Christianity and Israel.

It's NOT paranoia; READ THE THREAD. The media REALLY AND TRULY ARE biased in favor of multiculturalism and Islam, and against Christianity and Jews and the State of Israel.

You do realize that a tabloid making claims about what someone said in a 'secret meeting' isn't really evidence of anything, do you not?

Meanwhile, I don't see a lot of evidence that the BBC is anti-Isreal just because they aren't anti-Muslim.

I don’t really care.

I actually prefer my news sources to have a bias toward liberty.

Cesspit is the right word for it; I hate multiculturalism, at least to the extent that IT hates and does not tolerate Christianity and Israel.

Amusing. There is nothing about Multiculturalism that hates Christianity or Israel. At all. I'm Christian, pro-multiculturalism and I have not strong feelings for either side of the Israel-Lebanon conflict.

I think you'll find most people don't tie those three things together in anyway. That's what rational people do. They look at issues, you know, as issues and not from some silly boxed up political ideology.

It's paranoia when you talk about an ideology hating other ideologies that have nothing relation in any way to it. Or really, an ideology hating.

Sure the media, as well as the majority of western society, is liberal. We can't all be wrong, can we?

I don’t really care.

I actually prefer my news sources to have a bias toward liberty.

Haven't you heard, this crazy multiculturalism guy is antisemetic and anti-Christian. I don't know who this dude is, but he sounds horrible.

I can't find anything, anything on this supposed BBC seminar other than the claims of a few tabloids. I searched for the names in the OP of this thread and a BBC seminar and found nothing.
I know the article I linked to didn't have details of the BBC seminar, but it does have a (fairly) high-profile BBC employee giving his opinion on issues that are raised in the Daily Mail article. And the article predates the Daily Mail story by a few weeks.

This thread is stupid, no one has addressed the real issues of this article. Instead they have been distracted by neo nazis and their hatred of multiculturalism which is only a small part of the article.

This thread is stupid, no one has addressed the real issues of this article. Instead they have been distracted by neo nazis and their hatred of multiculturalism which is only a small part of the article.
The real issue of the article is that the Daily Mail has taken something fairly small and blown it up out of all proportions with their standard 'political correctness gone mad' line. It is almost a certainty that the Mail has policies to the same effect as those they criticise in another organisation.

Mainstream media outlets will always try to minimise the offence they cause to any minority or majority group, or, at least, they will try to minimise the number and level of complaints that they receive over a certain story/practice/policy/whatever. The BBC is behaving quite sensibly, in my view, in saying that they would try not to offend Muslims, whereas they wouldn't mind offending Christians, because it's Muslims who are more likely to kick up a fuss - and thus generate negative stories about the BBC in other media outlets.

Now that we've had the original post stating that there is a "liberal" bias at the BBC, why not take a look at this editor's blog?

Bias At BBC? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/bias_at_the_bbc.html)

When I first joined the BBC I asked a very experienced and subtle journalist what was meant by BBC impartiality. “It means we don’t take sides,” he said. “We don’t take sides either explicitly or implicitly. We test all opinion toughly but fairly and we let the audience make up their own minds.”

I don’t really care.

I actually prefer my news sources to have a bias toward liberty.

Is that what the international socialist crowd is calling it now?

Is that what the international socialist crowd is calling it now?

You say socialist like it's a bad thing.

You say socialist like it's a bad thing.


I don't care for socialism, especially when it calls it self liberalism.

I don't care for socialism, especially when it calls it self liberalism.

Yes, because the only way you can care about equal rights is if you're socialist, yeah? Equality and economics are not linked in any direct way. At all.

Yes, because the only way you can care about equal rights is if you're socialist, yeah? Equality and economics are not linked in any direct way. At all.

Socialism isn't liberalism.

What do you mean, "good thing too?" Are you actually saying it's a GOOD thing for the news media to be biased against Christianity?

You should be ashamed of yourself.:mad:

Christianity (REAL Christianity, NOT Roman Catholicism) IS A GOOD THING.

