With Al- Beeb, it is always necesary to look out for the missing words in their allegedly fair and balanced reporting. Often these words are missing for a very good reason and I have a small example to share with you today. In this BBC report on the background of the four new “Victims Commissioners” created by the Northern Ireland devolved administration we read about Patricia McBride “whose brother was killed by the SAS.” The BBC chooses not to amplify on how this killing took place but instead leaves the impression that this was just one more death during the long decades of violence. How did he meet his end? Was he perhaps strolling down the street minding his own business when he was suddenly cut down by those bad SAS guys?
Not quite. You see Patricia McBride’s brother, Tony, was an IRA terrorist. He was on an active terror mission in 1982 when he was intercepted by the SAS and killed before he could bring about the murder of others. I would have thought this was more than a mere detail but it is left out of the account for very good reason. To have a neo-Orwellian Victims Commissioner who is there by virtue of the fact that her brother himself belonged to an organisation that created thousands of victims might be a hard sell if openly stated. So better to cloak it and then imply a form of moral relativism between terrorist and terrorised. Since the BBC itself has such trouble in defining a terrorist, this is perhaps understandable, after all moral relativists and moral bankrupts have so much in common.
welcome aboard. Have just read your message of introduction and I am delighted to see that you view the beeboids as the same pernicious inluence that I do, and that you expose their leftist agenda so elequently.
Trouble is ,the BBC is a bit stuck on terminology,they can’t say the man was involved in anti-Islamic activities.There doesn’t seem to be an acceptable euphemism du jour for terrorism in Ireland.
How nice it was for the SAS to kill a man rather than arrest and put him in front of a judge together with the evidence. It makes it sound so much better than “death squad” or a “shoot-to-kill” policy.
So we are told that this man was “intercepted by the SAS and killed before he could bring about the murder of others” so why wasn’t he arrested and charged?
It’s all neat and tidy – the man was a terrorist. How do we know this?
Because the people who shot him told us so.
When history is perverted, it makes perverted historians of us all. You can’t get more “neo-Orwellian” than that.
Ah, Aussie Bystander, can you therefore enlighten us as the the precise circumstances of Tony McBride’s death, then?
If you can arrive at such a glib moral equvalence between a terrorist targeting innocent civilians and soldiers subject to military law and military dscipline (not to mention the Geneva Convention) then you really could have a bright future at the BBC!
Aussie bystander…You conceited little twat.Piss off back to Oz.
Let me help you. We KNOW he was an IRA terrorist because his family and the IRA say so.
Got any more questions I can help you with?
Thank you for the kind wishes. I am blushing at the generous welcome from B-BBC readers and hope I can justify your faith in me here.
The SAS are soldiers, not police. They kill – not arrest – the bad guys, and for that we’re truly thankful.
Tony McBride planted two large bombs and attempted to detonate one directly before he was challenged by the SAS and shot in the subsequent exchange of fire. One SAS trooper died as well.
Tony, was an IRA terrorist. He was on an active terror mission in 1982 when he was intercepted by the SAS …
Good to see you’re keeping up your reputation for factual accuracy.
Actually MacBride was killed in December 1984.
On another thread you wrote:
which of us will forget Barbara Plett’s award winning performance as she wept copious tears even as she bravely reported the death of the repulsive thug Arafat?
Later, in the comments, you said she deserved an Oscar for her performance.
Anyone reading all this would conclude that you had personally witnessed this event.
But you didn’t – because it was not shown on TV.
In fact, the only reason you know that Plett cried is because she reminisced about it on the radio programme – From Our Own Correspondent some time after the event.
And, in any case, it wasn’t on the occasion of Arafat’s death.
The clearly vivid recollections that spring forth so readily from your synapses are merely the product of your fevered imagination.
Rather like the imagined ‘bias’ in this post.
This story was a brief news story, which in its original form anticipated a forthcoming announcement.
