The role of the media in general and the BBC in particular in perpetuating the malignancy of the Northern Ireland “peace process” cannot be sufficiently emphasised. The British Government has relied heavily on the BBC to retail the idea across the world that placing bloodthirsty terrorists in positions of power is a good idea if it helps buy peace! It’s a Chamberlain-scale act of appeasement that has necessitated the full power of the State broadcaster to help convince the gullible and wavering. Today the BBC reports, matter of factly, that Martin McGuinness – the Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly – has stated that he would like to have killed every British soldier in Londonderry in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday, if he had had the opportunity. Now there are three obvious questions that strike me an intrepid BBC journalist would want to ask Mr McGuinness.
1. Given that he was, by his own admission, an IRA terrorist before and after the events of January 30th 1972, how many soldiers did he in fact kill?
2. Given the many murders of innocent civilians in Londonderry during his tenure as an IRA warlord, how many of those deaths did he oversee?
3. Given this admission of murderous intent, in what way is he suitable to hold ANY office?
You’ll not be surprised to know that none of these questions have been posed by the BBC. Nor will they. You see what has happened in Northern Ireland – the installation of terrorists in the very highest spheres of government – is a victory for the left-wing mindset epitomised by the BBC. Can you imagine the furore the BBC would have created if, in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings in London, Tony Blair had declared he wanted to kill every Islamist in the United Kingdom? The BBC has shilled for the IRA for decades now, and shows a serial sense of immorality and journalistic bias.
The BBC could have asked about the two little boys murdered by the IRA in Warrington Hardly soldiers were they?
Yes it is a victory for the perverted mindset at the BBC. well said
Years of indoctrination in our universities after the vietnam protest era has resulted in this mindset amongst those who hold power in the BBC.
The gramscian long march through Britain’s institutions is frighteningly plain for all to see.
Those who did not “benefit” from university education are now perhaps the voices of sanity in the UK.
quote.Post Vietnam.
‘By the late 1970s, there was enough of a critical mass of ideologically-driven academics that they began to amass power within academic institutions. By controlling hiring committees, they were able to ensure that their colleagues were as ‘ideologically pure’ as they were. And by attaining power within school administrations, they were able to institute policies such as speech codes that tried to ensure that same ideological purity from their students. By the mid-1980s, we started seeing political correctness dictate the intellectual environment on campuses, and people started facing academic retribution for saying things that were ‘incorrect’ and for thinking things that ran counter to the dominant thinking. Groupthink set in, and the group became more extreme in the conformity that it demanded from people.”
God, this is refreshing.
How typical for the Boibeeds to shill for a process that has brought about such a despicable result – the end to years of bloody mayhem, assassinations, bombings and sectarian rioting.
Ten years of peace and growing normality in Ulster? We spit on it.
And how right of David Vance to make the analogy between Sinn Fein, which secured more than 26% of the popular vote in the last Assembly Elections, and the 7/7 Bombers, who represent, er, no-one.
A curse on those who describe Vance as a poisonous throwback to the days of Irish sectarianism.
David, we’re with you, bowler hats and rolled-up brollies at the ready.
Biased BBC: Orange Is The Colour
Hillhunt,
You’re really not with the bother but just for your benefit;
Biased BBC; Opposing terrorism is the colour.
But them, as a moral degenerate, that’s beyond you.
Just as there was peace in Vietnam after the Americans left.
Vance:
Moral degenerate?
How kind of you. And on such compelling evidence, too…
Once again you show how gracefully you fit within Ulster loyalism’s worldwide reputation for tolerance, humanity and all-round bonhomie. Let’s leave the pinch-faced Biblical literalism and tribal nastiness to the others…
Biased BBC: The Red Hand Gang
Ten years of peace and growing normality in Ulster?
Indeed, that is the result you would expect if the terrorists win.
“Once again you show how gracefully you fit within Ulster loyalism’s worldwide reputation for tolerance, humanity and all-round bonhomie.”
“Moral degenerate” was said,no doubt, in the spirit of tolerance and humanity,more in sadness than anger I should imagine.As for bonhomie,it was probably typed with a smile.
Interesting to note how those who apologise for the BBC have such a problem opposing terrorism. Instructive, I would add.
Don’t forget “Radical Impartiality.” That was a laugh riot.
I’ve got it on pretty good authority that McGuiness and Adams ( amongst others ) have been given Section 5 licenses to possess a handgun for self protection purposes.
It’s a little bit ironic, considering that the vetting procedure for civilians who want to own a shotgun, target or hunting rifle is such that even a minor criminal conviction can get their application rejected.
“I’ve got it on pretty good authority that McGuiness and Adams ( amongst others ) have been given Section 5 licenses to possess a handgun for self protection purposes.”
Interesting since they regards themselves as foreigners.
