By clicking Publish you indemnify B-BBC and accept full legal responsibility for your comments
Martin:
No chance of that. WE can expect Hillhunt and Angry young Alex to ponce their way to China with the "BEEB"
David Vance:
Yes, all the way over the dead bodies of those pesky monks. Still, it's a great sporting spectacle, right?
Peter:
Oh come now,there are over a billion Chinese,437 is a paltry number to send,Besides, the BBC can afford it having raised the license fee.
max:
437, now that's a lot of carbon footprints.
smallheathen:
In the same way that the novel/film 'Fahrenheit 451' became symbolic of oppression, perhaps we could adopt the term 'Carbon 437' when referring to the beeb's profligacy and hypocrisy?
Anonymous:
There is absolutely no need for this army of people to trudge off to China. The majority of the coverage will be supplied by the host broadcaster - so no need for camera crews/sound people etc.
Today al-Beeb seems to feel the need to send off Gary Lineker and Sue Barker etc. to whatever global jamboree is happening. Why?
Once upon a time, e.g. World Cup '78 in Argentina, the hosting (by Frank Bough) and punditry (by Jimmy Hill et al.) was carried out back in the studio in London - not Buenos Aires.
But now, with the babble about carbon footprints being propagated by the likes of, er, the BBC, they send off a superjumbojet-load of people across to the other side of the world.
For the 2006 World Cup Lineker, Hansen etc. were holed up in some studio bubble in Berlin - not at a stadium mind, oh no just some square with a nice Berlin backdrop - from where they introduced games.
What a disgrace, flying them out there to do something that could be done back in a studio in London just like uncle Frank Bough used to do.
Not content with making one round trip and using German hotels for the month, the BBC's on-screen pundits made multiple round trips.
Now contrast this with the Chinese media. Although the Euro '96 football tournament had (obviously) no Chinese participation, there was considerable interest over there with audiences being measured by the hundreds of millions.
The Chinese broadcasters sent over I believe a team of 2 (two) to England.
There's an example for you BBC.
Jack Hughes:
I like the identity theft hypothesis. 
I guess the crims could complete their freshly-stolen identities by carrying a copy of the Guardian newspaper, leaning to the left, mentioning the illegal Iraq war in every sentence they speak, waving and smiling at anyone who looks remotely muslim.
Mind you - it's hard to build up a convincing disguise if you never look at yourself in the mirror.
onanthebarbarian:
Hey give the guy's a break, many of them are will be contributing to Britain's Olympic efforts in China - in the -
Bum Wrestling
Knob-end Tossing
4x100 m Coke Line Relay
Synchronised Lying
events.
We can look forward to at least another 4 Gold medals for Britain.
Alex:
"WE can expect Hillhunt and Angry young Alex to ponce their way to China with the "BEEB""
Actually I am be boycotting the Olympics and am considering whether to boycott Chinese produce in general. Trouble is I eat a lot of ginger.
As for the BBC, if Britain doesn't have the balls to boycott the Olympics officially, then BBC Sport can hardly be blamed for not taking a stand either.
Chuffer:
Think of the savings if their tickets were all made one-way.
Hugh:
With 437 staff they could probably take two stands.
Alex:
I'm afraid that's not possible Hugh. As 437 is an odd number, they would have to have 218 taking one stand and 219 taking the other. This would of course violate principles of impartiality.
Travis Bickle:
I believe that equates to about 1.5 BBC employee to every British competitor. Incredible.
And expect them to send several hundred staff out to cover the US Elections, whilst Sky manage much better (and balanced) coverage with a much smaller team.
Hillhunt:
Travis Bickle:
You talking to me?
.
king chillout:
I boycott every olympic games.....because it's mind numbingly boring.
Peter:
"There is absolutely no need for this army of people to trudge off to China."
On the contrary,there are not enough,the entire infestation of the BBC should relocate permanently to China.Essential outsourcing in these hard times.
Greencoat:
Ah c'mon guys 'n gals,
China: the land where ten thousand prison camps bloom;
The Olympics: a billion-dollar drug-soaked doze-fest; and
437 Islam-loving Beeboid yakkeroos to tell us all about it.
What's not to love?
sutekh:
king chillout:
I boycott every olympic games.....because it's mind numbingly boring.
-------------------------------------------------
Is the right answer. Unless of course, they introduce couch-potatoing as an Olympic event, then I'm a shoe-in for a gold medal.