Here is the Press Association version of the same:
The four Northern Ireland Victims’ Commissioners whose appointments were announced today will have to represent the full spectrum of those affected by the 30-year conflict in Northern Ireland.
A Republican and married mother of two in her 30s from south Co Londonderry.
Her brother Tony was shot dead by the SAS in December 1984 on the road between Kesh and Belleek in Co Fermanagh.
She is from the Magherafelt area.
Her contractor father Frank died 17 months after being shot by loyalists in May 1972 in east Belfast.
She sat on the Civic Forum which advised government on community matters as a victims’ representative.
She worked at the Bloody Sunday Trust, a historical and educational project which aims to commemorate the shooting dead of 13 unarmed civil rights protesters by soldiers in 1972.
So, indeed there were some ‘missing words’ in the BBC version. A fuller story might have mentioned that Patricia MacBride’s father was gunned down in the doorway of his house. Or that Tony MacBride (then 11 years old) not only witnessed his father’s murder but was also shot by the same loyalist gunmen.
But then you don’t expect chapter and verse in the equivalent of a ‘newsflash’ posted in the early hours of the morning.
Had you waited to see whether the BBC would consistently understate or underplay Tony MacBride’s terrorist activities, then you might have built a case.
But you didn’t.
You’re a card, aren’t you?
First, let’s not allow your specious attempt to distract attention away from the substance of this post, which is lest we forget, that the BBC report factually omitted pointing out that Tony McNulty was an IRA terrorist. He was killed by the SAS for a very good reason – the pity is that it took to 1982 to stop him and the vermin with which he “served”. Got it?
A fuller story might have also chosen to catalogue the murdeous activity of the IRA unit in which McNulty served with such enthusiasm. You forget to suggest that, why?
The BBC report did not appear out of the blue. The words were carefully crafted, and I suggest that you are fooling only yourself in the drivel you produce by way of a response to the matter of substance. Are we to expect accurate reporting standards at only some time in the day?
If you want to respond to me, you’ll have to learn to raise your game.
PS Try and learn to spell how to spell the name of the people on which you post. The terrorist was called McBride, or maybe accurate spelling from you only applies at certain times of the day?
I’ve waited almost forty years for the BBC to stop underplayng the pedigree of terrorists, I reckon that’s long enough.
David Vance 28.01.08 – 1:42 pm
lest we forget, that the BBC report factually omitted pointing out that Tony McNulty was an IRA terrorist.
No, Tony McNulty isn’t a terrorist. He’s a NuLab minister (at the Home Office, last time I looked).
the pity is that it took to 1982 to stop him
Still can’t get your head around the fact it was 1984, not 1982. What’s wrong with you?
Try and learn to spell how to spell the name of the people on which you post. The terrorist was called McBride, or maybe accurate spelling from you only applies at certain times of the day?
Physician, heal thyself. Once again you’re wrong.
Antoine Mac Giolla Bhrighde (English Tony or Anthony MacBride (also misspelled Tony McBride)
If you want to respond to me, you’ll have to learn to raise your game.
All mouth and no trousers, it seems.
I’m with JR on this one (washes hands :). I’ve read the BBC post and it just says her bro was killed by the SAS. Which is true. There’s no sin of omission: the article is about her appointment. It’s just a bit of extra info, factual and to the point. There’s no relevancy in this article for the hows and whys of his death. Soldiers kill people; terrorists murder them. (Sometimes the BBC gets this wrong, but not here.)
It doesn’t make the Brits into baddies. It doesn’t imply that he was some sort of freedom fighter. It just ads a tiny bit of relevant background to a pretty sparse report.
You may have valid issues with the BBC’s coverage of NI issues – but this isn’t it.
Do you talk to people in real life in the same way you comment here Mr Reith ?
If so you must get punched in the face an awful lot.
How nice it was for the SAS to kill a man rather than arrest and put him in front of a judge together with the evidence.
Aussie Bystander | 28.01.08 – 12:47 pm |
You should try arresting an armed terrorist that has killed in the past. If you live, it might be an experience that will change your views.