Multiculturalism, at least to the extent that it is intolerant of Christianity and Jews and the State of Israel and the King James Bible, and biased (to an obscene degree, I might add) in favor of Islam, atheism, Roman Catholicism, and terrorism and terrorists, MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT a good thing. In fact, it is downright sinister and evil.

What is this fool blathering on about? 'Real Christianity' - what the hell is that when it is at home.

Socialism isn't liberalism.

Okay. You were complaining about liberalism. The post you were replying to was about liberty not economics.

Okay. You were complaining about liberalism. The post you were replying to was about liberty not economics.

No.

I wasn't complaining, I was whining.

I was whining about how international socialists have hijacked the word liberalism, and apparently the BBC as well.

No.

I wasn't complaining, I was whining.

I was whining about how international socialists have hijacked the word liberalism, and apparently the BBC as well.

The BBC is full of socialists as well? Based on what information, my friend?

The BBC is full of socialists as well? Based on what information, my friend?
The belief that it is so because he says so.

The BBC is full of socialists as well? Based on what information, my friend?

First lets go after this BBC is liberal myth.

One of the major tenants of liberalism is free expression.

Allowing one type speech (throwing a Bible in the trash) and not allowing another type(throwing the Koran in the trash) isn't liberal.

A liberal would throw both in the trash.

Therefore, BBC isn't liberal, because they do not support freedom of expression.

As far as them being international socialists I get that from there love of the Europe Union, there love of anti-gun legisaltion, and there selective promotion of multiculturalism.

First lets go after this BBC is liberal myth.

One of the major tenants of liberalism is free expression.

Allowing one type speech (throwing a Bible in the trash) and not allowing another type(throwing the Koran in the trash) isn't liberal.

A liberal would throw both in the trash.

Therefore, BBC isn't liberal, because they do not support freedom of expression.

As far as them being international socialists I get that from there love of the Europe Union, there love of anti-gun legisaltion, and there selective promotion of multiculturalism.

Oh, so we're assuming that a tabloid that talks about 'secret meetings' is giving us the honest events? I'm sorry. I need a little more proof.

Multiculturalism and gun legislation have nothing to do with socialism. Open a book and stop embarassing yourself. Socialism is a economic theory. It has nothing to do with race or guns.

Having to put up with a crap the beeb spews out most days is one thing, but I can ignore it by watching whatever cable channel has something interesting to watch.

However, last week , I ended up watching some of the kids school/educational programmes they put out in the morning.

Now, Given that the UK is 90% white, and 10% minorities how come every 3rd child shown on these shows is from the minority group? surely it should be 1 in 10 in the interests of fairness and balance.

A friend from the US who was involved in the civil rights movement told me "we were'nt marching to be treated better than whites, just the same"

If you treat any group with positive discrimination, how is that different from negative discrimination against another group?

Having to put up with a crap the beeb spews out most days is one thing, but I can ignore it by watching whatever cable channel has something interesting to watch.

However, last week , I ended up watching some of the kids school/educational programmes they put out in the morning.

Now, Given that the UK is 90% white, and 10% minorities how come every 3rd child shown on these shows is from the minority group? surely it should be 1 in 10 in the interests of fairness and balance.

A friend from the US who was involved in the civil rights movement told me "we were'nt marching to be treated better than whites, just the same"

If you treat any group with positive discrimination, how is that different from negative discrimination against another group?
Let's be fair here - shit happens. The 'beeb' has the right to put as mant ethnic minorities as it wants in a programme. If it depicts, for example, 1 in 7 people in a show as from an ethnic minority, it will be accused of accomodating ethnic minorities at the expense of reality or ability, whereas if it depicts 1 in 20 it will be accused of racism. 1 in 3 is perfectly acceptable.

And the BBC puts out far less crap than ITV does.

First lets go after this BBC is liberal myth.

One of the major tenants of liberalism is free expression.

Allowing one type speech (throwing a Bible in the trash) and not allowing another type(throwing the Koran in the trash) isn't liberal.

A liberal would throw both in the trash.

Therefore, BBC isn't liberal, because they do not support freedom of expression.

As far as them being international socialists I get that from there love of the Europe Union, there love of anti-gun legisaltion, and there selective promotion of multiculturalism.