Anonymous:
With 437 Beeboids travelling what are the odds that one them will be "doing a Grooverider"?
Gibby Haynes:
My god. The coke budget alone for all of those BBC employees must run into several million pounds.
Peter:
"My god. The coke budget alone for all of those BBC employees must run into several million pounds."
Yes,but just think what it will save on air fares.With ant luck they will get a stop over in somewhere like Dubai.
Gareth:
With 437 Beeboids travelling what are the odds that one them will be "doing a Grooverider"?
Anonymous | 29.03.08 - 5:48 pm
Or a...
Bacon(Richard)
Speight(Mark)
Kershaw(Andy)
Wrench(Nigel)
Greening(Kevin)
Deayton(Angus)
Walker(Johnnie)
Will Jones:
Would it be possible for one of the BBC folks who frequent this site to look up the travel rules for flights of this length to see if they are relieved of the ignominy of travelling coach. Will it be business or first class? Love to hear the cost for those tickets.
onanthebarbarian:
I think they should be made to walk, you know it makes sense.
If they set out now, they should get there in time with a bit of luck (detours via - Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt Saudi, Iraq, Iran Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir etc. etc.) in fact they can get to see all their favourite places on the company (so to speak).
Anonymous:
Re: Any Beeboid thinking about doing a Grooverider while on their China-junket
The penalties in the PRC can be grim...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/
chi...tent_626601.htm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/
englis...ent_6289692.htm
If 437 go out, how many will return?
deegee:
If I count correctly there are 28 separate sports in the summer Olympics. Given that the photography and technical aspects will be provided locally what would a team of 437 (about 15 per sport) find to do?
Peter:
"Given that the photography and technical aspects will be provided locally what would a team of 437 (about 15 per sport) find to do?"
Take drugs and fornicate - "It's what they do".
point of order:
Those wondering what the 437 strong BBC team in China will find to occupy themselves should refer to the BBC article:
"But the corporation insists the 437 going this year - 33 more than the Athens games - will provide more than twice as much output as four years ago."
Which rather begs the question; where are they going to show all this output? Any one who remembers the Athens games will recall that the event was hardly ignored by the BBC. And when. Because of the +8 hour time difference* between Beijing & the UK. all of the events will be taking place whilst the UK audience is in bed asleep. There is no point in having any live coverage whatsoever because it can be expected to attract record low audience figures.
*I'm not sure of what the Chinese policy toward daylight saving is but if the time difference drops to 7 hours in the summer months it's only going to be of interest to those wishing to get up at dawn to see the finals of the synchronised pole vaulting.
Windy Blow:
Divide 437 by the number of gold medals Britain will win... Anyone taking bets on better than 100 to 1?
Lurker in a Burqua:
David Cameron was last night accused of paving the way for the destruction of the BBC after he threatened to hand £250million of its money to other broadcasters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
Anat (Israel):
Lurker in a Burqua | 30.03.08 - 1:10 am : "David Cameron was last night accused of paving the way for the destruction of the BBC after he threatened to hand £250million of its money to other broadcasters."
Splendid idea. I know were my vote would go if I were still residing in the UK (which I haven't for over 20 years).
AndrewSouthLondon:
London to Beijing - who gets the air miles? 5059 x2 x 437
Tim:
C'mon you lot.
Which one of you in here as got that file?
john trenchard:
i wonder how many Sky are sending..
Martin:
Why should the BBC get all the licence fee money? That money should be for producing high quality decentp ublic TV. Not "chav" TV which the BBC seems to increasingly turn out.
Grimly Squeamish:
Another Jolly for Beebites, another virtual holiday. Oh yes, some of them will work hard, no doubt the front line staff, the engineers, techies and one or two runners, reporters and assitant producers.
But the rest of 'em?? Swilling Tsing Tau beer and scoffing peking duck, and all at our expense.
I bet there will be quite a few senior staff there who do bugger all except enjoy sucking on the tellytax payer's teat... nice "work" if you can get it.
meggoman:
Well I've been a big supporter of Biased BBC ever since it started. And I am in full agreement with what David says here. And I believe he has really generated some excellent debates on here. But hey some of us raised this very subject on other threads a number of days ago. And the reason it was raised on other threads was because there wasn't a general thread to put it on. So David please credit where credits due and do keep up the good work.