Hillhunt says “peace in our time”?
Ulster is still suffering the ‘tender mercies’ of the drug dealing,kneecap shooting(or black&decker drill),baseball bat beating,protection rackets,political corruption,anti protestant spite,vote rigging,special treatment based on religion and to (knee)cap it all the republicans are still undermining the rule of law to protect the PIRA thugs as they go about their criminal activity.
The ‘peace’ process has only bought off the PIRA by appeasement and surrender.
Hillhunt must be very pleased that the thousands of innocent victims of the PIRA have been forgotten, I suppose Hillhunt thinks these victims are to blame?
Blame the victim and praise the terrorists/criminals? Its what the left do(best)
Bringing up the BBC’s support for terrorism always results in a hysterical reaction from the likes of Hillhunt, Reith etc. Keep at it, Vance – they don’t like it up ’em!
I wonder if Hillhunt would be so keen on the PIRA if he had to shovel the butchered remains(and I do mean butchered)into buckets? rib cages, internal organs etc of women and children all mixed up in a sludge! I wonder if Hillhunt would also be quite so starry eyed if he had to vist the relatives of the bomb/shooting/torture victims? I further wonder if Hillhunt would be quite so keen on the PIRA ‘freedom fighters’ if he had to pick up torture victims dumped at the side of the road? Or go out everyday onto the sreets of Belfast thinking that you may well be gunned down in cold blood?
There are thousands of us who still struggle with the nightmare of Ulster.
It seems the only people to have benefited are the terrorists? Oh well, thats the reality of appeasement isnt it?
I suppose in the end even I wouldnt want Hillhunt to see those things but I do know that the romantic image of the PIRA is a fantasy that the likes of Hillhunt cling onto simply because they will never see the grubby reality.
I have some sympathy for the distaste David Vance feels seeing former terrorists in high political office.
But he fails to mention that it was not the BBC or even the British Government that put them there.
The Good Friday agreement was endorsed by a referendum in which all the people of NI had a say.
The elections which put these men into a position to share power were free, fair and properly conducted.
All of the serious political parties agreed to it. And the terrorists’ partner in the current set-up is Ian Paisley, who’s shown himself no slouch over the years in defending the interests of his own people.
If it is a squalid ‘appeasement’ – then don’t blame Britain or the BBC. The people of Northern Ireland can’t evade responsibility by blaming outsiders.
The adolescent rebellious attitudes of many BBC journalists on subjects like the IRA, Cuba, Che, the US and Israel don’t worry me at all. I just hate having to pay for such immature ‘analysis’ and bias just because I want to use a TV to watch football on Sky sports.
I don’t need educating and informing by the BBC, just as I don’t need its appalling entertainment such as Eastenders.
“The Good Friday agreement was endorsed by a referendum in which all the people of NI had a say.”
I do remember somebody writing (by his own hand) that there would be no terrorists in government, full disarmament by terrorist groups etc. all lauded by the BBC. Ian Paisley snr (pre-Chuckle Brothers and increased income) correctly called the guy a liar when he reneged – the guy being Tony Blair who has ‘achieved’ Clintonian levels of mendacity.
Allan@Oslo | 25.02.08 – 8:37 am
there would be no terrorists in government
and there wouldn’t have been if the David Vances of this world had given Trimble and Mallon a break.
They only have themselves to blame.
Pete 8.18
Quite agree. I don’t see why I should pay the BBC to peddle juvenile political propaganda which I fundamentally disagree with.
On their childish support for terrorists, I would include the PKK, which the BBC, without any sense of humour or irony, frequently describes as a “separatist group” !
Let’s shill for some other terrorists while we’re at it and see if the wretched Vance manages to actually explode with indignation:
Nelson Mandela (Wikipedia):
“In 1961, Mandela became the leader of the ANC’s armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated as Spear of the Nation, also abbreviated as MK), which he co-founded. He coordinated a sabotage campaign against military and government targets, and made plans for a possible guerrilla war if sabotage failed to end apartheid. A few decades later, MK did wage a guerrilla war against the regime, especially during the 1980s, in which many civilians were killed. Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad, and arranged for paramilitary training, visiting various African governments.”
“Mandela explains the move to embark on armed struggle as a last resort, when increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had achieved nothing and could not succeed.”
“Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, and has sharply criticised attempts by parts of his party to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.”
Shockingly, following a campaign orchestrated by left wingers at the BBC, they made him President of South Africa.