Socialism is an economic theory, it has nothing to do with weapons regulation or immigration/multi-culturalism.

Is that what the international socialist crowd is calling it now?

Me? Socialist? lol

Having to put up with a crap the beeb spews out most days is one thing, but I can ignore it by watching whatever cable channel has something interesting to watch.

However, last week , I ended up watching some of the kids school/educational programmes they put out in the morning.

Now, Given that the UK is 90% white, and 10% minorities how come every 3rd child shown on these shows is from the minority group? surely it should be 1 in 10 in the interests of fairness and balance.

A friend from the US who was involved in the civil rights movement told me "we were'nt marching to be treated better than whites, just the same"

If you treat any group with positive discrimination, how is that different from negative discrimination against another group?

Thats because most of the shows are done in london, which is more like 40% black/asian 60% white.

No real surprise here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Keep your culture wars to yourself. Also please keep to yourself your disgusting assertions that the right owns Christianity.

good thing too :D
Why is that good? You're left wing, right? Christianity, if you could be bothered to educate yourself, is well in line with left-wing ideas, more so than Islam at any rate.

Does Britian even need a Taxpayer funded organization such as the BBC? It obviously does not represent the overall views of the British people and culture.
You seem to be under the delusion that the people of Britain are as right-wing as you. When in fact the vast majority of them oppose the Iraq war.

so many areas (And many more to come) have been turned into shitholes by liberals who hold nothing but hatred and contempt for ordinary working class people.
Yes, why don't we be a friend to the working class and eliminate minimum wage, health and safety legislation, immigrants, public transport and the NHS. :rolleyes:

That said, you do have a point about the fact that many immigrants have not been integrated, which has cause the problems you speak of. Glossing over the problem isn't the answer, nor is evicting them from the country.

Ah yes, the old "They just don't understand me! They're too stupid to comprehend the dire threat that Blacks, Muslims, Gays, Liberals and anyone else I want exterminated poses! Slander, I say!" defense.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
I'm not taking somewhere's side here but as I have pointed out before you're way too quick to assume that people who are anti-immigrant want immigrants to be killed en masse.

As far as them being international socialists I get that from there love of the Europe Union, there love of anti-gun legisaltion, and there selective promotion of multiculturalism.
The European Union has for a long time been a tool used by Europe's corporate elite to encourage continent-wide privatisation (see Nice Treaty, article 1.33 for an example). I don't see how it's especially left-wing.

Keep your culture wars to yourself. Also please keep to yourself your disgusting assertions that the right owns Christianity.


Why is that good? You're left wing, right? Christianity, if you could be bothered to educate yourself, is well in line with left-wing ideas, more so than Islam at any rate.


You seem to be under the delusion that the people of Britain are as right-wing as you. When in fact the vast majority of them oppose the Iraq war.


Yes, why don't we be a friend to the working class and eliminate minimum wage, health and safety legislation, immigrants, public transport and the NHS. :rolleyes:

That said, you do have a point about the fact that many immigrants have not been integrated, which has cause the problems you speak of. Glossing over the problem isn't the answer, nor is evicting them from the country.


I'm not taking somewhere's side here but as I have pointed out before you're way too quick to assume that people who are anti-immigrant want immigrants to be killed en masse.

Yes, yes, but what do you really think?

Employees of the BBC tend to be more liberal? Will wonders never cease?

Amusing. There is nothing about Multiculturalism that hates Christianity or Israel. At all. I'm Christian, pro-multiculturalism and I have not strong feelings for either side of the Israel-Lebanon conflict.

I think you'll find most people don't tie those three things together in anyway. That's what rational people do. They look at issues, you know, as issues and not from some silly boxed up political ideology.

It's paranoia when you talk about an ideology hating other ideologies that have nothing relation in any way to it. Or really, an ideology hating.

To be more specific, what I hate about multiculturalism (as the news media practice it) is its hypocritical double standard, i.e., "Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, etc. are good, peaceful, and acceptable in the New World Order (or New Age, whatever you wanna call it), but Judeo-Christianity is bigoted, intolerant, and unacceptable, and should be eliminated."

A double standard if you ever saw one, mister.

