Comment by spacebanana7

The thing is, the BBC is incredibly partial, depending on which area of the BBC we're talking about.

BBC News on the web vs BBC News the programme, vs BBC worldwide (which is a seperate org inside the BBC), then there's regional BBC and the prime time talk shows (the hard hitting Andrew Neil and co).

So, when someone says "the BBC is biased against the left" or "the BBC is biased agains the right"; ironically they can both be right, and it's not an indicator of impartiality. It depends on which section of the BBC we're talking about.

And you're totally blind to the bits of the BBC you agree with; you will think those bits are the impartial ones.

I used the BBC just an example. Starmer seems to have the same attitude. If both Farage and Corbyn, and Polanski and whoever is leading the Conservatives and LibDems are attacking me, then I must be super in the middle i.e. I must be so doing it all super right!

> client-journalism it engages in with regard to the Conservative party.

BBC Caught Altering Budget Article to Be More Favourable to Labour - https://order-order.com/2024/11/01/bbc-caught-altering-budge...

When Ivor Caplin, the former Labour MP that, among other things, attacked Musk for talking about Pakistani rape gangs, was arrested for pedophilia [1], this is the article they published - no photo, no name, no party affiliation, and no followup article - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg45y4r0yngo

BBC omits identity of Nigerian murderer from article about how he killed his wife [2,3], making it entirely about "gendered violence" instead. Readers can't make the incorrect inference if you simply withhold information from them.

BBC omits all criticism of Starmer from their reporting on his meeting with Trump [4].

The famous Trump capitol speech splicing: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-revea...

When Farage's private bank account was closed due to his politics, the BBC first simply took the bank's word that this was entirely due to financial considerations. When Farage obtained internal documents of that bank, explicitly saying he met financial criteria for an account, but it was closed despite this due to his politics, the BBC issued a correction article trying to imply his politics were merely "also" considered [5].

BBC uses all-white stock photos to warn about obnoxiously loud phone use on trains [6].

But makes sure to use a racially-diverse cast for the 1066 Battle of Hastings [7].

This is not the only such instance, nor a coincidence, by their own admission: Moffat even talks about the idea he mentions above — the excuse of “historical accuracy” that some people often give to justify an all-white cast — “[W]e’ve kind of got to tell a lie: we’ll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn’t have been, and we won’t dwell on that. We’ll say, ‘To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we’ll summon it forth.’” [8,9]

"Piers Wenger said failing to update the classics with diverse characters would be a dereliction of duty" - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/24/bbc-drama-boss-d...

They cropped a photo to remove a weapon from a protester: https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/bbc-cropping-out-weapon-black-...

They instruct white parents to teach their children about white privilege, and to examine their biases if their toddler has only white friends: https://www.bbc.co.uk/tiny-happy-people/articles/zrgcf82

They had and defended a no-whites-allowed internship (despite BAME-workers already being slightly over-represented at the BBC [10]): https://metro.co.uk/2018/01/19/bbc-criticised-for-banning-wh...

They censor their own shows to be more racially sensitive on re-broadcast - without mentioning it until pressed: https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/the-bbc-quietly-censo...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Caplin

[2] https://www.surinenglish.com/malaga/benalmadena-torremolinos...

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyw7g4zxwzo

[4] https://x.com/chrismid/status/1950163250852540547 (contains links to full Trump-Starmer meeting and the BBC articles, on the off chance you don't trust a random tweet)

[5] "On 4 July, the BBC reported Mr Farage no longer met the financial requirements for Coutts, citing a source familiar with the matter. The former UKIP leader later obtained a Coutts report which indicated his political views were also considered." - https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66288464

[6] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce83p1ej8j7o

[7] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/07/racially-diverse...

[8] https://www.themarysue.com/steven-moffat-on-doctor-who-diver...

[9] https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/moffat-on-diversity-in-doctor-...

[10] https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/670266/BBC-advert-white-pe...

The problem is most Brits, at least on HN, seem to deny what is happening and/or support it. People being arrested for holding up blank signs at Charles' coronation was ridiculous and nothing like it has happened in the US, but anytime that's brought up they pivot to mass shootings in the US or some other whataboutism.

I believe US conservatives have done this since 1980s. I'm not sure it was deliberate at first: there's feedback. Loudly invoking "liberal bias" in 1975 most certainly got the press to reevaluate and attempt to mitigate any bias they might have shown. That was a reward for conservatives, which probably motivated more accusations of liberal bias, another round of press accomodations. It reinforced itself.

Indeed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45990786

Indeed – it's why the BBC platform people like Nigel Lawson when ever they have someone to talk about the impact of climate change or the Tufton St mafia

Hannah Arendt convincingly made the case that any government power used against immigrants will eventually be turned against citizens. History keeps proving her right.

He wins or draws on every measure of unpopularity, other than YouGov net satisfaction where Liz Truss still beats him.

Which is even more bizarre given appointing someone as divisive and pig-ignorant as Priti Patel the Home Secretary would have the tabloids crucifying a Labour PM. Johnson and his after-dinner speeches about the Mayor from Jaws forgave a lot of blunders during C19.

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2021/0526/12239...

Remember also that when Sunak stepped down, Priti was put forward for leader. If she had played off her Zionist aspirations just a few years later she'd be right in the current newscycle re proscribed organisations and 'domestic terrorism' charges in the UK, and possibly in the running for the big chair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priti_Patel#Meetings_with_Isra...

