One of the most despicable examples of BBC bias I've ever heard or read.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by yelllowribbon
Well the whole British Empire thing and colonialism kinda ruined the self interest bit. Can't really do the complete reverse and try to ignore many of the problems that have an underlying cause in British interference.
And in mainstream society? Really?
And in mainstream society? Really?
So you blame the British Empire and colonialism on evil bastards going and committing unspeakable acts to men, women and children in the region? Look at Australia, they haven't this issue (well, a tiny bit now with the whole recent threats).
No - the problem is with a flawed ideology in Islam that these twisted, evil people relate to - and then the left wing of society attempts to portray these people as "misguided" and the religion as totally peaceful.
Original post by sqwertylol
What about the argument saying we should take refugees because we caused the destablisation of the region by bombing assads forces and forcing the arab spring on Syria
What about it?
1. Many of the 'refugees' - a euphemism for economic migrants - aren't from Syria, they are from Eritrea, Afghanistan and many other nation-states. Most of the migrants are young, able bodied men.
2. By that logic, we have a duty to settle Nazis, Indians, Pakistanis, Americans, and, well, a quarter of the world's population. I could extrapolate this argument to its natural end point, but do I really have to? It's fallacious logic.
3. Why aren't rich oil states taking refugees in?
4. They aren't refugees. They've found sanctuary and now they're on the move. Now they're tourists.
Original post by yelllowribbon
Why would any terrorist stick around in a refugee camp with millions of people when they could be causing terror elsewhere?
And it's not really loads, compare the 4000 at Calais to the tens of thousands hitting up Lesbos each day.
And it's not really loads, compare the 4000 at Calais to the tens of thousands hitting up Lesbos each day.
Are you really that naive? The terrorists want to infiltrate our countries to perform their terror here. Now they European countries will take refugees by the boatload, what better way is there for a terrorist to get into Europe than to sit in a refugee camp, waiting to be picked up by the unsuspecting British aid workers?
Original post by yelllowribbon
Why would any terrorist stick around in a refugee camp with millions of people when they could be causing terror elsewhere?
And it's not really loads, compare the 4000 at Calais to the tens of thousands hitting up Lesbos each day.
And it's not really loads, compare the 4000 at Calais to the tens of thousands hitting up Lesbos each day.
the UK would be one of their top targets after the US. If I was one of them and I knew the UK were taking refugees from the camps then you would stick around right.
Also, much more importantly, other countries in the EU are not vetting the immigrants like they should do. This impacts us greatly because once they get EU passport they can come here no troubles.
Original post by yelllowribbon
Well the whole British Empire thing and colonialism kinda ruined the self interest bit. Can't really do the complete reverse and try to ignore many of the problems that have an underlying cause in British interference.
And in mainstream society? Really?
And in mainstream society? Really?
OK, well based on that logic, Arab nation-states are due historical reparations to every European nation-state, including the UK, for enslaving millions of white Europeans through the Arab slave trade and forcing them to work on the corsair galleys.
As an aside, can you tell me how long this responsibility is owed by these Arab states to these European states? Another 10 years? Another 100 years? Another 1,000 years?
Further, can you tell me how long the UK is responsible for the rest of the world's problems? More to the point, why is it only the UK which is responsible for historic atrocities and not, say, every Middle Eastern state? Would you like a list of their atrocities?
Who's the moral arbiter for what is 'worst offence'? Who's going to put a cash and labour value on these historical atrocities? At what point do independent nation-state take responsibility for their own actions?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by phoenixsilver
I'm afraid I cannot comment on these situations as I have not listened to Nicky Campbell on radio in such debates. If you can find some audio footage like @TheCitizenAct has done in the OP for me to listen to, I'll be more than happy to pass judgement on him as well.
No, it's okay. I'm sure TheCitizenAct, with his passionate commitment to impartially, will be happy to spend some time locating right wing bias in the BBC.
Original post by phoenixsilver
So you blame the British Empire and colonialism on evil bastards going and committing unspeakable acts to men, women and children in the region? Look at Australia, they haven't this issue (well, a tiny bit now with the whole recent threats).
No - the problem is with a flawed ideology in Islam that these twisted, evil people relate to - and then the left wing of society attempts to portray these people as "misguided" and the religion as totally peaceful.
No - the problem is with a flawed ideology in Islam that these twisted, evil people relate to - and then the left wing of society attempts to portray these people as "misguided" and the religion as totally peaceful.
No, not entirely, but there's definitely a link. If not with colonialism itself, but with Western involvement in the region for sure. Not saying they were good guys by any means, but if Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi were still in power, ISIS would be crushed.
Original post by TheCitizenAct
What about it?
1. Many of the 'refugees' - a euphemism for economic migrants - aren't from Syria, they are from Eritrea, Afghanistan and many other nation-states. Most of the migrants are young, able bodied men.