THE NEWS MEDIA'S OPINION:
Judeo-Christianity=BAD
Islam/Catholicism/Hinduism/Buddhism/Atheism/etc.=GOOD

MY OPINION:
Judeo-Christianity=GOOD
Islam/Catholicism/Hinduism/Buddhism/Atheism/etc.= GOOD, AS LONG AS THEY TOLERATE Judeo-Christianity
the "New World Order", "New Age", and the News Media in general=BAD

Yes, why don't we be a friend to the working class and eliminate minimum wage, health and safety legislation, immigrants, public transport and the NHS. :rolleyes:
When did I say anything about abolishing the minimum wage or health and safety laws? I wholeheartedly support both and think they're essential in protecting workers from unscrupulous employers. The left wing parties in this country are far more concerned with multiculturalism and appeasing muslims than they are with actually improving the lot of the working class. I also support public transport and the NHS, 100%.

That said, you do have a point about the fact that many immigrants have not been integrated, which has cause the problems you speak of. Glossing over the problem isn't the answer, nor is evicting them from the country.
As much as despise these people, I think that mass deportation would be impractical. What I would support is a government that is unwilling to grovel to muslims and will introduce policies which destroy the influence of islam on British society.

I'm not taking somewhere's side here but as I have pointed out before you're way too quick to assume that people who are anti-immigrant want immigrants to be killed en masse.
It's the standard slur around here. Anti-immigrant = Heil Hitler as far as these people are concerned.

I'm not taking somewhere's side here but as I have pointed out before you're way too quick to assume that people who are anti-immigrant want immigrants to be killed en masse.

Thanks for pointing out what you perceive as a flaw. Unfotunately, I'm not at all "too quick," in fact I'm just quick enough. I don't assume ANYONE who is anti-immigrant believes that. Just the goose-stepping ones like NN, Somewhere, New Mitanni. There's really only a handful of 'em on this forum.

To be more specific, what I hate about multiculturalism (as the news media practice it) is its hypocritical double standard, i.e., "Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, etc. are good, peaceful, and acceptable in the New World Order (or New Age, whatever you wanna call it), but Judeo-Christianity is bigoted, intolerant, and unacceptable, and should be eliminated."

A double standard if you ever saw one, mister.

THE NEWS MEDIA'S OPINION:
Judeo-Christianity=BAD
Islam/Catholicism/Hinduism/Buddhism/Atheism/etc.=GOOD

MY OPINION:
Judeo-Christianity=GOOD
Islam/Catholicism/Hinduism/Buddhism/Atheism/etc.= GOOD, AS LONG AS THEY TOLERATE Judeo-Christianity
the "New World Order", "New Age", and the News Media in general=BAD

The BBC is in england though and over here catholics and christians are exactly the same thing. and no one could accuse the media of portraying islam in a positive light.

The BBC is in england though and over here catholics and christians are exactly the same thing. and no one could accuse the media of portraying islam in a positive light.

hardly

The BBC is in england though and over here catholics and christians are exactly the same thing. and no one could accuse the media of portraying islam in a positive light.

Maybe over in England they look the same, but throught history Catholicism and Christianity have NOT been one or the same religion.

1. Catholicism believes in lying if lying is necessary to protect the "Holy Mother Church."
Christianity advocates NO such thing.

2. Catholicism teaches that the Pope is head of the church and the vicar of Christ.
Christianity knows NO such doctrine.

3. Catholicism ascribes deity to the Virgin Mary.
Christianity does NO such thing. Mary was just an ordinary human being who needed a Savior, just like the rest of mankind.

4. Christianity teaches Separation of Church and State, and freedom to worship God apart from the dictates of any public sector entity of any kind.
Catholicism knows NO such doctrine, and is in fact a very political religion.

5. Catholics advocate killing people over religious disagreements and dissents.
(Does the word "Crusades" ring a bell?)
Christians would NEVER EVEN THINK of doing such a thing.

A double standard if you ever saw one, mister.

