BBC Bias (Vol 246)

I've only just found this out. It happened nearly 11 hours ago (at the time of writing this). You probably don't even know it happened - unless you watched it happening live - for the BBC and other MSM outlets will do all they can to avoid you finding out.


Today at FMQ's two men in paramilitary gear interrupted proceedings. They barracked the FM with allegations about IRA supporters in the SNP. They had to be removed from the chamber by the Police.


Irrespective of your views on our FM or our Scottish Parliament this is a worrying development. Worrying that these two men were able so easily to gain access to the public gallery; disrupt proceedings and pose a serious security threat to our FM. I would sincerely hope that everyone reading this would agree that such behaviour should not be tolerated.


But the worries don't end with the security issues outlined above. Just as worrying is surely the fact that, at the time of writing, there has been no mention of this on the BBC's Scotland's news pages on the web. Just think about it. Men in paramilitary gear invade parliament; disrupt proceedings and hurl accusations at our nation's FM; and our state broadcaster ignores the event. In what other country in the, so-called, civilised world would that happen? It is utterly indefensible on so many levels I cannot even begin to count them. Now, the print media can get away with it. They make their allegiances very clear and are not bound by rules on impartiality. But the BBC are. That's one of the reasons the BBC is funded the way it is; we all pay and so we can all expect non-partisan editorial. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and is just a further example of the BBC ignoring its own guidelines on impartiality.


I would also venture to suggest that if the two men concerned happened to be supporters of independence for Scotland and the disruption was directed at a Unionist MSP then the matter would be front and centre of every Scottish news bulletin.


One final point. I gave up watching BBC Scotlandshire's news some time in mid 2014. This story may have been mentioned but I suspect not, or perhaps in scant detail and well down the running order. No doubt I'll be corrected if I am wrong on that issue. Even if I am wrong everything else is deeply worrying for our democracy.

I read a report about it in the Scotsman. I guess they could not be ejected in advance simply for the gear they were wearing ?? (but I don't know) but they were once they opened their mouth and started their outburst. Nicola Sturgeon took it all in her stride anyway and dealt with it well and it was Mr Mason who was the object of the protest. I guess it isn't the first time something like that happens and won't be the last. It sounds as though Holyrood downplayed it anyway.

John mason is an utter disgrace, how he still sits in Holyrood is beyond me.
Someone speaks on here about tyranny, yes supports a political party which openly screens constituents to decide who is worth of representation and to hell with the rest who do not hold his own political viewpoint.
Disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fulmar

I read a report about it in the Scotsman. I guess they could not be ejected in advance simply for the gear they were wearing ?? (but I don't know) but they were once they opened their mouth and started their outburst. Nicola Sturgeon took it all in her stride anyway and dealt with it well and it was Mr Mason who was the object of the protest. I guess it isn't the first time something like that happens and won't be the last. It sounds as though Holyrood downplayed it anyway.

---

Yes, but why isn't the BBC covering it like any self-respecting; impartial broadcaster should? Here we had parliament disrupted by people in paramilitary gear and the BBC doesn't think that is newsworthy. Come on!. It is utterly indefensible on every level.

Thankfully nothing serious happened but that is not the point. This was a highly newsworthy event. It should have been on the main UK news never mind Misreporting Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mi16

John mason is an utter disgrace, how he still sits in Holyrood is beyond me.
Someone speaks on here about tyranny, yes supports a political party which openly screens constituents to decide who is worth of representation and to hell with the rest who do not hold his own political viewpoint.
Disgusting.

---

From responses on another thread you appear to require your answers solely in English. I'll indulge you. Why is it that you invariably choose to direct your comments against the person rather than the position they are maintaining (a definition of ad hominem, by the way)?

This issue raises questions about our state broadcaster's impartiality. If you want to discuss other unrelated matters start your own thread. In the meantime I will refrain from too much mention of the fact that these invaders were reported to have been dressed in paramilitary gear belonging to a particular N. Irish organisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corky Smeek

From responses on another thread you appear to require your answers solely in English. I'll indulge you. Why is it that you invariably choose to direct your comments against the person rather than the position they are maintaining (a definition of ad hominem, by the way)?

