That account's history is almost entirely left bashing or giving praise to Elon Musk. I'd guess the comment above is part of his ongoing effort to destabilise the British political norms.
If somebody pisses on your shoe every day, do you just try to reason with them from scratch on the 10th day? Would you introduce yourself first, and inquire as to the reason why they are assuming the position?
I don't understand this perception that it is sacrilegious to look at somebody's posting history to discern any patterns in their behaviour.
No one appears to be pissing on shoes, but a public urination analogy may be fitting here. Should the alleged offender be reprimanded for their obvious behavior, or have their past bladder expressions deeply scrutinized first?
Because we live in a world where people are paid to spread FUD and disinformation especially related to political topics. Meanwhile one only has so much time to address arbitrary arguments. If it looks like the argument is being made for disingenuous purposes then engaging with it is probably a waste of your time.
The front page of the BBC right now, at the very top, is a large photo of protests in Iran. The headline reports that hospitals are overwhelmed by the regime cracking down on protestors.
The article focuses on first-hand accounts from medics inside Iran, describing the crackdown and casualties. It also contains statements from the Iranian opposition, the UN, US and French presidents and British PM, all critical of Khamenei, with just two mentions of the regime’s official statements.
Also, I just switched to the BBC News TV broadcast. The Iran protests are the lead story: a special report with a focus on the protestors, showing videos shared by them.
> Government building on fire as protests continue in Karaj, Iran
Peaceful “protestors” dont burn down whole office buildings my guy
> Members of the security forces have also been killed, with one human rights group putting the number at 14.
Peaceful “protestors” dont kill 14 cops.
The Iranian response is not random killing of innocent “protesters”. They are fighting back against open terrorists who are shooting at cops and burning down buildings. You can support or oppose Iran’s policies but if people were doing this in Washington DC the US government would be stacking the bodies of “protestors” just as high.
You’re welcome to your own opinions but some of your arguments here are trivial to debunk.
Literally the first article on the BBC News homepage is an about Iran with accounts from doctors and others critical of the regime.
This is the exact opposite of what you claimed we’d find.
My recommendation here is: if your research is this sloppy for your most trivial to check argument, then maybe you should spend a little time reviewing your other assumptions and whether you believe them out of faith or through research.
The first pieces of coverage from the BBC were on day >10, after internet blackout and hundreds of deaths, and to copy-paste a statement from Khamenei.
> A BBC spokesperson said: "These criticisms are factually incorrect; we have been covering the protests in Iran daily across all of our platforms, including our main news bulletins, in English and via BBC News Persian."
I’m sure you’ll then respond with some opinion piece about how you perceive the quality of reporting, but that’s a more nuanced, subjective, argument. One which I don’t see any value discussing given the clear biases and agendas behind your arguments (ie it wouldn’t be fair, rational, and balanced discussion)
However for the “facts” of your comment, they’re clearly and easily disproven.
Coverage is not the mere existence of an article. Coverage is what's visible. Anyone concerned about Iran was clearly seeing for the whole first week of Jan that there were 0 visible article on the BBC and a few others, this has been turned into memes, captured on screenshots, etc, there is ample evidence, just type "Iran bbc" on X.
But this probably a collective hallucination I get it.
