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.
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.
Aussie Bystander | 29.01.08 – 5:21 am
Remind me – exactly which organisation is charter bound to be impartial?
Aussie Bystander: 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.
No, because the fact that her father was killed by loyalist terrorists doesn’t make her appointment controversial. The fact that her brother was an IRA man definitely does. Which – again – was why every single Irish report of this story that I’ve been able to find mentioned it.
You may be right, that there is “no reason why Patricia McBride cannot serve on that committee any more than anyone else in Northern Ireland”, but there is equally no reason I can think of why a journalist would choose not to report a fact that is obviously of interest. The argument on this board pretty much proves that point.
Apart from anything else to write that the SAS killed her brother, does lead the reader to wonder why. It was a report on a website, after all, so they’re restricted by space.
…or rather NOT restricted by space.
Aussie Bystander | 29.01.08 – 5:21 am |
There is no reason why Patricia McBride cannot serve on that committee any more than anyone else in Northern Ireland
Perhaps you are unaware but the terrorists in NI were/are more criminal gangs than political parties. It is a moot point as to which was seen by them as their primary function. They were/are often associated groups of criminal families in a similiar mannar to the Mafia.
Having a member of one of these criminal families on the commitee is an insult to the true victims of the conflict.
Ali P.
“losing someone in an untimely manner”
What precisely is “untimely” about a terrorist getting killed while engaged in carrying out an attack?
David Vance 28.01.08 – 9:01 pm
Just one teensy weensy problem – the BBC PAGE which I used for this entire post spells her name McBride!!
But it doesn’t.
I pointed this out to you yesterday and gave you a helpful link.
Here it is again:
The others are Patricia MacBride, whose brother was killed by the SAS..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7212044.stm
It is not I who is being pedantic. You first raised the spelling issue in your sarky observation:
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?
You got that wrong just as you got nearly every fact wrong not only in this thread but on the Plett/Arafat one too.
I am not complaining about your initial errors. Everyone makes mistakes and someone as prolix as you is bound to be pressed for time. But if you will not admit them when they’re pointed out you come across like someone whose idea of winning an argument is to exhibit invincible ignorance.
dmatr | 29.01.08 – 2:29 am |
Surely BBC posters would agree that this {Chuffer’s suggestion} is actually a better, more informative description?
Yes, but there’s a problem.
As commenters above have pointed out, there are conflicting accounts of the circumstances of MacBride’s death.
Wikipedia sums it up as follows:
According to the republican sources, when he approached the car, two Special Air Service (SAS) soldiers got out and commanded him to halt and drop his gun. Mac Giolla Bhrighde, who was unarmed, informed the SAS of this and then one of the SAS men stepped forward and shot him on his left side. He was then handcuffed and shot dead.
However, according to CAIN there was a gun battle at the scene of the attempted bombing, between a number of IRA men and British troops in which Mac Giolla Bhrighde was killed. Andy McNab a former SAS soldier, also supports this view in his book Immediate Action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde
So, if the BBC is to abide by its guidelines on impartiality, is is obliged to give both of these conflicting accounts if it gets into the issue of MacBride’s death?
Or, can the BBC fall back on the accurate but somewhat evasive
killed by the SAS in disputed circumstances. Or, if Tony MacBride himself is not the focus of the story (rather his sister is), is it better not to ‘go there’ at all?
Some would argue that the version given by ‘republican sources’ is no more deserving of credence, or even an airing, than the rantings of 9/11 troofers or Holocaust deniers.
But how does one square that with the fact that the Republican Movement is now part of Northern Ireland’s government?
All these questions are worth debating • both inside the BBC and more widely • but they are not questions that a news sub at 6.30 in the morning, charged with putting out a newsflash about an upcoming announcement can be expected to resolve on the fly.
The BBC have now updated the story to read: “…Patricia MacBride, whose brother was killed by the SAS and whose father died 17 months after being shot by loyalists…” However, still no mention of the IRA membership – not important.
Meanwhile, in the real world: FAMILIES Acting for Innocent Relatives has threatened to withdraw its cooperation from the new Victims’ Commission on the same day it was formally unveiled to the Assembly.
FAIR says it will pull out if those killed while engaged in paramilitary activity are put on a par with innocent civilians.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Outrage-over-all-victims-are.3719283.jp
Reith: “All these questions are worth debating…” but none of them answer why the BBC could not simply state he was a member of the IRA.
Hugh | 29.01.08 – 12:11 pm
The Northern Ireland Executive Press Office has now issued a backgrounder on Patricia MacBridewhich says the following:
Her brother was an IRA volunteer who was killed by the SAS whilst on active service in 1984.