HSLD: Maybe he talks to people who can enter into reasoned debate rather than resorting to violence?
“In fact, the only reason you know that Plett cried is because she reminisced about it on the radio programme “
Yet again Reith of the BBC picks the smallest item in which to make a song and dance about.
Actually Mr reith I think you will find Plett spoke on air during the TV coverage of a french Chopper landing in which to pick up her terrorist hero. Go back intot he kitchen and dry that salad.
I think it is also important to point out that Patricia MacBride is as much as ‘victim’ as someone who brother or sister was blown to pieces in the Harrods bomb or the Remembrance Day parade at Enniskillen.
The tendency is to infer that, because her brother was ‘obviously’ an IRA terrorist, she was naturally an IRA supporter. Now, I am not implying you think that, David, but it would be a not-so-outrageous conclusion for one to draw.
Even if that is so, hers is an important voice and it should be heard. Furthermore, the nature of her brother’s death – an extra-judicial killing by the SAS – is not something which we should dismiss simply because he was a ‘terrorist’.
And no, I am not a self-loathing liberal: that SAS man may well have saved dozens from being killed. But I think it is advisable to tread a little more carefully.
HSLD – the same’s true of the tone of most of those who respond to Mr Reith to be fair. I’m amazed the streets of the UK aren’t littered with battered smartarses and pedants.
I don’t agree with Ali P – I think if it’s relevant to say that this woman’s brother was killed by the SAS it’s relevant to say on what basis. I note that the article doesn’t say that another Commissioner Bertha McDougall’s husband was killed by the INLA in 1981??
I’m with Cockney – if it’s going to get brought up, then they should say why.
I’d certainly disagree with the sentiment that the fact that the brother was killed shows the SAS as the bad guys. I’d suspect the vast majority of people view the SAS extremely positively – it is the layman’s byword for British Army superiority and professionalism – and would likely read the BBC article and think that the brother was up to no good.
Well, they call themselves the Irish Republican “Army”, so what can they expect from the British Army ?
A reflection on “extra-judicial killings”:
SAS Team Kills IRA Bombers in Gibraltar
It should be pointed out that some experts on counter-terrorism believe that the only way to handle a terrorist is to kill him, thus preventing such actions as hijackings and hostage takings to gain his release. If and when a terrorist is released, he becomes a threat again, often reverting back to savage atrocities that their code condones. Terrorists have no moral dilemma regarding killing soldiers, police and civilians, and thus give up any right to appeal to the same laws which govern the rest of us. Terrorism causes much further damage than just the lives of the innocent being lost; it make otherwise free societies prisons. The elimination of terrorists by soldiers or police ensures that future terrorists will know that their chosen profession will likely lead to a violent end as counter-terrorist units become ever more proficient at their jobs.
It’s all neat and tidy – the man was a terrorist. How do we know this?
You’d be surprised at the amount of information that the RUC/British Army collated on the Bad boys (both sides) during the troubles.
In fact the information gathering capabilities of the C.O.P Platoons would put any paparazzi (never mind the BBC) to shame. The players were known, however so much effort was put into painting terrorists as victims by the likes of the BBC that to the whole world the British Army were painted as an occupying army. It wasn’t, it never was and it left as were the rules it was sent in (by a labour government at that) by that looked at a political solution. Point to note. All terrorists received an exoneration and a get out of jail card , which contrasts somewhat with how the republican families of those killed terrorists. (Sorry altar boys) are demanding that British soldiers are prosecuted for sending their terrorist kin to meet their 49 potatoes. (Before anybody calls me a racist for having a dig at the RA, I find the most attractive females on the planet Irish redheads)
Nice name, but I think you will find the real Aussie Bystander were the two aussie lawyers shot dead by the IRA in Roermond, Netherlands on Sunday 27 May 1990.
It’s always great to have a tame monkey to provide entertainment.
And being an apologist for Al-Beeb you think that endless distractions somehow invalidate the central point.