Manachem Begin (Wikipedia):
“Begin quickly made a name for himself as a fierce critic of mainstream Zionist leadership as being too cooperative with British ‘colonialism’, and as a proponent of guerrilla tactics against the British as a necessary means to achieve independence. In 1942 he joined the Irgun (Etzel), an underground militant Zionist group which had split from the Jewish military organization, the Haganah, in 1931. In 1944 Begin assumed the organization’s leadership, determined to force the British government to remove its troops entirely from Palestine. Claiming that the British had reneged on their original promise of the Balfour Declaration, and that the White Paper of 1939 restricting Jewish immigration was an escalation of their pro-Arab policy, he decided to break with the Haganah, which continued to cooperate militarily with the British as long as they were fighting Nazi Germany. Soon after he assumed command, a formal ‘Declaration of Revolt’ was publicized, and armed attacks against British forces were initiated.”
Begin issued a call to arms and from 1944•48 the Irgun launched an all-out armed rebellion, perpetrating hundreds of attacks against British installations and posts. Begin financed these operations by extorting money from Zionist businessmen, and running bogus robbery scams in the local diamond industry, which enabled the victims to get back their losses from insurance companies.”
“For several months in 1945•46, the Irgun’s activities were coordinated within the framework of the Hebrew Resistance Movement under the direction of the Haganah, however this fragile partnership collapsed following the Irgun’s bombing of the British administrative headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people, *including* *British* *officers* and troops as well as Arab and Jewish civilians.”
He didn’t exactly respect our “warrior class” did he, David?
…”The British Security Service MI5 placed a ‘dead-or-alive’ bounty of £10,000 on his head after Irgun threatened ‘a campaign of terror against British officials’, saying they would kill Sir John Shaw, Britain’s Chief Secretary in Palestine. An MI5 agent codenamed Snuffbox also warned that Irgun had sleeper cells in London trying to kill members of British Prime Minister Clement Attlee’s Cabinet.”
…but after a campaign orchestrated by left wingers at the BBC, he became the 6th Prime Minister of Israel.
George Washington (Wikipedia):
“Washington was chosen to be the commander-in-chief of the American revolutionary forces in 1775. The following year, he forced the British out of Boston, but was defeated when he lost New York City later that year. He revived the patriot cause, however, by crossing the Delaware River in New Jersey and defeating the surprised enemy units. As a result of his strategy, Revolutionary forces captured the two main British combat armies — Saratoga and Yorktown.”
..hmmm no respecter of the British “warrior class” either. I wonder why?
Never mind, because after a campaign by leftwingers by the BBC, George Washington was retroactively made first President of the USA.
There’s lots more former terrorists who became statesmen, but when we’re talking about an obsessive sectarian bigot like David Vance, no actual facts matter.
Oh and for the other intellectual midgets, please yawn and stretch and tell me how much wear your scroll wheel is having. Because that’s better than arguing with inconvenient historical realities, isn’t it?
“Because that’s better than arguing with inconvenient historical realities, isn’t it?”
Yes, it would appear to be on a blog that’s dedicated to Bias at the BBC. In this and other comments you seem entirely incapable of distinguishing between the subject of a report, and whether the report itself adequately reflects the range of opinion that exists.
Should we forget about Martin McGuinness’s background and just treat him as a statesman? Some reckon so. Is that a position about which there is no significant debate, and thus can safely be adopted by a journalist committed to impartiality? Quite obviously not.
Cassatta & others:
Oddly enough, I have seen remains shovelled up after a terrorist attack (although not in Ulster).
A very close relative came within a hair’s breath of a (mistaken) IRA assassination. Another close family member twice escaped from close to an IRA bomb, whilst I was present when a
mainland bomb devastated my community. And, yes, I’ve had the privilege of talking at length to people who have suffered in this (and other) conflicts.
And clearly what I really want is more terrorism.
That’s right.
Just like all the gays, feminists and liberals who (allegedly) run the BBC really, really want sharia law to brighten up their miserable lives…
Biased BBC: Oxymorons
Hugh:
“Should we forget about Martin McGuinness’s background and just treat him as a statesman? Some reckon so. Is that a position about which there is no significant debate, and thus can safely be adopted by a journalist committed to impartiality? Quite obviously not.”
I’m not suggesting forgetting Martin McGuinness’ background. I am suggesting that the wretched Vance conveniently forgets that former terrorists who have committed acts against British soldiers have become statesmen.
So the question is: whether Martin McGuinness is especially guilty in that regard (clearly not)?
Do you think Vance is going to condemn the extraordinary brutality of Manachem Begin against the British fighting them even as they fought against Nazism, acts which are at least an order of magnitude worse than anything Martin McGuinness is accused of?
No.
Why?
Because Vance isn’t interested in history that contradicts his singular viewpoint that the UK would be better as a sectarian monoculture as it was in Northern Ireland in the 1950s and 1960s when NI was run from Stormont as “A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People”.
I need not guess that the vast majority of British people would not support such a state. Hence Vance’s increasingly hysterical railing against the civil rights of religious minorities, the focus on the rule of law applying to innocent people, the labelling of people concerned about the conduct of troops in war as somehow “left wing” and undermining our “warrior class”, the railing against foreigners and the EU, while unabashedly supporting the USA, a state which broke away from and abjured the very establishment of a single religion with an absolute State which Vance thinks is such a jolly fun idea.