Imagine the reaction of David Vance if the BBC had employed that particular locution!
Hugh | 29.01.08 – 12:11 pm |
The Northern Ireland Executive Press Office has now issued a backgrounder on Patricia Macbride, which says:
Her brother was an IRA volunteer who was killed by the SAS whilst on active service in 1984.
Imagine David Vance’s reaction if the BBC had employed that particular locution!
I’m not entirely convinced you’ve addressed my point.
Hugh:
“Having a member of one of these criminal families on the commitee is an insult to the true victims of the conflict.”
I repeat again because there’s no answer:
“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”?”
So unless you believe in blood guilt, there’s no reason to reject Patrica MacBride on the grounds of her family background.
But this is Northern Ireland, and history gets perverted by sectarianism.
Oh and one more thing from an Anonymous Coward:
“Remind me – exactly which organisation is charter bound to be impartial?”
That would be the BBC. But if you’re going to criticize the BBC for being biased, better get the beam out of your own eye. As far as I can see, there’s a whole forest in there.
“Having a member of one of these criminal families on the commitee is an insult to the true victims of the conflict.”
I didn’t say that; The Fat Contractor did.
Hugh | 29.01.08 – 12:50 pm |
“Having a member of one of these criminal families on the commitee is an insult to the true victims of the conflict.”
I didn’t say that; The Fat Contractor did.
And I stand by it. The fact that this woman is a politically active Rebublican speaks volumes.
“Remind me – exactly which organisation is charter bound to be impartial?”
That would be the BBC. But if you’re going to criticize the BBC for being biased, better get the beam out of your own eye. As far as I can see, there’s a whole forest in there.
Aussie Bystander | 29.01.08 – 12:43 pm”
AB – I note your quoting with licence the Lord Jesus Christ and respect your Christian views (obviously you are a Christian, you would not be hypocritically quoting something about hypocrites if you were not yourself one of his followers surely).
I am afraid in this case however you are very wrong, you do not seem to understand the legal situation; or perhaps it is a confusion of yours between the situation in Australia and the United Kingdom, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, it would be a very good thing if those calling for removal of bias were themselves lacking in that bias but however desireable it is in effect irrelevant.
There is no compunction at all on anyone including those contributing to B-BBC to have any such views.
They are at liberty to hold and pursue their views however biased.
Only the BBC are forced by charter to be unbiased and anyone can attempt to ensure they are that even if they themselves are bias in many ways.
The rules for the BBC are strict, but they have the priveleged position of being the Brtish state broadcaster and if they wish to remain as such it comes with the territory.
John Reith,
I understand that BBC Northern Ireland’s former cheif political editor went to head up the Northern Ireland Executive Office. Maybe that’s why an IRA terrorist is described as a “volunteer”?
But then again, I’m sure you know that, right? 😉
Try harder.
John Reith:
As commenters above have pointed out, there are conflicting accounts of the circumstances of MacBride’s death.
Yes there are – but you are being disingenuous. The IRA say one thing and the SAS via Andy McNab say another. But that’s not the full story.
The SAS’s version of events is supported by CAIN, an academic research project, as the wikipedia article you cite points out.
Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde (27) Catholic
Status: Irish Republican Army (IRA), Killed by: British Army (BA)
Shot during gun battle between undercover British Army (BA) unit and Irish Republican Army (IRA) unit, near Kesh, County Fermanagh.
Even ignoring CAIN, it is indisputable that a firefight did take place that night and that Tony MacBride was an active IRA member. So however you/the BBC prefer to look at these events, a better, more informative, neutral description supported by the information available would be:
‘whose brother, an IRA member, was killed during a firefight with the SAS’…
I do accept that this would not be seen as a neutral description by people who take a “moral equivalence”-based, “no such thing as truth” political stance. But the BBC is supposed to be objective, it is not supposed to take a political stance.
John Reith:
Or, if Tony MacBride himself is not the focus of the story (rather his sister is), is it better not to ‘go there’ at all?
The BBC article already “goes there” and the background info is essential in understanding why Ms MacBride was appointed. The current wording is open to mis-interpretation due to the words deliberately omitted.
dmatr | 29.01.08 – 3:46 pm
I don’t particularly disagree with you. But you have not addressed my point about the circumstances of this story.
Something comes in overnight or in the early hours of the morning. The BBC puts out a very brief newsflash type story.
I don’t know whether the BBC story is based on the PA story I reproduced above. Or maybe both are based on a press release or a phone call from the NI Executive. Whatever – neither has the IRA detail.