THE NEWS MEDIA'S OPINION:
Judeo-Christianity=BAD
Islam/Catholicism/Hinduism/Buddhism/Atheism/etc.=GOOD

MY OPINION:
Judeo-Christianity=GOOD
Islam/Catholicism/Hinduism/Buddhism/Atheism/etc.= GOOD, AS LONG AS THEY TOLERATE Judeo-Christianity
the "New World Order", "New Age", and the News Media in general=BAD
Considering you're criticising a double standard, I find it amusing that in 'your opinion', you state that Judeo-Christianity is unqualifiably good, while anything else is only good so long as it's tolerant.

If you intended to imply that J-C is tolerant, I think you'll find you are sadly mistaken. It may be tolerant in comparison to other, similar belief systems, but it could hardly be used as an example for a dictionary definition of tolerance, could it?

5. Catholics advocate killing people over religious disagreements and dissents.
(Does the word "Crusades" ring a bell?)
Christians would NEVER EVEN THINK of doing such a thing.
Salem Witch trials? Were those NOT perpatrated by Christians?

Maybe over in England they look the same, but throught history Catholicism and Christianity have NOT been one or the same religion.

1. Catholicism believes in lying if lying is necessary to protect the "Holy Mother Church."
Christianity advocates NO such thing.

2. Catholicism teaches that the Pope is head of the church and the vicar of Christ.
Christianity knows NO such doctrine.

3. Catholicism ascribes deity to the Virgin Mary.
Christianity does NO such thing. Mary was just an ordinary human being who needed a Savior, just like the rest of mankind.

4. Christianity teaches Separation of Church and State, and freedom to worship God apart from the dictates of any public sector entity of any kind.
Catholicism knows NO such doctrine, and is in fact a very political religion.

5. Catholics advocate killing people over religious disagreements and dissents.
(Does the word "Crusades" ring a bell?)
Christians would NEVER EVEN THINK of doing such a thing.

You are both wrong.

Maybe over in England they look the same, but throught history Catholicism and Christianity have NOT been one or the same religion.

1. Catholicism believes in lying if lying is necessary to protect the "Holy Mother Church."
Christianity advocates NO such thing.

2. Catholicism teaches that the Pope is head of the church and the vicar of Christ.
Christianity knows NO such doctrine.

3. Catholicism ascribes deity to the Virgin Mary.
Christianity does NO such thing. Mary was just an ordinary human being who needed a Savior, just like the rest of mankind.

4. Christianity teaches Separation of Church and State, and freedom to worship God apart from the dictates of any public sector entity of any kind.
Catholicism knows NO such doctrine, and is in fact a very political religion.

5. Catholics advocate killing people over religious disagreements and dissents.
(Does the word "Crusades" ring a bell?)
Christians would NEVER EVEN THINK of doing such a thing.

That's a nice pissing contest you have about how Catholics aren't Christians. But they are. Get a grip and stop living in the fucking 16th century already.

Maybe over in England they look the same, but throught history Catholicism and Christianity have NOT been one or the same religion.
What you are talking about is the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. They are both Christianity, however.

Also:

1. Catholicism believes in lying if lying is necessary to protect the "Holy Mother Church."
Christianity advocates NO such thing.
Nonsense. The majority of American politicians claim to be Christians, yet they lie like their puppies' lives depend on it.

Also, I have heard many Protestant Christian sects claim that it is appropriate to lie if it will protect their faith from persecution. I have also heard some extremist Protestants who claim to be Christians say that it is also okay to lie in order to gain simple benefits for their church from a non-believing society, such as tax breaks, etc. The only church that is up-front about that is the Mormons. They call it "lying for the Lord." But I suppose you wouldn't call them Christians, either. They look like Christians to me, though, seeing as how they worship Jesus and all.

2. Catholicism teaches that the Pope is head of the church and the vicar of Christ.
Christianity knows NO such doctrine.
This is certainly true.

3. Catholicism ascribes deity to the Virgin Mary.
Christianity does NO such thing. Mary was just an ordinary human being who needed a Savior, just like the rest of mankind.
This is also true, though some Catholics believe in the divinity of Mary more than others do.