2. By that logic, we have a duty to settle Nazis, Indians, Pakistanis, Americans, and, well, a quarter of the world's population. I could extrapolate this argument to its natural end point, but do I really have to? It's fallacious logic.
3. Why aren't rich oil states taking refugees in?
4. They aren't refugees. They've found sanctuary and now they're on the move. Now they're tourists.
1. Many of the 'refugees' - a euphemism for economic migrants - aren't from Syria, they are from Eritrea, Afghanistan and many other nation-states. Most of the migrants are young, able bodied men.
2. By that logic, we have a duty to settle Nazis, Indians, Pakistanis, Americans, and, well, a quarter of the world's population. I could extrapolate this argument to its natural end point, but do I really have to? It's fallacious logic.
3. Why aren't rich oil states taking refugees in?
4. They aren't refugees. They've found sanctuary and now they're on the move. Now they're tourists.
1. Yes I agree lots aren't actually refugees but there are some for sure. I think David cameron has done surprisingly well in not bowing to pressure in letting them flood in. 20,000 isn't a bad number.
2. We didn't start the 2nd world war though? And those nations you mention like india/pakistan are ancient history - this is the modern day. We should be responsible for our actions in the international scene whereas in the days of india etc it was a very different world.
3. I agree
4. Some are terrorists for sure but you can't say broad things like "now they're terrorists". You're shooting yourself in the foot with statements like that
Would this be the same left wing BBC that had that well known raging leftie Nigel Farage on Question Time a disproportionate number of times before his party even had any MPs?
There are times when the BBC has been arguably biased for and against various different political views. It's not perfect, but I wouldn't describe it as having an overall bias in any particular direction. More like individual articles or reports sometimes having a bias. The BBC gets bias accusations from both the left and right wing.
There are times when the BBC has been arguably biased for and against various different political views. It's not perfect, but I wouldn't describe it as having an overall bias in any particular direction. More like individual articles or reports sometimes having a bias. The BBC gets bias accusations from both the left and right wing.
Original post by TheCitizenAct
What about it?
1. Many of the 'refugees' - a euphemism for economic migrants - aren't from Syria, they are from Eritrea, Afghanistan and many other nation-states. Most of the migrants are young, able bodied men.
2. By that logic, we have a duty to settle Nazis, Indians, Pakistanis, Americans, and, well, a quarter of the world's population. I could extrapolate this argument to its natural end point, but do I really have to? It's fallacious logic.
3. Why aren't rich oil states taking refugees in?
4. They aren't refugees. They've found sanctuary and now they're on the move. Now they're tourists.
1. Many of the 'refugees' - a euphemism for economic migrants - aren't from Syria, they are from Eritrea, Afghanistan and many other nation-states. Most of the migrants are young, able bodied men.
2. By that logic, we have a duty to settle Nazis, Indians, Pakistanis, Americans, and, well, a quarter of the world's population. I could extrapolate this argument to its natural end point, but do I really have to? It's fallacious logic.
3. Why aren't rich oil states taking refugees in?
4. They aren't refugees. They've found sanctuary and now they're on the move. Now they're tourists.
Btw check out what people are fleeing from in Eritrea. ..
Original post by sqwertylol
1. Yes I agree lots aren't actually refugees but there are some for sure. I think David cameron has done surprisingly well in not bowing to pressure in letting them flood in. 20,000 isn't a bad number.
2. We didn't start the 2nd world war though? And those nations you mention like india/pakistan are ancient history - this is the modern day. We should be responsible for our actions in the international scene whereas in the days of india etc it was a very different world.
3. I agree
4. Some are terrorists for sure but you can't say broad things like "now they're terrorists". You're shooting yourself in the foot with statements like that
2. We didn't start the 2nd world war though? And those nations you mention like india/pakistan are ancient history - this is the modern day. We should be responsible for our actions in the international scene whereas in the days of india etc it was a very different world.
3. I agree
4. Some are terrorists for sure but you can't say broad things like "now they're terrorists". You're shooting yourself in the foot with statements like that
1. 1 is too many.
2. Read it again. We're arguing the same point.
4. I didn't write 'terrorists', I wrote 'tourists.'
Original post by RFowler
Would this be the same left wing BBC that had that well known raging leftie Nigel Farage on Question Time a disproportionate number of times before his party even had any MPs?
There are times when the BBC has been arguably biased for and against various different political views. It's not perfect, but I wouldn't describe it as having an overall bias in any particular direction. More like individual articles or reports sometimes having a bias. The BBC gets bias accusations from both the left and right wing.
There are times when the BBC has been arguably biased for and against various different political views. It's not perfect, but I wouldn't describe it as having an overall bias in any particular direction. More like individual articles or reports sometimes having a bias. The BBC gets bias accusations from both the left and right wing.
