The Lemon Fool

I normally roll my eyes when the normal right wing lunatics trot out the anti-BBC sentiment just because the BBC won't pump out the propaganda that they want it to.

But to be quite honest I'm at a loss on this one, and starting to come round to their anti-BBC point of view, albeit for slightly different reasons...

The BBC have pulled a comment that I posted at the bottom of one of their articles ... here's the comment I posted in it's entirety just as I posted it...

"@"If the virus is mutating to become more transmissible and able to evade the vaccine antibodies it's good evidence that the vaccines are effective."
--

Not really.

If you need a new vaccine every few months, it's not much of a useful vaccine, is it!"

Here's the reason the BBC have given for removing it...

"Your comment was considered to have broken the following House Rule:

"We reserve the right to fail comments which...

Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others

Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable

Contain swear words or other language likely to offend""

I know I'm not the most diplomatic of people, but I really struggle to see that there is anything even remotely provocative or offensive about my comment.

It's just commenting - in response to another commenter's argument - that if a virus can easily get around a vaccine, it wouldn't appear to be such a useful vaccine. I mean, look at it this way, a door lock, no matter how 'good' it is, isn't really any use if a burglar can just go through the open window next to the door. Or looking at it a different way, a door lock isn't really much use if it just forces the burglar to use a different lock pick to get through it.

Am I missing something?

Is there something offensive about what I posted?

To me it just feels like it's been removed because it doesn't fit the narrative the BBC wants to pump out in relation coronavirus and vaccines.

Is it any wonder that so many people are suspicious of the government and media messaging around coronavirus?

It doesn't really help reassure or win over anti-vaxxers, when the media powers seem to be silencing anyone sincerely just 'having their say' on the "Have your say" comments section that they provide for that purpose.

It seems like - Have your say as long as it fits in with the agenda we the BBC want to pump out.

The irony is, I'm not even an anti-vaxxer. I've had both jabs and will be getting the booster as soon as offered. My comment which they removed, was just questioning the basis for the comment that I was responding to.

But it's beginning to feel more and more like questioning what we're being told isn't allowed.

We've just got to shut up and do what we're told like good little sheep - or should that be Peppa the Piglets - whether we agree with it or not.

Presumably they are removing anti-vax comments.

I'm not sure your comment was anti-vax, but then, tbh, I'm not entirely sure what you were getting at either. Probably best not to make your comment too concise and ambiguous.

Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend other

Erm , isn't that the whole point of having a sensible debate about stuff? Possibly not (intentionally ) offending someone, but definitely disagreeing, attacking viewpoints, disrupting 'accepted norms' ...

AleisterCrowley wrote:Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend other

Erm , isn't that the whole point of having a sensible debate about stuff? Possibly not (intentionally ) offending someone, but definitely disagreeing, attacking viewpoints, disrupting 'accepted norms' ...

You must be fun at parties

AleisterCrowley wrote:Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend other

Erm , isn't that the whole point of having a sensible debate about stuff? Possibly not (intentionally ) offending someone, but definitely disagreeing, attacking viewpoints, disrupting 'accepted norms' ...

Yes, it is pretty ambiguous. Who makes the decision that a statement is 'considered likely....to provoke...offend'? If I say "Good morning", someone may look at the dark sky and assume that I'm being sarcastic and trying to provoke them.

Pretty much rules out any more conversations with my wife/boss/kids/colleagues etc!

Steve

stevensfo wrote:

AleisterCrowley wrote:Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend other

Erm , isn't that the whole point of having a sensible debate about stuff? Possibly not (intentionally ) offending someone, but definitely disagreeing, attacking viewpoints, disrupting 'accepted norms' ...

Yes, it is pretty ambiguous. Who makes the decision that a statement is 'considered likely....to provoke...offend'? If I say "Good morning", someone may look at the dark sky and assume that I'm being sarcastic and trying to provoke them.

Pretty much rules out any more conversations with my wife/boss/kids/colleagues etc!

Steve

The person who owns the house makes the rules, is a good rule of thumb.

If I have a group of mates round to my place and I say "we are here for a good chat and to enjoy ourselves, no politics or religion please" and someone decides their freedom of speech is being denied then what is the answer?

Do they moan and whinge until I change my rules or do they suck it up?

Alternatively they can always go somewhere else to talk about those things in any way they want to.

John

My bet is that it was deleted by someone skim reading it, who just saw "vaccine.. Not useful" and erroneously deleted it as anti-vaccine . Probably it's someone paid little, with thousands and thousands of messages to check every hour. Errors are made sometimes.

onthemove wrote: The BBC have pulled a comment that I posted at the bottom of one of their articles ... here's the comment I posted in it's entirety just as I posted it...

Your first mistake was having anything to do with the BBC...

onthemove wrote:I normally roll my eyes when the normal right wing lunatics trot out the anti-BBC sentiment just because the BBC won't pump out the propaganda that they want it to.

But to be quite honest I'm at a loss on this one, and starting to come round to their anti-BBC point of view, albeit for slightly different reasons...