This issue raises questions about our state broadcaster's impartiality. If you want to discuss other unrelated matters start your own thread. In the meantime I will refrain from too much mention of the fact that these invaders were reported to have been dressed in paramilitary gear belonging to a particular N. Irish organisation.

---

I mentioned the person John Mason because he was the person that implemented the screening system, no use saying a MSP is it?
It was John Mason.
Were the chaps in Holyrood armed at all?
It doesnt really make any odds what clothing they were wearing does it?
If they broke the law then I am sure they will be punished, but I cannot see how you could be punished for wearing a Khaki jacket

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mi16

I mentioned the person John Mason because he was the person that implemented the screening system, no use saying a MSP is it?
It was John Mason.
Were the chaps in Holyrood armed at all?
It doesnt really make any odds what clothing they were wearing does it?
If they broke the law then I am sure they will be punished, but I cannot see how you could be punished for wearing a Khaki jacket

---

Sorry, that's just too ridiculous to merit any more of a reply than this.

Ill just leave this here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-s...1175452/page/3

Not an actual BBC report but on Twitter which probably reached many more people anyway
Posted at 12:21 23 Jan12:21 23 Jan
A short suspension

We have a short suspension due to a disturbance in the gallery.
Social embed from twitter

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...1VB_normal.jpgPhilip Sim
✔@BBCPhilipSim





A man in the public gallery has started shouting about the IRA and “brigadier Sturgeon”, and Parliament is briefly suspended while he’s huckled out by the police


556
12:20 - 23 Jan 2020
Twitter Ads information and privacy

385 people are talking about this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fulmar

Not an actual BBC report but on Twitter which probably reached many more people anyway
Posted at 12:21 23 Jan12:21 23 Jan
A short suspension


We have a short suspension due to a disturbance in the gallery.
Social embed from twitter

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...1VB_normal.jpgPhilip Sim
✔@BBCPhilipSim





A man in the public gallery has started shouting about the IRA and “brigadier Sturgeon”, and Parliament is briefly suspended while he’s huckled out by the police


556
12:20 - 23 Jan 2020
Twitter Ads information and privacy

385 people are talking about this

---

That doesn't scream 'Hatred and bile' which Corky seems to love posting about. No where near sensationalist enough for his tastes.

Did you see the picture of the two protesters? Hardly paramilitary gear, or if it is, half the young men I see in Lidl Thurso must be 'paramilitaries'

I've come to the conclusion Corky isn't happy unless he is spreading hate, fear and propaganda. Sad sad individual.

Attachment 35092

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DTH7JA/thr...ery-DTH7JA.jpg

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/C1WKJ5/nor...ary-C1WKJ5.jpg

Not a great similarity.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1220350666322972672

Audit of the protest here, cant say I disagree with what he said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodfellers

I've come to the conclusion Corky isn't happy unless he is spreading hate, fear and propaganda. Sad sad individual.

---

No, I cant say I share that opinion....
Oh wait, news just in...yes, yes I can say that I share your opinion

Grade A walloper extraordinaire is Corky Smeek

This thread was started to allow discussion of the BBC's non-reporting of the incident in parliament yesterday. In particular the BBCs lack of impartiality.


The Unionists on here don't want to discuss that, of course. It would mean them having to confront some uncomfortable and self-evident truths about how the BBC conducts itself. So, as ever they attack the message and try to diminish the importance of the issue. BBC Bias has been recorded, documented, analysed and published by Prof. John Robertson and this latest example, whilst one of the worst, is only one in a very, very long list.


The BBC has a duty to report news. It is still, so far as I know, primarily a broadcasting organisation. If alleged paramilitary activists invade our nation's parliament to the potential fear and alarm of all those inside I think that deserves a mention on the news not just the Twitter account of one of their reporters. And I think all reasonable, law-abiding people would agree with me.


