Israelly Cool has an interesting theory regarding the recent murder of Vittorio Arrigoni and one that if true I am sure the BBC will avoid mentioning as it would bring their pro-homosexuality agenda into conflict with their pro-Islam agenda.
I do not know if this theory is correct, and if it is not I will happily report the fact, but it does bring into sharp focus Islam's view of homosexuality. If I was gay and had to live in the Middle East there is only one country that I would feel comfortable living in: Israel. Yet the West's 'liberals' regularly attack Israel for being an evil state whilst supporting the various nasty states that surround it.
I do not know if this theory is correct, and if it is not I will happily report the fact, but it does bring into sharp focus Islam's view of homosexuality. If I was gay and had to live in the Middle East there is only one country that I would feel comfortable living in: Israel. Yet the West's 'liberals' regularly attack Israel for being an evil state whilst supporting the various nasty states that surround it.
9 comments:
you're disgusting!
Do expand on your comment.
Can you explain what you mean by the BBC's "pro-homosexuality" agenda please? And what are your own views on homosexuality?
Also, would it not have been more wise to wait until these allegations were proven before reporting on idle specualtion from Israelly Cool? I've noticed a trend on this site that involves lazy blogging on your part, that is, simply using the views of other sites and other people and passing them off as your own rather than attempting to write and form your own opinions.
Annie.
(by the way, I'm not the anonymous poster of the first comment!)
The BBC are very keen to push a pro-homosexuality agenda. If you don't know what that means then you are dimmer than you seem. My views on homosexuality are that it is not for me but I am very happy to spend time with gay and lesbian friends and workmates. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not in the slightest homophobic.
Sorry Annie but I never try and pass off other's pieces as being my own. On the contrary I am scrupulous in acknowledging where quotations or excerpts are taken from. You may not like my habit of repeating good writing from elsewhere but if you don't like it then don't come to this blog.
If you have to ask how the BBC has a pro-homosexuality agenda then I am sorry but you are dim. Also I am not a performing seal, I don't do requests.
However since you ask, why not do a bit of research yourself? I suggest that you start by investigating the furore over BBC programme's such as Two of Us.
Then you could thnk about Andrew Marr's comment, still in the Biased-BBC sidebar, that:
"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"
Then you could try and find reports on the 2006 'impartiallity summit' and resultant internal BBC memo that adnmitted that the many senior executives at the BBC were deeply frustrated with the corporation’s commitment to “political correctness” and liberal policies at the expense of journalistic integrity and objectivity. This is the memo that also admitted that the BBC is disproportionately dominated by homosexuals as wel as an organisation where ethnic minorities held a disproportionate number of positions and one where the BBC deliberately encouraged multiculturalism and was more careful to avoid offending the Muslim community than Christians.
In case you don't remember this memo, it was the one which included the comment that it would be acceptable to toss the Bible into a rubbish bin on a comedy show but not the Koran.
Then you could read the relevant parts of Robin Aitken's book 'Can we trust the BBC'.
You might also then consider why the BBC's massive coverage of some of the Catholic clergy's predeliction for abusing children (itself used as a stick with whcih to beat Catolocism) has not mentioned that around 80% of the children abused are boys and that this is as much, or more, about homosexuality paedophilia as just 'normal' paedophilia. No, I do not consider paediophilia in any way normal; I am contrasting male abuse of all children with male abuse of male children.
Is that enough for you to get on with?
Are you actually interested in facts or are you like so many 'commenters' on this blog just wanting to criticise and then attack and change the line of attack when a criticism is countered? I only ask because your original commnet accused me of passing off other people's work as my own and when I pointed out that that was wrong, you just moved on to another demand for an answer without acknowledging what I had said.
Are you seriously suggesting I bother reminding myself of a drama that's over 20 years old? At a time when AIDS was on everyone's minds it's hardly a surprise there was a "furore". However, how is representing everyday life (to some people at least) a pro-homosexuality agenda?
While Andrew Marr and Robin Aitken are entitled to their opinions on the BBC, they are individuals and as such their views shouldn't be taken as gospel. A liberal cultural leaning hardly screams "pro-homosexuality" does it? Nor is it particularly surprising given that, compared to say SKY News or for sake of argument, The Daily Telegraph, the BBC has a more welcoming feel to a wider section of society.
The phrase "pro-homosexuality" to me suggests there's an active promotion of homosexuality, and that to me is simply not the case. It goes back to that old scaremongering tactic of people, including yourself I suspect, believing that homosexuals are actively out and about trying to "turn" people gay.
I'm afraid that internal memos from 2006 hold little water with me. If you're basing your assumptions on something that happened 5 years ago in a corporation that has a reasonably high staff turnover then you're really struggling.
I'm also struggling to see what your point is about paedophilia. Paedophilia is paedophilia, and if someone needs pointed out to them that Catholic priests are almost all of the time likely to be abusing males - altar boys, Catholic boys schools, seminaries - then it's you that's the dimmer person here.
Finally, I think you may have misinterpreted my comment about the posts on this blog. More often than not - I've not actually taken statistics - you simply quote posts or stories from other sites then pass your own opinion on the stories. You claim to be "not a sheep" but in actual fact you're simply parroting the views of others that you either coincidentally share, or have been conned into believing.
Oh, and try and spellcheck or proof read your posts. Some of your spelling and grammar is abject.
Annie
Annie, oddly your comments are ending up in my spam filter. It seems that you will not accept any evidence more than a few days old so I doubt that I will convince you. What is the turnover in senior staf fat the BBC? You seem to think it is high, do you have any proof or that just another blinkered assumption?
As for my spelling and grammar, I often post from a pda with no spellchecker and sometimes when on the move so I do not proof read every piece. I am so sorry if it is not up to your high standards of English.
As you quite clearly do not like what I post, how I post or indeed trust that I believe what I post, may I make a suggestion? Don't come here any more; that way you won't get upset at reading views that differ from your own blinkered ones and I won't have to waste further time answering your questions only to have them dismissed as out of date because you can't address the substantive points.
A polite suggestion: perhaps you should proof read your posts more often. It might elevate them away from the more reactionary right-wing blogging on the internet. And, yes, it's not up to my high standards of English.
I am amazed at your post; you accuse me of not responding to "substantive" points and then do exactly the same yourself. The irony of you standing for "free speech" and then asking people not to comment on your blog because their views don't meet your own is staggering.
I mentioned nothing about evidence over "a few days old". The number of redundancies at the BBC over the past few years would make my point obvious, and I will do as you often do: I refer you to the internet. How about doing some research of your own for once instead of cribbing from your favourite sites?
I'm far from upset, indeed visits to this site make me relieved that your obscene views are very much in the minority. Simley face etc and so on....
Annie
If you respond to the reports of the 2006 impartiallity summit then I might be prepared to believe that you wre interested in debate. Five years is not that long ago and unless you can show that the majority of the people involved in that conference are no longer at the BBC then I don't think that your arguement, such as it is, holds water. You have presented no evidence to refute mine and until you do I see no reason to believe that you have any. What is the staff turnover percentage in senior managemnet positions at the BBC?
Likewise you have not addressed Andrew Marr's comments, he is still employed at the BBC in a senior reporting/presenting position.
As to your comments about my standards of English; I try and spell check and proofread but do not always have the time or resources. Bad spelling and grammar annoy me but not as much as people who can't deal with evidence and just flay around as you do.
I am not asking you to stop commenting on my blog, I'm suggesting that if you find it so offensive, not to bother reading the posts.
Please acctually answer my questions in your next comment or don't bother commenting.
Post a Comment