I don’t expect the news sub handling it to go around investigating the terrorist record of someone who just happens to be mentioned in it.
And I certainly don’t believe David Vance’s fruitcake conspiracy theory that a bunch of senior BBC executives got up in the middle of the night and fiddled with the copy in a deliberate plot to keep the world in ignorance of which particular terrorist outfit MacBride had been a member of.
“Everyone makes mistakes and someone as prolix as you is bound to be pressed for time. But if you will not admit them when they’re pointed out you come across like someone whose idea of winning an argument is to exhibit invincible ignorance.”
At last, Reith gets a taste of his own medicine.
This is what everyone has been saying about you for years Reith. How you have the nerve to make such a statement without seeing the remotest irony proves what a pigheaded arrogant tosspot you really are.
“According to the republican sources, when he approached the car, two Special Air Service (SAS) soldiers got out and commanded him to halt and drop his gun. Mac Giolla Bhrighde, who was unarmed, informed the SAS of this and then one of the SAS men stepped forward and shot him on his left side. He was then handcuffed and shot dead.
However, according to CAIN there was a gun battle at the scene of the attempted bombing, between a number of IRA men and British troops in which Mac Giolla Bhrighde was killed. Andy McNab a former SAS soldier, also supports this view in his book Immediate Action.”
Well given the, how shall we say, ‘exuberant embellishing’ of McNab’s book “Bravo Two Zero” and my old CO’s opinion of him (Former Director Special Forces and COS SAS) I’m inclined to put him at the bottom of the heap for credible witnesses.
CAIN however is the bees knees, dogs testicles etc as it strives mightily to remain impartial and reports the facts as they are known. (Indeed they could be a good role model for the BBC!)
If you look further you will see
“An undercover British soldier, believed to be a member of the Special Air Service (SAS), and a member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) were killed in an exchange of gun fire near Kesh, County Fermanagh.”
Funy how the Republicans don’t mention that a SAS soldier was also killed which is normally cause for rejoicing for them. Also that the IRA man was a member of the Irish Army (the real one not the pretendy terrorist one) whilst at the same time carrying out terrorist attacks as a member of an IRA ASU. Introduced to militant republicanism by his granny!
And another point is that the other brother is a Sinn Fein Member.
“On 29 January 2007, Sinn Féin member Lughaidh Mac Giolla Bhrighde, a younger brother of Mac Giolla Bhrighde, voted against giving the leadership the power to participate in the province’s policing and justice structures”
So one year on the sister of a hard line SF man, of a dead IRA man and grand-daughter of a mad IRA member from the 1920s takes a job worth 65K, with influence on the way resources are given out to “victims” and the BBC by NOT reporting the WHOLE story does not let people make up their own minds about the suitability of this appointment?
As pounce would say…yer aving a giraffe!
“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.”
Aussie Bystander.
Let’s see. Two IRA men steal a car, fill it with 9 beer kegs and explosive and set it up as a trap for an Army patrol. The bomb fails to go off and a SAS patrol then intercept the terrorists and a battle ensues during which one IRA boy gets slotted and the other drowns fleeing the scene. However a member of 22 SAS Ali Slater is also killed. So which IRA man killed him then? After all the Republicans who never lie (/end sarcasm) claim their boy (a trained professional Irish Army soldier unlike most IRA) was unarmed and arrested, handcuffed and shot….
So Mr Aussie Bystander
1. As an aside one of my mates was the first Australian RSM of my Highland battalion. (Yeah another Catholic by the way) Shot in NI as a young Corporal in the COP, he fought back to fitness and carried on with his career. I prefer to think of him being a good example of an Australian citizen than the likes of you with your pathetic whinging about courts and arresting terrorists who are trying to initiate a bomb attack without warning.
2. Can we expect the same degree of liberal wishy washy sympathy were we to try and arrest all the bad guys and put them in front of a judge even though it might cost us thousands of lives to do so? Those who live by the sword die by the sword. Except in the IRA’s case (and the UVF etc) they were ALL cowards who did not face their so called enemies but always attacked from the back, hiding behind civilians who often died as a result of their bombs and shootings not by Army bullets. The fact that so many terrorists WERE arrested and charged then jailed (only to be released by this shameful Labour government) is testimony to the professionalism and sacrifice of the Armed Forces, and the Police as well as those citizens who risked life and limb to help the elected government.
The first time I ever heard the phrase ‘Human Rights Lawyer’ was on a BBC broadcast.
Did it refer to the greedy ******** who today milk the Human Rights Act for all they can?
No it was BBC double-plus unspeak for ‘Lawyer who specialises in defending provo terrorists’.