McBride was a terrorist. End of story. But for the BBC, it’s not even part of the story. THAT, is the issue here. He was killed because he was a terrorist. Can’t you grasp that concept or is it too tricky?
Also, if you have a problem with my spelling of his name as I used it, take it up with his sister. Or the BBC. They use my version.
As to the year this terrorist died, it remains a matter of monumental indifference to me. I’m just pleased there is one less terrorist for the BBC to apologise for.
Please don’t concern yourself over Plett’s weeping over Arafat – we’ll have many more stories of contemporary BBC bias towards Israel to share.
You make a fair point. I am in no way commenting on Patricia McBride. I am commenting on the fact that her brother was an IRA terrorist and she comes from what is known as a “republican” family. Of course there is the issue that her new quango position is down to her brother being an IRA killer, which many of the victims of IRA terrorism here view with incredulity.
Reith: The Belfast Telegraph, Irish Times, RTE, UTV and – as you point out – the the Press Association all mention that he was an IRA man, which is not surprisingly since it’s interesting and adds controversy to the story. It also provides some explanation for why the SAS killed him. To avoid mentioning it is, at the very least, odd.
“Extra-judicial Killing” the implication that this IRA terrorist was summarily executed by the SAS instead of being arrested and brought to justice – Bullshit.
This ‘innocent’ Irish lad had just set a trap for the British Army patrol in the area, setting up a major booby trap in a building and a sizeable land mine on the road leading too it then sending a hoax call to the patrol.
The patrol arrived, but the land mine failed to explode, Irish terrorists were not actually very competent, although they had some spectacular successes.
What happened next is subject to dispute between the two sides but when challenged there was a firefight in which this man was killed as was a British soldier.
As someone else has remarked we know he was a terrorist because his family was proud of what he had done and said so.
I have no views as to whether his sister should or should not have been appointed, but for the BBC to describe him as having been killed by the SAS is only telling a partial truth – they are good at that.
“McBride was a terrorist. End of story. But for the BBC, it’s not even part of the story. THAT, is the issue here.”
Of course it’s not part of the story. Because the story’s not about him. It’s about his sister’s appointment, and the fact that her bro was killed adds a little bit of depth to that appointment. Makes her a victim of what happened.
Leaving out her brother’s background and how he came to meet his depth doesn’t imply some sort of cover-up.
It’s just a corner of an article about an appointment. It’s not corrosive, it doesn’t demean the soldiers, it doesn’t glorify the terrorists.
Ali P: “It’s just a corner of an article about an appointment.”
I’m sorry, but the fact that a key appointment of the power sharing executive ending 35 years of violence in Northern Ireland has gone in part to the sister of an IRA man is newsworthy. It will prove very controversial in certain quarters – presumably why the Irish Times pretty much led with it: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0125/breaking61.htm
“It’s just a corner of an article”. That’s where the worst bbc bias lurks
A lightbulb is but a corner of the room, but it can cast a lot of light.
“It makes it sound so much better than “death squad” or a “shoot-to-kill” policy. ”
Probably a response to the IRA policy of murdering and maiming.
Obviously the “shoot to startle”and “shoot to upset” had failed.
Compare with the little boys who were murdered in Warrington.
Mr Vance, you make a valiant attempt to nail Al-Beeb, the problem with trying to prove bias by omission, is that it leaves plenty of room for argument and obfuscation, as we see from the ever risible Reith. Trying to get someone for something they haven’t said, or proving why they haven’t said it, is hell of a lot more difficult than something they have said. But, bias by omission is ever present with the BBC’s output, it is more insidious and sinister than even their most overt propaganda, simply because of the subtlety and constant use of it. That is why, in court, witnesses are asked to give “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” i.e. don’t bullshit OR miss anything relevant out because that is as bad as lying and deliberately misleading. The BBC gives people the “facts” it wants them to know, rather than the facts they deserve or should know, from omitting to give details of Labour government failure, to not giving representation of views against the EU, Climate Change, against Immigration, in favour of Israel and anything the Conservative Party has to say.