Yet these laws and general direction have been in place through half a dozen prime ministers, including ones initially very popular (Johnson especially, but Cameron wasn't particularly unpopular until the brexit mess)

Right. When I'm at a counter-protest facing the local† Nazis (who in this incarnation have decided to call themselves "patriots") among all the rhetoric accusing us of supporting terrorists (no matter where brown people may come from they're apparently "ISIS" or "Taliban" these days) or rapists or any number of weird conspiracies, one thing they often yell about is that Keir Starmer is (to quote them) "a Wanker" and I have observed to other protesters that uniquely this is probably a widely shared viewpoint. Yeah, he is, but, why you are you being so racist, why do you want to terrify my neighbours, what does that have to do with Keir?

† Local in the sense of being the ones who turn up, my guess is that a good number of them travel by car from quite some distance, personally I live five minutes walk away.

There is simply no-incentive to. Generally there are many incentives to increase the number of laws, as they can be seen as doing something about a some recent issue. Many of the recent online safety laws (even before OSA) are good examples of this.

Additionally Britain generally has a problem with politicians believing that the only solution to a problem is banning/regulating things, regardless what the root cause might be. Banning/regulating something requires new legal powers. So more laws.

This been true as far back as I can remember with them talking about banning the Lotus Carlton back in the early 90s because one vehicle the infamous 40RR was used in a spate of ram raids which embarrassed the police. I remember this on the news when I was about 9-10 years old.

Which can be undone by another single act of your “sovereign” Parliament. Acts like this must be understood in that context.

I wouldn't like to see all the legal infrastructure they're putting in under a Reform UK government - I'd imagine they'll use it for far more nefarious means.

That being said - the blame lies squarely with Labour here. I have a gut feel a lot of it has to do with donors to the Tony Blair Institute.

Totalitarianism has the same end state whether it comes from the left or the right. It always results in suppression of the truth, broken feedback loops that lead to poor decisions by government, economic failure, and finally either bloody repression, war, or revolution.

It’s possible to move through this to a place of stability. After all, China only had to kill 15-55 million people in the Great Leap Forward and a couple thousand more in 1989. Today they are fairly stable and prosperous, even with tight controls on information. Perhaps the UK will have a similar path!

Even in the U.S. there is constant pressure on the First Amendment. It's just that the 1A has been quite resilient because the courts have helped it, but that can stop at any time.

[flagged]

Guns only help somewhat nebulously against tyranny. You need societal consensus to get to society using guns against the government, and there is no such consensus regarding ICE, which is why you're not going to see guns used against ICE. Many many people who hate ICE are armed to the teeth, and they are not using those guns because they know that currently that would lose them thee battle and the war.

But in general the better armed states in the U.S. had less restrictive covid rules. So perhaps there is a link between how armed the population is and how well it resists restrictions it doesn't like.

>The guns in the US don't seem to be helping people avoid getting shot by ICE.

I don't see ICE prowling "the cops don't come serve a warrant here with anything less than a SWAT team" parts of New Orleans or St. Louis.

Stop thinking about this based on indoctrinated emotion and politics. Think about it in terms of an all out war and "how do I force my enemy to expend resources not toward his goals".

Personal ability to credibly threaten lethal violence (note: I did not say "firearms") acts much like an AGTM or MANPADS for an infantry squad. Making any potential target substantially more prickly to a potentially superior force and doing so for little cost is a huge boon for the little guy. A firearm is a force multiplier same as a bomb carrying drone or a cell phone that records things the government does not like or a media platform that puts those things in front of the eyes of the masses.

The idea that any cranky old man or mentally on the edge person might just snap and put a bullet in your favorite bespoke enforcer (i.e. not a cop but someone who hands out state backed fines all the same) puts a huge damper on your ability to deploy those people for example. The risk that your informants might get clapped increases the cost of your informants for like results, etc, etc. And when you game it out to it's ends what it comes down to is that the population doing the subjugating might simply not be rich enough or motivated enough to have or be willing to allocate the resources needed to do the job.

This is a large part of why drugs won the war on drugs. There were enough glawk fawtys wit da switch kicking around on the "wrong" side of the law that the cops needed to adopt militarized tactics, the public didn't wanna pay for that shit (monetarily or politically) over weed, and thus drugs won the war on drugs. If they could've rolled up on just about anyone "cheaply" with just a couple cops it would've gone on way longer.

>(to the extent that armed revolution worked in the UK, the IRA were helped only slightly by US-backed supplies of Armalite rifles, and much more by a large supply of Libyan high explosives. Guns are a much less effective political weapon than the car or truck or hotel bomb)

The semtex wouldn't have gotten anywhere useful if the Brits could just walk into wherever all willy nilly chasing down every lead in search of it. Bringing enough credible threat of violence to force their enemy to actually behave like a proper occupying force burning money and political credibility as a result limited the Brit's ability engage (at the right price) in the kind of police action they needed to catch the bombs.

If they could've just sent pairs of cops after every lead in an "oi you got a license for that meme" manner they'd have dredged up all the semtex and none of it would've made it to London.

>The guns in the US don't seem to be helping people avoid getting shot by ICE.

The woman who was shot was a democrat without any guns, maybe if she'd had a gun she wouldn't have been shot.

Predators are less likely to attack someone who can defend themselves, it's quite simple.

As Mao said, political power grows from the barrel of the gun. In the past decade freedom of speech and internet freedom has being dramatically curtailed in pretty much every western country where the citizen are unarmed.

> i’m absolutely, concretely and overwhelmingly fine with the concept of gun control here as a uk citizen.

That... speaks volumes of the citizens of the said country.