Third-rate news organisation back then, and waddayaknow, still a third-rate news organisation today.
Only the BBC are forced by charter to be unbiased and anyone can attempt to ensure they are that even if they themselves are bias in many ways.
Hannah M | 29.01.08 – 2:31 pm | #
This is not the case Hannah – all broadcast TV news in the UK is required, by law, to be impartial.
Sky, C4, C5, ITN, whichever.
If it’s not OK to mention that the woman’s brother was in the IRA why is it OK to mention that he was killed by the SAS. Why mention the unit? Why mention the Army at all? Double standards?
The Belfast Telegraph today helpfully explains why the fact her brother was in the IRA is an important point (please forgive the long extract):
“Even before they start working, the constituent elements of the four-person team perform one useful service: they clarify who can be seen as a victim. The original Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 declared a victim to be ” someone who has been bereaved as a result of or in consequence of a conflict-related incident”. An open and inclusive definition for sure. So a victim might be the widow of an RUC officer or a UDR soldier killed by the IRA, but equally it might be the widow of an IRA man shot dead by loyalists or the British Army, or the two acting in collusion. Any narrower interpretation of the Order seemed impossible.
But that was before October 2005. That’s when Peter Hain appointed Bertha McDougal as interim Victims Commissioner, and in doing so he gave a heavy hint that the definition of victim had changed. Mrs McDougal, it emerged, was the widow of a police reservist killed by the INLA. Regardless of her personal integrity, her appointment by Hain made clear that those whose loved ones had died while serving in the police or the British Army were victims, but placed a large question mark over the application of the term to those whose loved ones had died while involved in paramilitary activity. A court ruling condemned Mrs McDougal’s appointment as “improper and politically motivated”.
This week’s appointment of four commissioners appears to have corrected that error – or rather, the inclusion of Patricia MacBride has. Ms MacBride’s father Frank died after an attack by loyalists and her brother Tony was an IRA volunteer shot dead by the SAS. Her inclusion makes clear that the interests of all victims, unionist and republican, will be addressed by the commission.
Her republican background provides a counter-weight to Mrs McDougal’s unionism, with Messrs McAllister and Nesbitt adding a liberal (and male) nationalist/unionist colouring.”
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/article3384986.ece
Can we take it that Aussie Bystander is him/herself a Special Forces veteran? That s/he has been on many a brave patrol in Ulster, and that whenever s/he came upon an IRA member just about to murder civilians (but forced by circumstances to point a gun at actually armed men who surprised him/her in the act), rather than shoot first at the murdering gangster just about to kill him/her, s/he put down his/her rifle, pulled out a pair of handcuffs and said: “You are under arrest. You don’t have to say anything, but anything you say may be taken down and used in evidence”?
Wow. I am impressed.
Sprogget: ‘Extra-judicial killing’? What unmitigated rot.
IRA = vile, civilian-murdering scum, but THEY claimed to be an ‘army’. If they are an army, they can expect to be shot at by SOLDIERS when they go out to murder. Simple, really (well, assuming one can follow basic logic).
How about Wraith spending some time correcting the many errors concerning Middle East history on the Al Beeb website (all of them with an underlying or indeed blatant anti-Israel bias – bet you are all very surprised to hear this).
“IRA = vile, civilian-murdering scum, but THEY claimed to be an ‘army’. If they are an army, they can expect to be shot at by SOLDIERS when they go out to murder. Simple, really (well, assuming one can follow basic logic).”
Geneva Convention applies if they WERE an Army so let us charge Gerry Adams et al with multiple war crimes…
“let us charge Gerry Adams et al with multiple war crimes” – if this were a society truly based on law, this would have been done long since, yes.
I don’t know how much time you’ve spent in the Forces, Aussie Bystander, but there’s no such thing as a ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy.
For the very simple reason that soldiers never shoot to do anything else.
No one in the history of small arms conflict has ever shot at opposing forces with the express intention of wounding them.
“No one in the history of small arms conflict has ever shot at opposing forces with the express intention of wounding them”
You’re kidding, surely.
A “shoot to kill” may well be nonsense terminology in the NI context.
But wounding, rather than killing soldiers certainly is a tactical objective. An injured soldier requiring medical attention, resources and assistance from others and sapping attention away from fighting can be far more effective for the opposition than a dead one.
Nope, not possible, p. It may, of course, be a by-product of shooting at someone that you only wound them • thus tying up valuable resources and, as you rightly point out, this can be very effective.
But as a deliberate tactic employed during a firefight? No way.
I have to confess that on at least one occasion I only wounded the bad guy but my glasses had fallen off my nose whilst running…sorry. 8-(