Politicised people, like us, can see this more subtle bias easily, but the BBC knows the average punter won’t see it as the average punter can’t even see the most obvious examples of bias.
Keep fighting the good fight anyway.
As it stands – ‘whose brother was killed by the SAS’ – it is guilty of bias by ommission.
To prove it, consider:
‘whose brother, an IRA member, was killed during a firefight with the SAS.’ Ta daah!
Concise, accurate, unbiased.
What a laugh – “Reith” calls in Wikipedia as his source to back himself up!
Perhaps he/she’s the one who has done the updating?
Anyway Reith, the terrorist’s comrades who commemorate his death “while on active service” spell it McBride:
David Vance | Homepage | 28.01.08 – 3:25 pm
if you have a problem with my spelling of his name as I used it, take it up with his sister. Or the BBC. They use my version.
Heavens, is there nothing you can get right?
Here’s the woman’s own website – MacBride
Here’s the Bloody Sunday Trust, that she works for – MacBride
Here’s the BBC story you originally linked – MacBride again. And here’s another two BBC pages for good measure – MacBride it is.
Now, I don’t want to make too much of spelling, but if you persist in error even when the true facts have been pointed out to you, then no wonder much of what you say is nonsense.
Besides, if you cannot be trusted to get simple things • dates, names etc. right even at the second or third go, then how can you possibly expect to be trusted on important matters of politics or public policy?
It’s only bias by omission of the omitted fact gives the story a different meaning.
Here it doesn’t. Her brother was killed. It’s one reason she would have been appointed. It’s enough for the limited article’s scope surely.
“Besides, if you cannot be trusted to get simple things • dates, names etc. right even at the second or third go, then how can you possibly expect to be trusted on important matters of politics or public policy?”
Typical piece of BBC casuistry,completely illogical and nitpicking at the same time, very Nu Labour.
You know Wreath very way you defend the BBC damns it.Very poor customer relations.
It’s only bias by omission of the omitted fact gives the story a different meaning
Precisely and in this case it does just that. “killed by the SAS” does not lend itself to the interpretation that there was a firefight in which members of both sides perished, but rather to the probability that it was a one sided affair in which a poor little innocent got murdered by the SAS.
There are plenty of ways in which this could have been reported in an unbiased way as indeed Chuffer provides an example.
whose brother, an IRA member, was killed during a firefight with the SAS
Can’t you see the difference? The latter phrase tells the reader that the man referred to was an IRA member and that the death was during a two sided engagement.
If the brother is of no relevance to the story, as some keep claiming, then why mention him at all?
“Furthermore, the nature of her brother’s death – an extra-judicial killing by the SAS – is not something which we should dismiss simply because he was a ‘terrorist’.”
So in future we have to ensure we have a court order or a sentence before we go out looking for the terrorists….. come along and grab an SA80 and pounce and I will show you how to stop a terrorist. We’ll let you use your ridiculous ‘speak to them first and ask them to put down their guns’ approach first of course! 😎
Tell you what. The IRA/Sinn Fein are screaming for the whole conflict to be declared a war and they can then claim their lot of murderous thugs were soldiers defending their community. Forget the fact that the IRA killed more Catholics than the Prods ever did. Oh and if it IS declared a war can we expect to see (a) the BBC charged for giving aid and propaganda support to the enemies of the state (ie the IRA/SF) and (b) Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness amongst others charged with war crimes namely fighting in civilian clothes, murdering and using civilians as shields whilst attacking the State in the form of the Armed Forces of the Crown many of whom were Catholics themselves?
At the end of the day the fact that the sister of a known IRA terrorist who was shot dead during a firefight with Forces of the State IS an IMPORTANT part of the whole story and to leave it out is to try and frame the story in a sympathetic and not wholly factual way.