So there we have it. Alleged para-militarists invade the Scottish parliament. None of the Unionists on here have condemned either the incident; the participants or the BBC. It leaves one wondering what would have had to have happened for them to do so. How extreme does the threat have to be before they would concede that the matter was serious. The only conclusion that, I think, one can draw from the reaction to the incident, by some of those on here, is that nothing about the matter worries them and that we should all get on with our reasonably happy lives. The threat to democracy, by the lack of reporting, and to the safety of parliamentarians is of no consequence to them. It is all the more surprising since many of the Unionists on here are Tories (the self-proclaimed party of law and order) and yet still they seem unperturbed by what has gone on. Curiously though, despite these invaders causing fear and alarm in our parliament by their threatening behaviour and by shouting and bawling at SNP MSPs one commentator on here accuses me of spreading "hate, fear and propaganda". I think we can all see who is doing that.


Oh, and finally, it will be interesting to see the contrast in BBC coverage next time somebody in the street says something rude to Jackson Carlaw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mi16

No, I cant say I share that opinion....
Oh wait, news just in...yes, yes I can say that I share your opinion

Grade A walloper extraordinaire is Corky Smeek

---

And, right on cue and just to illustrate my point about the Unionists' reaction to this story and their attempts to diminish it the abuse is ramped up a level.

Corky, corky corky.....in the words of the late great Michael Winner...Calm down dear.

It was a 'non' incident...YOU seem to be the only person perturbed by it.

The news outlets have serious news to report.

Well, I actually wonder if it was not considered to be that worthy of note by those in the parliament themselves since, as I said earlier, they handled it well and the advice given to Mr Mason was 'don't engage'. After all, why give publicity to those 2 guys- that's what they wanted, the oxygen of publicity, so why gratify them.
It's not been a cover up or a secret- it is out there in the media and Philip Sim appears to work for the BBC, I assume.
Lastly, the outburst from those men was very anti-SNP and I'm sorry, Corky, but given what you believe and write on here, I think that you would have been laying into the BBC if they had reported on it as just showing their (according to you) anti SNP bias. The BBC can't win whatever they do in your eyes at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corky Smeek

This thread was started to allow discussion of the BBC's non-reporting of the incident in parliament yesterday. In particular the BBCs lack of impartiality.


The Unionists on here don't want to discuss that, of course. It would mean them having to confront some uncomfortable and self-evident truths about how the BBC conducts itself. So, as ever they attack the message and try to diminish the importance of the issue. BBC Bias has been recorded, documented, analysed and published by Prof. John Robertson and this latest example, whilst one of the worst, is only one in a very, very long list.


The BBC has a duty to report news. It is still, so far as I know, primarily a broadcasting organisation. If alleged paramilitary activists invade our nation's parliament to the potential fear and alarm of all those inside I think that deserves a mention on the news not just the Twitter account of one of their reporters. And I think all reasonable, law-abiding people would agree with me.


So there we have it. Alleged para-militarists invade the Scottish parliament. None of the Unionists on here have condemned either the incident; the participants or the BBC. It leaves one wondering what would have had to have happened for them to do so. How extreme does the threat have to be before they would concede that the matter was serious. The only conclusion that, I think, one can draw from the reaction to the incident, by some of those on here, is that nothing about the matter worries them and that we should all get on with our reasonably happy lives. The threat to democracy, by the lack of reporting, and to the safety of parliamentarians is of no consequence to them. It is all the more surprising since many of the Unionists on here are Tories (the self-proclaimed party of law and order) and yet still they seem unperturbed by what has gone on. Curiously though, despite these invaders causing fear and alarm in our parliament by their threatening behaviour and by shouting and bawling at SNP MSPs one commentator on here accuses me of spreading "hate, fear and propaganda". I think we can all see who is doing that.


Oh, and finally, it will be interesting to see the contrast in BBC coverage next time somebody in the street says something rude to Jackson Carlaw.

---

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-s...1175452/page/3

it was reported
Its just that it was a couple of normal guys having a dig at Nicola, not really worthy of much coverage at all.
Also the Scottish Government dont like to advertise protests in their gaff as it may encourage others to do the same.
The only outrage I see from it is from you.

If I had seen those men, I would not have associated them in any way with anything by the way that they were dressed.
According to the account I read in the Scotsman:
The incident at First Ministers Questions was later dismissed as a "bizarre intervention" by a spokesman for Nicola Sturgeon.

the guys a moonhowling crackpot, best treated with contempt

Ok, let's make this simple since you have avoided addressing the central issue of this thread once again.