4. Christianity teaches Separation of Church and State, and freedom to worship God apart from the dictates of any public sector entity of any kind.
Catholicism knows NO such doctrine, and is in fact a very political religion.
HA! That's a laugh. It's not the Vatican that has US politicians raving about their religion in Congress every day. It's not the Vatican that makes school prayer a perennial issue in the US. It's not the Vatican that created the so-called "culture war" in the US in which people who claim to be Christians try to get abortion outlawed and have the Constitution amended to deny full rights to gays, all on the grounds that their religion is against such things.

5. Catholics advocate killing people over religious disagreements and dissents.
(Does the word "Crusades" ring a bell?)
Christians would NEVER EVEN THINK of doing such a thing.
Does the term "Salem Witch Trials" ring a bell? Those weren't Catholics hanging those people. How about the British Civil Wars? That was Protestants and Catholics both enthusiastically murdering each other, ostenstibly over the form of British government, but the divide was strictly along Protestant versus Catholic lines. And the Protestant poster boy, Oliver Cromwell, was an eager killer of what he called "blasphemers" but he was no Catholic.

Maybe over in England they look the same, but throught history Catholicism and Christianity have NOT been one or the same religion.

1. Catholicism believes in lying if lying is necessary to protect the "Holy Mother Church."
Christianity advocates NO such thing.

2. Catholicism teaches that the Pope is head of the church and the vicar of Christ.
Christianity knows NO such doctrine.

3. Catholicism ascribes deity to the Virgin Mary.
Christianity does NO such thing. Mary was just an ordinary human being who needed a Savior, just like the rest of mankind.

4. Christianity teaches Separation of Church and State, and freedom to worship God apart from the dictates of any public sector entity of any kind.
Catholicism knows NO such doctrine, and is in fact a very political religion.

5. Catholics advocate killing people over religious disagreements and dissents.
(Does the word "Crusades" ring a bell?)
Christians would NEVER EVEN THINK of doing such a thing.Wow. Your argument boils down to:
"Dogs give birth to live young. Mammals do no such thing."
It's pretty bad.

Oh, so we're assuming that a tabloid that talks about 'secret meetings' is giving us the honest events? I'm sorry. I need a little more proof.

Maybe a memo from downing street would convince you?

All people are bias. BBC certainly doesn't tip right so it must tip left.

Multiculturalism and gun legislation have nothing to do with socialism. Open a book and stop embarassing yourself.Socialism is a economic theory. It has nothing to do with race or guns.

I like how you insult me and put words in my mouth at the same time, that's cute.

Well more like take words out of my mouth.

I specifically said "international socialism" not socialism.

With international socialism, multiculturalism and gun control are core tenants.

Maybe a memo from downing street would convince you?

All people are bias. BBC certainly doesn't tip right so it must tip left.

What a horrible argument. Just horrible.


I like how you insult me and put words in my mouth at the same time, that's cute.

Well more like take words out of my mouth.

I specifically said "international socialism" not socialism.

With international socialism, multiculturalism and gun control are core tenants.


No, they aren't. Socialism, international socialism even, is a economic model. It has nothing to do with multiculturalism or gun control.

Meanwhile, your claims that international socialism is a specific type of socialism are false. There are plethora of organizations with some form of that name in their title. The International Socialism Organization, Youth for International Socialism, all of which preach versions of socialism and may include other social issues, but the ONLY commonality is that they follow socialism, the economic theory.

Your claims that BBC is socialist without evidence anything that actually has directly to do with socialism says you don't really understand what socialism is. That's not putting words in your mouth. That's simply recognizing the definition of socialism. They are often against treating people unequally (in terms of access), but that's a basic idea of the economic theory.

Maybe over in England they look the same, but throught history Catholicism and Christianity have NOT been one or the same religion.

1. Catholicism believes in lying if lying is necessary to protect the "Holy Mother Church."
Christianity advocates NO such thing.

2. Catholicism teaches that the Pope is head of the church and the vicar of Christ.
Christianity knows NO such doctrine.

3. Catholicism ascribes deity to the Virgin Mary.
Christianity does NO such thing. Mary was just an ordinary human being who needed a Savior, just like the rest of mankind.