I’m a bloody victim and a member of the NI Victims Advocacy Group which meets at the Peace Centre in Warrington but I see no help or sympathy coming from little Miss daughter of an IRA man, sister of another! But then few of the British Army have actually been given the funding and support that the IRA/SF UDA/UVF etc have…
You could equate this whole sorry matter to Hitler’s sister being put in charge of restitutions to Jewish survivors of the death camps which is what the BBC should be reporting rather than trying to support the very people whose families killed and maimed.
off topic maybe but the bigger worry seems to me that £33m of tax payers money looks set to be investigating the death of “victims” of the troubles with the usual supects in charge of the cash…
is McBRride, MacBride whatever , a “victim”.
will the irish equivalent of lee jasper be handing out the cash ?
“investigating the death of “victims” of the troubles ” but I bet they won’t be bothered about the Army or Prod deaths, just the poor old Catholics, especially those so called soldiers of the revolution who died trying to murder little old ladies and children rather than face the Army like real men. And the IRA are acclaimed as heroes?
As a Catholic one thing I am really peed about and which caused me to not bother going into a church since 1979 (after the 2nd of many NI tours) is the way the Church in many ways actively supported the terrorists. We had several priests who were infamous for always rolling up and claiming Army brutality for arresting (rather than shooting) terrorists when it was yet another half cocked attack by the IRA that caused the casualties on the civilian side. Thanks to some in the media and their Labour supporters the IRA won the propaganda war but lost the real one. Bit like Vietnam all over again!
The charge against the BBC is that leaving out this fact gives a bias to the article. But really just gives it more depth. It could say much, much more, but can you really say that this omission of this fact gives the article a different meaning? It’s just a note about four appointments.
Arthur Dent “If the brother is of no relevance to the story, as some keep claiming, then why mention him at all?”
He is relevant, because it gives Patricia M’Bride direct experience of losing someone in an untimely manner. Knowing why he died undoubtedly adds greater knowledge, but it’s not really relevant to reporting her appointment. Which, after all, is what the article’s about.
“Victims Commissioners” created by the Northern Ireland devolved administration we read about Patricia McBride “whose brother was killed by the SAS.”
If you cannot see the emotive connotation in the juxtaposition of “Victim Commissioner” and “whose brother was killed by the SAS”
You are either being disingenuous or naive
Congratulations, you win pedant of the day!
Just one teensy weensy problem – the BBC PAGE which I used for this entire post spells her name McBride!! Don’t tell us the BBC is misleading us again…??
Next time there is an Islamist terror attack in the UK, I am sure there will be a Commission set up to deal with the problems of the victims. Do you think that if a sister of an Al Queda bomber was appointed to that commission, it would add to “depth” of the BBC report if the Al Queda was absent? Really???
Appreciate your excellent comments.
We had several priests who were infamous for always rolling up and claiming Army brutality for arresting (rather than shooting) terrorists when it was yet another half cocked attack by the IRA that caused the casualties on the civilian side.
dave t | 28.01.08 – 8:24 pm |
Well, not that it is very relevant to this thread, but Irish Catholic priests, didn’t exactly have a stellar record before 70’s either. For example, they facilitated dozens of WW2 war criminals from Catholic Nazi Croatia to escape and never face trial:
Another Nazi to take advantage of the soft approach of the Irish government was Andrija Artukovic, who was responsible for the death of 1m people in Croatia. Cathal O’Shannon, who has researched Ireland’s treatment of the Nazis after 1945, has discovered that there is a file on Artukovic in the Department of Foreign Affairs but the government has refused to release it.
Victims in Artukovic’s camps died from a mixture of hard labour, starvation and poisoning. He had a particular penchant for poisoning children and enjoyed having his picture taken with dead bodies.
Artukovic worked for Hitler as the minister for the interior in Croatia. He arrived in Ireland in 1947 after being referred by a Franciscan church in Switzerland and lived under the assumed name Alois Annick in Rathgar, south Dublin.
But all is forgotten very quickly. Bitterness is an emotion only allowed when you are a “victim” as defined by the Left. The rest of us are expected to behave like grown ups and swallow it all.