Alex:
To bring the subject slightly closer to the subject of bias in the BBC, you know otters really like grapes? I was as surprised as you.
Peter:
"you know otters really like grapes? I was as surprised as you."
You mean you have only just found out?
Tim:
It's a disgrace to be honest.
They are not interested in sporting excellence, they just want to cover a few protesters and blow it out of all proportion.
a bit like the BBC helicopter hovering over 10 anti global warming muppets during the summer camp by we so sad
to be honest! I do not know what is going on in China or Tibet - but I find myself disbelieving everything the bbc says
Anonymous:
Angry Young Victoria said "To bring the subject slightly closer to the subject of bias in the BBC, you know otters really like grapes? I was as surprised as you."
Here's how it relates to bias - if the BBC makes this kind of investment sending 437 people to try out the Peking Duck at Beijing restaurants and they're all looking forward to their sidetrips to the Great Wall, Forbidden City etc. how do we know that the BBC will report any pro-Tibet protests without bias?
They won't want to offend their hosts will they?
Sepp Blatter and FIFA get the Panorama treatment so why not the IOC and the China games? Where is Screamer Sweeney's investigation about the Games' construction death toll? Or Gavin Hewitt looking into the suspicion of ongoing drug abuse by Chinese competitors? The clampdown by the Chinese authorities leading upto the Games?
If the BBC starts digging into these areas with the same relish that they do when looking into Amerikkka and Dubya then China might start playing tough. A whole load of Beeboids might find their little jolly gets cancelled.
Can't have that can we? So, don't expect the BBC to go the extra mile when reporting on Tibetan protests.
WoAD:
I hope the Chinese are successful in their crackdown on little Tibetaner racists.
Pete:
I'm cancelling my BBC subscription during the olympic games. I don't want to fund a broadcaster that appeases the Chinese regime by screening its prestige event. As I only have a TV for Sky football cancelling my BBC subs for a month or so in summer will hardly affect my TV watching.
And why should I pay for olympic coverage anyway - the olympics are boring and no other UK broadcaster would want them.
Cockney:
I suspect the BBC loves the Olympics because it's full of ridiculous 'sports' that only the environmentally aware middle classes give a toss about. Equestrian?? shooting?? cycling?? rowing!!!??? Meanwhile no doubt the Englandless European Championships will be staffed by the increasingly demented Motson and a couple of work experience remedials, despite the majority of the population having far more interest in watching Germany v Italy than Paula Radcliffe falling over.
David Essex:
WoAD:
I hope the Chinese are successful in their crackdown on little Tibetaner racists.
WoAD | Homepage | 31.03.08 - 10:30 am |
I really hope you are joking. Are you mental?
Hillhunt:
Pete:
I don't want to fund a broadcaster that appeases the Chinese regime by screening its prestige event.
An excellent stand for principle, although most people would argue that the Olympics is an international event which just happens to be in China this year.
Presumably you long ago cancelled your Sky football subscription because of Rupert Murdoch's long-established and profit-driven kowtowing to the very same Chinese authoritarians, for example:
1. Pulling World Service Radio from his Chinese service Star TV because its series on Mao's human rights record offended his heirs.
2. Pulling out of publishing Chris Patten's book on Hong Kong for similar reasons.
3. Putting $5.4 into the People's Daily, the epicentre of Chinese state media.
.
Alex:
Anonymous: some good points.
"how do we know that the BBC will report any pro-Tibet protests without bias? They won't want to offend their hosts will they?"
We don't, but it's a little early to speculate now.
"Sepp Blatter and FIFA get the Panorama treatment so why not the IOC and the China games? Where is Screamer Sweeney's investigation about the Games' construction death toll? Or Gavin Hewitt looking into the suspicion of ongoing drug abuse by Chinese competitors? The clampdown by the Chinese authorities leading upto the Games?"
Anywhere I can read up on these stories?
"If the BBC starts digging into these areas with the same relish that they do when looking into Amerikkka and Dubya then China might start playing tough. A whole load of Beeboids might find their little jolly gets cancelled. Can't have that can we?"
You're probably right on this, but at this point it is all speculation.
"So, don't expect the BBC to go the extra mile when reporting on Tibetan protests."
I don't expect the BBC to go the extra mile on any political issue. It is neither the right nor the duty of the BBC to go digging into individual political issues.
Arthur Dent:
It is neither the right nor the duty of the BBC to go digging into individual political issues
So how do you justify the innumerable programmes about the Iraq War and its aftermath?
Hillhunt:
Er, that was:
3. Putting $5.4million into the People's Daily, the epicentre of Chinese state media.
.
Alex:
"So how do you justify the innumerable programmes about the Iraq War and its aftermath?"
Not quite an extra mile in my book. The BBC should avoid having its own pet topics. If popular interest in Tibet reaches the same level as Iraq or Israel-Palestine, then the BBC should give it that much coverage, but it's not the BBC's job to push issues to the surface.
Hillhunt:
alex:
it's not the BBC's job to push issues to the surface.
I disagree. If ever there was a need for journalism that takes a fresh look at things, it's now. Dispatches at C4 does a good job, but we long ago lost shows like First Tuesday, This Week & World In Action, prepared to poke their noses in where they're not wanted and take the lead on stories.
Panorama occasionally breaks out of its Tonight with Trevor me-tooism on blindingly-obvious populist subjects, but, good though much of it is, too much BBC coverage involves sticking to other peoples' news agendas.
.
Anonymous:
Hillhunt | 31.03.08 - 11:47 am | #
Presumably you long ago cancelled your Sky football subscription because of Rupert Murdoch's long-established and profit-driven kowtowing to the very same Chinese authoritarians, for example:,.....
At least people have the choice with Sky and can withdraw their susbscriptions. If they do that with the BBC 'subscription' - prosecution, fine, jail if you don't pay the fine, and a criminal record follow. Your comparison of Sky and Murdoch to the BBC is quite frankly absurd.
Alex:
"If ever there was a need for journalism that takes a fresh look at things, it's now."
Arguably so, but if the BBC is going to dig our new stories, would we be happy with it doing so impartially and, say, covering something uncomfortable in the Tibetan Nationalist movement?
David Vance:
Meggoman,
Thanks for the feedback, I was away for a few days and couldn't post so sorry if the absence of a general comments thread has been a pain. Also, my thanks to ALL B-BBC readers for coming up with some great ideas for posts. I was actually emailed this one several days ago and put it up when I saw it!
Hillhunt:
anon:
Your comparison of Sky and Murdoch to the BBC is quite frankly absurd
Not really. Peter's viewpoint was on the moral case for withdrawing funding to the BBC. Either the BBC's alleged behaviour re China is immoral or it's not...and there's no proof yet that they have gone soft on Beijing. Whereas Rupert most certainly has....
WoAD:
"I really hope you are joking. Are you mental?
David Essex | 31.03.08 - 11:35 am |"
No I'm not being mental. The Dalai Llama wants a Tibet free of Han Chinese. He wants control of the borders. He's a petit bourgeois ethnocentric recidivist and fascist.
Allan@Oslo:
The Tibetans are an indigenous people facing destruction by having their land colonised by uninvited incomers. The British are....etc.
David Essex:
WoAD | Homepage | 31.03.08 - 2:21 pm | #
'No I'm not being mental. The Dalai Llama wants a Tibet free of Han Chinese. He wants control of the borders. He's a petit bourgeois ethnocentric recidivist and fascist.'
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Which one are you? Eric Idle, Michael Palin? You can't be Graham Chapman because he is dead. 
David Preiser (USA):
WoAD is mostly correct about the truth lurking behind the saintly charade that is the Dalai Llama. He's not a fascist, really, nor petit bourgeois. His hangers on may be, but he is simply a feudal lord who wishes to return to his throne. What's more, his "government in exile" claims a much larger amount of territory as their own than that which was controlled by the provisional government under the previous DL before the Chinese came in.
The current DL wants his throne back, and would not object to the forcing out of Han Chinese that that have taken over business and key real estate in Tibet.
The Dalai Llama is a feudal lord, and the whole peaceful monk thing is a bit of a scam.
Alex:
'No I'm not being mental. The Dalai Llama wants a Tibet free of Han Chinese. He wants control of the borders. He's a petit bourgeois ethnocentric recidivist and fascist.'
Even if this is the case (which wouldn't surprise me much), would that in any way justify China's crackdown on Tibetan protesters?
Pete:
I wish Murdoch would put Sky football on the internet for a subscription. Then I could get rid of my BBC subscription for ever. Trash like Eastenders, Jonathan 'w*nker' Ross and boring sports like the olympics are not worth the licence fee. I don't even get the old stand by of the 'wonderful wildlife programmes' for my cash. They are tedious, and Attenborough's commentaries are lame.
What a disgrace that the government is allowing its broadcaster to screen the olympics, and how shameful that 437 normally ruthlessly PC BBC staff have no problems associating themselves with and publicising such a disgusting regime.
Peter:
"Either the BBC's alleged behaviour re China is immoral or it's not...and there's no proof yet that they have gone soft on Beijing."
Yes, Beijing is quaking it its shoes. You sound like John Simpson "Liberating Kabul".
Joel:
The BBC can't bycott the Olympics, its supposed to be impartial remember!?!?
Is 430 staff a lot? I don't know, how many does it take? Does anyone here actually have any expertise in the area?
If the report had said 530 staff were going, I am sure you'd think that too many. I'm sure you'd think 330 was a lot too. The reality is, neither you nor I know if 430 staff is a lot to send for tv, radio and online coverage of the Olympics.
An objective comparison? It's 'a small fraction of the staff sent by the main American network and significantly less than German broadcasters'.
Anonymous:
Angry Young Victoria:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3216569.ece
Over forty Chinese swimmers since 1990 have failed drug tests. More than any other nation.
Why aren't the Beeb digging into this stuff, let along Tibet?
Jack Hughes:
I vote to ban Angry Young VictoriAlex.
I normally subscribe to free speech for all. It a very important building block of our society.
There are 2 important exceptions to free speech.
1) Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
2) Deliberately making a lot of noise outside a music school.
Ban AleVictoria under rule #2.
Play Fair:
This thread picks up on what is, in my opinion, a real gap in the BBC's reportage.
They deal quite well with such topics as wildlife, culture and history - there was an excellent programme recently on Chinese gardens. Economic and environmental issues are also covered competently.
But there is insufficient analysis of the darker side of Chinese politics - the arrest and torture of religious dissidents -imprisonment and execution on a gulag scale- censorship that reaches even into the internet.The repression in Tibet is only the tip of an iceberg
I would like to see the BBC doing a lot more to bring such issues to the light of day.
Alex:
Thank you Arsenonymous, interesting article though I can't say it diminishes my opinion of China any further.
Anonymous:
AndrewSouthLondon:
London to Beijing - who gets the air miles? 5059 x2 x 437
AndrewSouthLondon | 30.03.08 - 8:35 am | #
So according to http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-...-
calculator.htm (first working link on google, no other recommendation) 5059 x 2 x 437 ( / 12 for the form) results in:
368464 miles air travel per month, giving 2,144.46048 tons of CO2 annually. Puts a bit of a dampener on their 'climate change' orthodoxy.
Anonymous:
Just noticed the end of the form
It reckons al-BBC needs to plant 10,722 trees to offset all that.
Alex:
Not necessarily, Arsenonymous. As humans naturally breathe out CO2, it would suffice to blow into a hole in the ground and then fill it in. Do that 10 722 times and it would be just as effective as planting trees.
Biodegradable's Ghost:
What did David Vance say about ad hominems and banning?
Thank you Arsenonymous, interesting article though...
Alex | Homepage | 01.04.08 - 1:09 pm
Not necessarily, Arsenonymous...
Alex | Homepage | 01.04.08 - 1:37 pm
I vote to ban Angry Young VictoriAlex.
Jack Hughes | 01.04.08 - 2:24 am
I second that.
And unban Biodegradable!
[Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added]
Anonymous:
Unban Biodegradeable!
BioD is no troll and deserves another chance.
Alex:
I second Biodegradable that he's not a troll (though I don't know what it was he got banned for).
Note:
"Angry Young Victoria:"
"I vote to ban Angry Young VictoriAlex."
Sauce for the goose and all that.
p and a tale of one chip:
Unban Biodegradable.
There are plenty of trolls and nutters whose contributions add little or nothing to the debate. BioD isn't one of them.
Biodegradable's Ghost:
Note:
"Angry Young Victoria:"
"I vote to ban Angry Young VictoriAlex."
Sauce for the goose and all that.
Alex | Homepage | 01.04.08 - 2:25 pm
"Angry Young Victoria" is not quite the same as "Angry Young Arsehole", is it?
Thank you all for your support, I don't know why Biodegradable was banned (twice) either. He was never told.
Alex:
True. I'm all for a moratorium on silly nicknames.