4. Christianity teaches Separation of Church and State, and freedom to worship God apart from the dictates of any public sector entity of any kind.
Catholicism knows NO such doctrine, and is in fact a very political religion.

5. Catholics advocate killing people over religious disagreements and dissents.
(Does the word "Crusades" ring a bell?)
Christians would NEVER EVEN THINK of doing such a thing.

That what we need - LESS POPERY!!!!!!!!! (http://static.flickr.com/30/100183504_9299e59711_m.jpg)

That what we need - LESS POPERY!!!!!!!!! (http://static.flickr.com/30/100183504_9299e59711_m.jpg)

But it makes my bathroom smell so good.

But it makes my bathroom smell so good.

Presumably thats what he'll argue hes been against for years when he gives Gerry a big hug....

Maybe over in England they look the same, but throught history Catholicism and Christianity have NOT been one or the same religion.

1. Catholicism believes in lying if lying is necessary to protect the "Holy Mother Church."
Christianity advocates NO such thing.

2. Catholicism teaches that the Pope is head of the church and the vicar of Christ.
Christianity knows NO such doctrine.

3. Catholicism ascribes deity to the Virgin Mary.
Christianity does NO such thing. Mary was just an ordinary human being who needed a Savior, just like the rest of mankind.

4. Christianity teaches Separation of Church and State, and freedom to worship God apart from the dictates of any public sector entity of any kind.
Catholicism knows NO such doctrine, and is in fact a very political religion.

5. Catholics advocate killing people over religious disagreements and dissents.
(Does the word "Crusades" ring a bell?)
Christians would NEVER EVEN THINK of doing such a thing.

You are so wrong on all of these points that I'm not even sure where to start correcting you.

1. Christians such as Robertson and Falwell have referred to their movement as a "stealth campaign." They use the notion of "be all things to all people," to justify lying in the cause of evangelicalism.

2. The heads of various denominations promote ideas that are in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. While they don't admit it, they do exactly what the Church does.

3. They don't deify her, but they do honor her as a sacred figure. Not he same thing.

4. This is just fantasy on your part. Every time one of the US's prominent Christians goes on TV he describes the doctrine of the seperation of church and state as liberal propaganda.

5. Do you even listen to Christians? They're all about promoting war. Robertson advocated assassinating Hugo Chavez. All the right-wing Christians favor the war in Iraq.

Jeez! You just know nothing about modern Christianity, do you?

You are so wrong on all of these points that I'm not even sure where to start correcting you.

1. Christians such as Robertson and Falwell have referred to their movement as a "stealth campaign." They use the notion of "be all things to all people," to justify lying in the cause of evangelicalism.

2. The heads of various denominations promote ideas that are in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. While they don't admit it, they do exactly what the Church does.

3. They don't deify her, but they do honor her as a sacred figure. Not he same thing.

4. This is just fantasy on your part. Every time one of the US's prominent Christians goes on TV he describes the doctrine of the seperation of church and state as liberal propaganda.

5. Do you even listen to Christians? They're all about promoting war. Robertson advocated assassinating Hugo Chavez. All the right-wing Christians favor the war in Iraq.

Jeez! You just know nothing about modern Christianity, do you?

You've no clue - Just say No! to papism (http://static.flickr.com/30/100183504_9299e59711_m.jpg)

Maybe over in England they look the same, but throught history Catholicism and Christianity have NOT been one or the same religion.

1. Catholicism believes in lying if lying is necessary to protect the "Holy Mother Church."
Christianity advocates NO such thing.

2. Catholicism teaches that the Pope is head of the church and the vicar of Christ.
Christianity knows NO such doctrine.

3. Catholicism ascribes deity to the Virgin Mary.
Christianity does NO such thing. Mary was just an ordinary human being who needed a Savior, just like the rest of mankind.

4. Christianity teaches Separation of Church and State, and freedom to worship God apart from the dictates of any public sector entity of any kind.
Catholicism knows NO such doctrine, and is in fact a very political religion.

5. Catholics advocate killing people over religious disagreements and dissents.
(Does the word "Crusades" ring a bell?)
Christians would NEVER EVEN THINK of doing such a thing.

Jack Chick....Is that you?