Caithness Map :: Links to Site Map Paying too much for broadband? Move to PlusNet broadband and save£££s. Free setup now available - terms apply. PlusNet broadband.  
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: BBC Bias (Vol 246)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default 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.

  2. #2

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Highlands
    Posts
    3,125

    Default

    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.
    W.A.T.P.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mi16 View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Highlands
    Posts
    3,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky Smeek View Post
    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
    W.A.T.P.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mi16 View Post
    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.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •