It's a good job that there are people around with the moral standing to correct the appalling bias pumped out every day by The BBC. People like David Vance, for example:
Ever wonder WHY so many immigrants queue up to get into Britain?
David tells us why. He quotes approvingly from the Sunday Times:
SOME families have been paid almost £200,000 each in housing benefit to live in some of the country’s most expensive areas, figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show. The highest-paid include a family in Oxford who have received £189,694 since January 2004 for a seven-bedroom house. It costs the taxpayer £521 a week in rent. A similar total has been paid to a family in Camden, north London. A claimant in Westminster has been paid £76,000 in 12 months.
Not surprising they're living in lousy conditions in Calais, you might think, if it means a cheque for £200,000 once they get here.
David helpfully hammers the point home.
More than 4.4m people receive housing benefit. The Department for Work and Pensions said it was continuing to look at reforms to the system.There is an annual spend of some £15 BILLION in housing benefit and it needs axed.
There is just the slightest problem with the Vance analysis (apart from his inability to finish his sentences properly): The Sunday Times report has no mention of immigrants. There is no suggestion that people queuing up to get into Britain have benefitted from these sums. At all.
We are lucky to have Mr Vance among us, exposing, as he is proud to promise, the reporting bias of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Posts
Could this be an example of race-hustling, creating the illusion of a racial issue where none exists, for political (or financial) gain?
ReplyDeleteNow, who is it who warns us so diligently against race-hustlers? Why, yes - David Vance!
What a fine blog you have, Troll. And all your own work.
ReplyDeleteIt seems almost to cruel to point out that there might be a slight grammatical issue on the use of benefitted.....then again.
I wonder if you have a cousin called Azir? Then again.....
David Vance,
ReplyDeleteHow good to see you here in person (we know you check in regularly). Indeed it has gained quite a following.
Do keep on providing the entertainment.
David,
ReplyDeleteAt a loss to understand my mistake re benefitted. Feel free to provide guidance.
Nevertheless, honoured to have you aboard. Hope you feel able to join in.
PS: No cousin of that name. Azir fact.
Well there goes the neighbourhood.
ReplyDeleteOh, for god's sake. Don't you people get it?
ReplyDeleteWhen you have moral right on your side, the truth is incidental to the greater good.
David Vance is a valiant warrior against the cancer of soft liberal values in our society.
Why do you hate the UK?
Ahem.
Im confused as to why David is wondering if you have a cousin called Azir.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he bumped into some bloke in the pub called Azir who reckons he knows you.
Or perhaps hes making a very crude racist assumption.
I know which one I am swaying towards.
Azir accused him on his blog of being prejudiced, making the same point that OMTE did. Given that in Vance-World, there is no possibility of two unconnected people reading his posts and concluding that he is a frothing loon, it therefore follows that the two must be connected
ReplyDeleteOf course not. In the parallel universe of a conspiracy theorist, everyone who disagrees with you has an agenda, uses sockpuppets and other nefarious tools to blur reality, and is typically part of a much wider conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteHence David Vance's neat division of the world into two neat groups:
The moral right: for whom the normal rules of civil engagement are to be suspended because the cunning of the enemy requires a degree of ruthlessness.
The rest: typically trolls and beeboids. At any rate, if all else fails remind everyone that UNLIKE THE BBC you aren't forced on pain of death to pay for his screeds.
Couldn't help but notice one of Mr Vance's postings on A Tangled Web today:
ReplyDeletethe first commandment at the court of Obama is that criticism must not broached lest it irritate The One.
The wonderful thing about that sentence is that if you replace the word Obama with David Vance, it still works. How amazing is that?
It doesn't work at all for me.
ReplyDeleteI've always seen David more as a Number Two.
/Martin Alert.
"UNLIKE THE BBC you aren't forced on [ain of death to pay for his screeds"
ReplyDeleteMaybe not, but everytime I read his posts a little bit of me dies inside
Dave - really?
ReplyDeleteDavid Vance is a gift to supporters of the BBC, and his stewardship of the site is a PR gift.
It's always been a bit of a dog's dinner, albeit in better shape than now. But back in the day it managed a modicum of debate in the comments and restraint in the posts even if it was quite lightweight on proof for bias.
But now - David Vance has destroyed much of what limited credibility it had. It still matters to the extent that someone could read the blog and take it at face value. But for all its pretentions at being the leading catalogue of BBC bias it's another blah blah megaphone catering to a pretty niche audience.
Oh you're right. But in the early days I think BBC staff were interested in B-BBC and certainly wanted to engage. Now there really is no point.
ReplyDeleteOnly today LLew is saying the BBC One of clock devoted more time to Labour that the Tories on the first day of their conference. I've just checked and both editions spent exactly the same amount of time on each party.
But there's no point posting facts. You just get shouted down.
I "die inside" because it's such an incoherent, rambling shadow of it's former self. And I think a bit of monitoring of the BBC is actually a healthy thing.
DAVE - I have to be honest here, I have posted on B-BBC in the past, pretending to be from the BBC, and they lapped it up. I highly doubt anyone from the beeb has ever tried to engage the BBBC mob in conversation. There was one time where I claimed to be the BBC's complaints guy (forget the name, but they all had a rant about him for a while). My posts were so tounge in cheek (I thought) that I wouldn't fool them, but I clearly did. I suppose in hindsight it just confirmed the sense of self importance there.
ReplyDelete"I highly doubt anyone from the beeb has ever tried to engage the BBBC mob in conversation"
ReplyDeleteThere was. Nick Reynolds did, famously so - http://nickreynoldsatwork.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/my-friends-at-biased-bbc/
And a fellow (or so the conspiracy had it - fellows) called "John Reith" used to post quite dry, factual rebuttals of some of the claims and engage. He got fairly regular abuse, and left shortly after Vance arrived when he realised that engagement was a bit pointless because David Vance had no interest in learning and no knowledge of the business of journalism. And that the mouthbreathers Vance attracted saw a BBC person in their midst as not much better than a cockroach, to be treated accordingly.
In B-BBC mythmaking, Reith "fled", having been thoroughly fisked. In reality, he pulled Vance's underpants down enough times that the wee man got rather upset and started throwing his weight about.