The BBC have pulled a comment that I posted at the bottom of one of their articles ... here's the comment I posted in it's entirety just as I posted it...

Have you tried emailing the BBC? Perhaps they can provide you with more details.

I'm in two minds on this one. I don't like paying a license fee for the BBC, but am very pro vaccine.

The BBC will certainly ban anti vax comments. The person moderating the forum will likely be a young guardianista, so "independent" means in this context means right of corbyn, left of starmer.

Adamski wrote:I'm in two minds on this one. I don't like paying a license fee for the BBC, but am very pro vaccine.

The BBC will certainly ban anti vax comments. The person moderating the forum will likely be a young guardianista, so "independent" means in this context means right of corbyn, left of starmer.

Might even be an automated system which picked up on the words/phrases "vaccine" and "not useful". Basically a version of the old "S[expletive deleted]horpe" problem (which it appears this forum's software still suffers from as it has replaced the town referenced here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe with Schuffhorpe.

Censorship is becoming more common and is just the "new normal". We will just have to get used to it on all websites.

It is another sign that society is changing and trust is declining in general. Freedom of speech is another casualty.

stevensfo wrote:

AleisterCrowley wrote:Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend other

Erm , isn't that the whole point of having a sensible debate about stuff? Possibly not (intentionally ) offending someone, but definitely disagreeing, attacking viewpoints, disrupting 'accepted norms' ...

Yes, it is pretty ambiguous. Who makes the decision that a statement is 'considered likely....to provoke...offend'? If I say "Good morning", someone may look at the dark sky and assume that I'm being sarcastic and trying to provoke them.

Pretty much rules out any more conversations with my wife/boss/kids/colleagues etc!

Steve

This bloke comes up to me and says 'hello'...

- Peter Cook

Adamski wrote:I'm in two minds on this one. I don't like paying a license fee for the BBC, but am very pro vaccine.

The BBC will certainly ban anti vax comments. The person moderating the forum will likely be a young guardianista, so "independent" means in this context means right of corbyn, left of starmer.

Ah. Evidence based analysis. Don't you just love it?

BobbyD wrote:

This bloke comes up to me and says 'hello'...

- Peter Cook

If the virus is mutating to become more transmissible

The point I think a lot of people are missing is that the virus doesnt have a brain, it is not able to start mutating due to the presence or absence of a vaccine.

For mutations to happen there needs to a significant number of infections happening, most will be identical but at random, some small percentage will have mutations.

If the new variant is more transmissible, then over time it is likely to become the dominant strain.

Even in the UK we are still a long way short of having 90% of the whole population vaccinated, so with or without vaccine escape the new variant is still likely to spread.

onthemove wrote:I normally roll my eyes when the normal right wing lunatics trot out the anti-BBC sentiment just because the BBC won't pump out the propaganda that they want it to.

Right-wing loonie here.... I agree with the Beeb shutting down anything remotely anti-vax, in the same way that they would shut down non-patriotic commentary during wartime. I hope.

Given the NHS backlog, let alone the usual winter 'crisis' and the staff shortage which will become more so when the NHS' own anti-vaxxers get the push, I think we should all be doing whatever we can to help, not hinder.

And as your other thread was shut down before I saw it, I would just add that imo the rationale for mask wearing lies somewhere between common sense and courtesy.

V8

BobbyD wrote:

stevensfo wrote: Yes, it is pretty ambiguous. Who makes the decision that a statement is 'considered likely....to provoke...offend'? If I say "Good morning", someone may look at the dark sky and assume that I'm being sarcastic and trying to provoke them.

Pretty much rules out any more conversations with my wife/boss/kids/colleagues etc!

Steve

This bloke comes up to me and says 'hello'...

- Peter Cook

By coincidence I heard that sketch for the very first time only a few months ago when my Spotify started suggesting comedy compilations. Given the language used, I assume that in those days their sketches were available on records only. Though I'd love to have been a fly on the wall if they'd suggested broadcasting them on Radio 4.

Steve

Lanark wrote: The point I think a lot of people are missing is that the virus doesnt have a brain, it is not able to start mutating due to the presence or absence of a vaccine.

Whilst I sort of agree with you, (other than that I’d add the caveat that the vaccine creates a selection pressure) you might be interested in this https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... ut-a-brain which suggests that some scientists are re-evaluating the meaning of intelligence.

GrahamPlatt wrote:

Lanark wrote: The point I think a lot of people are missing is that the virus doesnt have a brain, it is not able to start mutating due to the presence or absence of a vaccine.

Whilst I sort of agree with you, (other than that I’d add the caveat that the vaccine creates a selection pressure) you might be interested in this https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... ut-a-brain which suggests that some scientists are re-evaluating the meaning of intelligence.

yes but only in the sense of a filter

the evolution/mutation of the virus is arbitrary
- changes in circumstances will render some variants unviable; those changes will not cause viable variants to arise (if they do arise they just won't be selected against)

- sd