Pete:
It looks like many more BBC staff are a lot more keen to go to a vile repressive, poverty stricken dump like China than are keen to go to Salford.
I don't want China appeasing BBC staff coming to the new BBC sports dept in Salford. They'll lower the tone of the city.
Peter The Pedant:
True. I'm all for a moratorium on silly nicknames.
Alex | Homepage | 01.04.08 - 7:01 pm
Hypocrite!
Joe (The Netherlands):
I doubt anyone deserves to be banned from this site forever,however, perhaps after David Vance has given them a warning and they repeat the offence then they should be sent to the sin-bin for a day or two.
TPO:
Thank you all for your support, I don't know why Biodegradable was banned (twice) either. He was never told.
Biodegradable's Ghost | 01.04.08 - 4:17 pm |
He got banned for sharing the odd joke with TPO, and TPO got bannned for telling Andrew to grow up after Andrew got upset over a reference to obsessive censorship.
Arthur Dent:
An objective comparison? It's 'a small fraction of the staff sent by the main American network and significantly less than German broadcasters'
Would you like to post some factual support for that comment?
Sarah Jane:
Arthur Dent - have a look through this thread (I apologise for its inherent nerdiness) http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/foru...ad.php?
t=769004
it seems that NBC are sending several thousand and ADT 700.
It looks like the beeb help film the international feed (as do NBC) so they would send more relatively than a state broadcaster who didnt help with that.
I also assume there is a fair amount of practise for 2012 to be had, when the beeb's responsibilities will be much greater?
Anonymous:
Unban TPO
Anonymous:
The BBC will need to cover the London Olympics 2012 big style.
Though I totally disagree with it being here, that it is, and given that fact then the coverage is more understandable.
I would add that it is understandable for networks to send more people to cover the fact they have far more competitors, so it not really fair to compare NBC to the BBC the US has far more to cover.
Cockney:
"An objective comparison? It's 'a small fraction of the staff sent by the main American network"
yeah, but the Olympics is a big thing for the Americans. it means bugger all to the Brits as we have proper sports to distract us (notwithstanding the fact that we're crap at them).
re: the BioD banning, I seem to recall that Andrew was concerned about the legal implications of some of the more forthright comments and demanded that people tone it down a bit. some commentators took this as an infringement of their human right to post whatever they liked on other people's blogs and refused to let it lie. there followed a robust exchange of views and there was only going to be one winner - the dude with the delete button.
Arthur Dent:
it seems that NBC are sending several thousand and ADT 700
Thanks for the link Sarah Jane I read through most of it , just like here in many ways.
However, the two figures you quoted, which were indeed posted on the thread, also had nothing to identify whether they were genuine, no reference no link, nothing. I am sure that they are real, but who is to know. I could equally say that Japan is sending 200 staff.
Biodegradable's Ghost:
re: the BioD banning, I seem to recall that Andrew was concerned about the legal implications of some of the more forthright comments and demanded that people tone it down a bit...
Cockney | 02.04.08 - 4:11 pm
I don't remember anything of the sort.
My most recent banning came about after I complained about a light hearted and good natured reply I posted to an equally inoffensive response to me from the BBC's David Gregory being deleted, no doubt because it was considered by Andrew to be "chit-chat".
Previously I had been banned for posting the URL of another blog about BBC bias set up by others who had been banned here.
Cockney:
oh, ok. might have been someone else then. the common theme in all bannings seems to have been dissent.
might I point you in the direction of recent the recent national outcry re: Ashley Cole. 'the referee is always right, even when he's wrong '
Biodegradable's Ghost:
Do I take that to mean that it's OK for BioD to remain banned while the trolls-who-shall-not-be-named are not?
By the way, no need to un-ban TPO, banning is done on the basis of IP addresses and since he has moved to another continent he now has a different ISP and IP address.
TPO:
oh, ok. might have been someone else then. the common theme in all bannings seems to have been dissent.
Cockney | 02.04.08 - 5:24 pm |
You're wrong mate.
I stopped posting for a couple of months or so because I felt uncomfortable with the way Bowman was censoring.
When jr posted one of his more preposterous mianders I responded to it. I also added that I rarely posted anymore as I found the censorship somewhat obsessive. It lasted 5 minutes before being replaced with: Deleted - gratuitous personal insults are not welcome here
I told him to grow up and he flung his teddies out of the pram.
TPO:
I think at the time everyone agreed that an ego was running out of control.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