By gum, David Vance, please keep it up. That Reith is a slippery customer for sure and likes to maintain a veneer of unflappability but, hey, you’ve got him rattled. Splendid work!
By the way, he never, EVER answers points which don’t suit him (except to say “Oh, that may have been a programming glitch on the website” or some such so don’t hold out too much hope).
They all know they’re biased but they cannot admit it because that would spoil the effect and also jeopardise what is, after all, a rather splendid gravy train for the idle left.
Amazing Reith finds so much time in his busy BBC day to correct spelling errors on this blog, and yet absolutely no time whatsoever to correct those same errors on the BBC web site.
Money well spent, isn’t he?
Meanwhile, some brotherly love, BBC will make sure to omit:
RAFAH, Egypt, Jan 28 (Reuters) – Armed Egyptian Bedouin opened fire in the air to warn away Palestinians, highlighting growing anger over food shortages and price rises triggered by the breaching of the border wall with Gaza, witnesses said.
The confrontation in the town of al-Joura occurred as residents on the Egyptian side of the border said shops had run out of goods since hundreds of thousands of Palestinians poured into Egypt when Hamas militants blew up the wall last week.
“The stores are empty and what is available is so expensive,” said Youssef Ali, a Bedouin in the divided border town of Rafah. “The Bedouin are poor. The income of many Bedouin is not more than $30 a month.”
The Islamist Hamas group, which controls the Gaza Strip, breached the wall so the territory’s 1.5 million people could stock up on food in short supply due to an Israeli blockade. Israel tightened it in response to cross-border rocket attacks.
But the emptying of shop shelves and a block by Cairo on new supplies has prompted thousands of Palestinians to go home since Sunday, with some saying it was now easier to shop in Gaza than in Egypt.
” David Gregory (BBC):
HSLD: Maybe he talks to people who can enter into reasoned debate rather than resorting to violence? ”
I’m sure that’s the case with the media dinner party set in London, but I’m afraid I look at life through the unreconstructed eyes of a member of what was formerly known as the ‘decent working class’ where sneering insults are usually followed by fisticuffs.
Clash of civilisations and all that.
‘whose brother, an IRA member, was killed during a firefight with the SAS.’
*Is* concise, accurate and neutral.
Surely BBC posters would agree that this is actually a better, more informative description?
And the missing words from the BBC article are…
“…and whose father died 17 months after being shot by loyalists”
That’s the bit that YOU missed. Why?
And what is the problem with Patricia McBride exactly? Is she a victim or not? Should she have a halo or not? Does the brother in the IRA negate the father killed by loyalists? Is there a sliding scale for victimhood? Exactly how far removed from people who were either killed or killers should she be? Did she choose to be related to either of these people? Did her brother in the IRA apply for an IRA special discount family membership that included her? Where did she apply for the victimhood card?
Perverted history makes perverted historians like you David.
Northern Ireland is filled with people either claiming victimhood or being villified for being a victim when none of them wanted to be a victim of anything still less a sectarian conflict stretching back into the mists of time that no-one can be anything other than a victim even if its the perverted victimhood of “he hit me back first”, school playground style.
Northern Ireland is filled with perverted historians all with their own potted history of why they are the victim and the other lot is to blame. And if anyone from the outside points this all out, watch the shit fly as accusations are made that they support one set of sectarian bigots over another.
There is no reason why Patricia McBride cannot serve on that committee any more than anyone else in Northern Ireland. The place is so small that everyone is related to some bigoted arsehole somewhere. Where does the victimhood begin? First cousin? Second? Third? Just how far does the plague of victim versus perpertrator go? Next door neighbour? Lives in the same “community”?
If Paisley and McGuiness had wanted people without perceived sectarian biases they would have chosen four atheists. But then, would they be catholic atheists or protestant atheists?
We want an explanation David. The BBC is clearly biased, but its not the only organization or individual suffering from purblind bigotry failing to give the whole story. Look in the mirror, David.