Q1. mi16; Fulmar and Goodfellers - do you condone the actions of the men, dressed in paramilitary gear, who disrupted proceedings in the Scottish Parliament yesterday?

Q2. Do you think is is correct that the BBC chose not to report on the issue in it's TV news bulletins?

Here we go again...you and your mightier than thou persona

Two 'ordinary' men, in normal clothing, walked unchallenged into the public gallery. Nothing wrong so far. Said men exercised the right of free speech in a chamber dedicated to free speech. Perhaps their MSP wouldn't listen to them as they beleive in the union.

So, No I don't have a problem with them. They should not have disrupted proceedings, but it seems to happen in Westminster a fair bit, BBc don't report on that either.

Now lets get ready for your fake shock and horror....pathetic, absolutely pathetic and predictable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodfellers

Here we go again...you and your mightier than thou persona

Two 'ordinary' men, in normal clothing, walked unchallenged into the public gallery. Nothing wrong so far. Said men exercised the right of free speech in a chamber dedicated to free speech. Perhaps their MSP wouldn't listen to them as they beleive in the union.

So, No I don't have a problem with them. They should not have disrupted proceedings, but it seems to happen in Westminster a fair bit, BBc don't report on that either.

Now lets get ready for your fake shock and horror....pathetic, absolutely pathetic and predictable.

---

i concur....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodfellers

Corky, corky corky.....in the words of the late great Michael Winner...Calm down dear.

It was a 'non' incident...YOU seem to be the only person perturbed by it.

The news outlets have serious news to report.

---

The fact that you don't see the irony is really pretty sad. If people aren't perturbed it's because they don't know about it because the BBC didn't report it. That is the problem in a nutshell. You have just proved my point. But, I realise it is your best interests to have it that way.

The second worrying thing in your post is that you do not think paramilitary activists invading our parliament is serious news. Deary me, will it take someone being injured or worse for you to take such matters seriously.

1. its in here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-s...1175452/page/3

2. They were wearing green coats, not uniform

Now bore off

I expect that they would have been checked for weapons and suicide belts on the way in and since there was nothing amiss, they were allowed in! It was dismissed by those present as a non event, including Nicola Sturgeon.
In a democracy, people go into parliament and they heckle and how is anyone supposed to know that they were IRA sympathisers when there was nothing before they opened their mouth to indicate that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fulmar

how is anyone supposed to know that they were IRA sympathisers.

---

Well it's nice to know that you have been paying attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mi16

Now bore off

---

Translation:- please go away and stop raising issues that mean we have to confront uncomfortable truths about our fundamental beliefs.

Naw, it's just that- boring! Time to sign off from this one too and eagerly await the next one- and I'm sure you won't disappoint. But please carry on and have the last word on it won't you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fulmar

Naw, it's just that- boring! Time to sign off from this one too and eagerly await the next one- and I'm sure you won't disappoint. But please carry on and have the last word on it won't you.

---

Boring but you eagerly await the next one. Hmmm!

Corky, have you figured it out yet?




We all know you are, in the words of Delboy, a right plonker. You post to try and get a response (misery loves company)......


What you don't seem to get is that most of us (I am being presumptious there) find your post amusing, you help bring our life satisfaction level up to slightly more than 'reasonably happy'.

Keep spending your days trawling the internet for stories to amuse and entertain, even better when you express mock outrage.

Keep up the good work!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodfellers

Corky, have you figured it out yet?




We all know you are, in the words of Delboy, a right plonker. You post to try and get a response (misery loves company)......


What you don't seem to get is that most of us (I am being presumptious there) find your post amusing, you help bring our life satisfaction level up to slightly more than 'reasonably happy'.

Keep spending your days trawling the internet for stories to amuse and entertain, even better when you express mock outrage.

Keep up the good work!

---

Translation:- please go away and stop raising issues that mean we have to confront uncomfortable truths about our fundamental beliefs.

The two guys pictured recently being evicted from the chamber in Holyrood look nothing like paramilitaries. They look as if they were going fishing at Duddingston loch and lost their way.
How many guys do you know go fishing wearing a jacket with lots of pockets?