So merely granting an audience to Nigel Farage - mighty big of them, thanks! What's your preferred method? Isolating a man supported by 4 million people? - is an example of their impartiality? You sound borderline totalitarian.
Of course you wouldn't, you're biased and you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You haven't read a single report on the BBC, you haven't monitored its output, you haven't read the thousands of quotes from existing and former BBC employees indicating bias, or read any of the hundreds of studies.
You're merely citing an opinion based on perception, and implying it's gospel.
Original post by TheCitizenAct
1. 1 is too many.
2. Read it again. We're arguing the same point.
4. I didn't write 'terrorists', I wrote 'tourists.'
2. Read it again. We're arguing the same point.
4. I didn't write 'terrorists', I wrote 'tourists.'
1 is not too many. we should definitely take some in because we had a hand in causing it. Although a better solution would be for us to fix the problem at source rather than removing every person from syria. I can't imagine what will happen in the future in that area.
My bad about the terrorist/tourist quote. I did think you had lost it for sec lol
Original post by yelllowribbon
Btw check out what people are fleeing from in Eritrea. ..
Why is that my problem?
Original post by sqwertylol
1 is not too many. we should definitely take some in because we had a hand in causing it. Although a better solution would be for us to fix the problem at source rather than removing every person from syria. I can't imagine what will happen in the future in that area.
My bad about the terrorist/tourist quote. I did think you had lost it for sec lol
My bad about the terrorist/tourist quote. I did think you had lost it for sec lol
I've already argued against this.
I fundamentally disagree, for the reasons stated above.
Original post by TheCitizenAct
Why is that my problem?
This is where our differences stem from I'm afraid.
Oh, and because you said something about people from Eritrea not being refugees.
Original post by Quantex
No, it's okay. I'm sure TheCitizenAct, with his passionate commitment to impartially, will be happy to spend some time locating right wing bias in the BBC.
I don't think he has any obligation or necessity to do so, considering it's on the person arguing for a point to provide evidence to back up said point.
@TheCitizenAct was simply reposting someone else's video onto TSR in order to debate the actions of the presenter. It is not his responsibility to magically find radio recordings on a topic that opposes his political interests.
Original post by yelllowribbon
No, not entirely, but there's definitely a link. If not with colonialism itself, but with Western involvement in the region for sure. Not saying they were good guys by any means, but if Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi were still in power, ISIS would be crushed.
So you would support the reigns of such evil dictators who were hated by their people (people who wanted the West's help in deposing them and now blame us for all their problems)?
Original post by yelllowribbon
Btw check out what people are fleeing from in Eritrea. ..
We can't take in everyone from countries that are worntorn otherwise we'd be taking millions/year.
There are many countries before Europe they can refuge in also.
does raise the question though, if we don't want millions of immigrants shouldnt we be more intimidating on a world stage and intervene when civil wars happen etc to stop this from happening. When people are dying in africa nobody seems to care unfortunately
Original post by phoenixsilver
I don't think he has any obligation or necessity to do so, considering it's on the person arguing for a point to provide evidence to back up said point.
@TheCitizenAct was simply reposting someone else's video onto TSR in order to debate the actions of the presenter. It is not his responsibility to magically find radio recordings on a topic that opposes his political interests.
So you would support the reigns of such evil dictators who were hated by their people (people who wanted the West's help in deposing them and now blame us for all their problems)?
@TheCitizenAct was simply reposting someone else's video onto TSR in order to debate the actions of the presenter. It is not his responsibility to magically find radio recordings on a topic that opposes his political interests.
So you would support the reigns of such evil dictators who were hated by their people (people who wanted the West's help in deposing them and now blame us for all their problems)?
Not support necessarily, but put up with, considering the 'stability' it brought to the countries, in terms of economic prosperity. Basically, it was a lot better then than it is now.
Original post by yelllowribbon
This is where our differences stem from I'm afraid.
Oh, and because you said something about people from Eritrea not being refugees.
Oh, and because you said something about people from Eritrea not being refugees.
1. That's flagrant misrepresentation.
2. Your logic would have us take in about, oh, I don't know, 1 billion people.
3. I'm a b*****d. But at least I'm not fuelled by emotion or in denial about how the world works. Everyone is self-interested, but as far as progressives are concerned only western states should feel shame in expressing it.
4. I feel compassion. I feel bad for them. However, I'm realistic - we can't take the world in, nor would we want to. They won't assimilate, they won't fit in, they will congregate, pursue ethnocentrism and behave tribally, much like millions of other migrants already in the UK. Many of them are uneducated - that's another cost. Many of them will compete for the same jobs as the rest of the working class population. Many of them won't be able to speak English. NONE of this is EVER spoken about when the cloud of emotional manipulation rears its head over a political issue.
5. There are 185,000 homeless people in England. Local authorities are prioritising housing to refugees ahead of these people, many of them migrants. Can I ask how that's 'moral' or 'fair'? It isn't.
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