It was a matter of time, after softening up his audience, when he would zero in on his own obsession.
We won’t see Vance on this thread again to deal with facts of history, because he’s clearly below the intellectual capacity needed to argue them or make a case without ranting.
What has this got to do with the BBC? Nothing.
This is David Vance v the rest of Britain. The BBC is merely the convenient whipping boy for his extremism.
Aussie,
Are you actually an Aussie?
I think we’re all missing something very important here.
David V is taking us into exciting new waters of bias-monitoring. Unskilled readers might have gained the impression from the main post that the BBC let McGuinness ramble on about his blood-lust without throwing in the 3 questions that the Orange Paxman wishes they had.
Doubtless the Fenian scum at the Beeb are even now quivering in their cappuccino bars, afraid to ask the Sinn Feinn man about his past.
But – and here is David’s – cleverness. The BBC did not, in fact, carry out the interview about McGuinness’s feelings towards British soldiers. RTE did.
The BBC Online report which has sparked this ire was a summary from some spineless Boibeed who should have known better than to let his readers know what McGuiness had been saying on a foreign TV channel.
Can we start a whole new era of bias-monitoring in David’s name where we search out bits of foreign reportage, and complain when the BBC fails to ask questions of someone they weren’t actually interviewing at the time?
Biased BBC: The Future Is Bright…
“Do you think Vance is going to condemn the extraordinary brutality of Manachem Begin against the British fighting them even as they fought against Nazism, acts which are at least an order of magnitude worse than anything Martin McGuinness is accused of?
No.
Why?”
Because – for crying out loud – it has nothing to do with the issue at hand: whether the BBC is biased. Relevant points from Vance’s post are these:
– “The British Government has relied heavily on the BBC to retail the idea … that placing bloodthirsty terrorists in positions of power is a good idea if it helps buy peace.”
– “There are three obvious questions that strike me an intrepid BBC journalist would want to ask Mr McGuinness…”
– “Can you imagine the furore the BBC would have created if, in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings in London, Tony Blair had declared he wanted to kill every Islamist in the United Kingdom?”
These all seem to be relevant arguments, whether they prove valid or not. His comment that the peace process is a “chamberlain-scale act of appeasement” serves only to show that there are different opinions on this that the BBC could do well to reflect.
You can argue that he’s misrepresenting the BBC’s reporting, but simply pointing out that Mandela was also involved in terrorism is a bit irrelevant. There is even scope to, as you put it “question whether Martin McGuinness is especially guilty in that regard”. However, the BBC has not reported on that issue, either.
Hillhunt, though, while deliberately irritating, at least has a relevant point.
“Biased BBC: The Future Is Bright…
Meaningless | 25.02.08 – 11:16 am”
You can’t even get the quote right.
http://bestadsever.blogspot.com/2006/10/futures-bright-futures-orange.html
It would be a lot more relevant to ask the three questions if the interview was by the BBC and not RTE, so its hard to see the bias being suggested to the level it is.
I wonder if there has been stealth editing to make it clear it was RTE and not the BBC.
Having said that its true the BBC simply don’t ask those questions and that is bias.
McGuinness is a factor in our political life now..Begin isn’t.Both were/are murderers and deserve nothing but contempt.I can’t imagine that Begin was treated as kindly by the beeb as Mcguiness, as being both right wing and jewish make him doubly guilty in the eyes of the beeb traitors whereas McGuinness talks the correct talk.
Hugh:
“You can argue that he’s misrepresenting the BBC’s reporting, but simply pointing out that Mandela was also involved in terrorism is a bit irrelevant. There is even scope to, as you put it “question whether Martin McGuinness is especially guilty in that regard”. However, the BBC has not reported on that issue, either.”
Crap.
You avoided the issue. The issue is not whether the BBC is biased for supporting the agreement signed by all parties and voted for by the majority (the great majority).
It is that Vance is using this blog as a bully pulpit and the BBC as a foil to attack the great majority of the British people, their values, the sense of right and wrong, their beliefs about democracy and the rule of law.
My point is that making a peace, any peace, history tells us that many people called terrorists at one time can sometimes became statesmen later, and that Martin McGuiness is no worse and no better than any of them.
Its not about BBC bias. Its about David Vance claiming that the great majority is wrong to support peace because they don’t accept his purblind view of history and the extremist position he represents.
The likes of Martin McGuiness, Mandela or anyone involved in terrorism at any time deserve to be in bloody jail, not in a position of power and authority.
Peace eventually comes about in spite of people like them.
Dogpatch:
The likes of Martin McGuiness, Mandela or anyone involved in terrorism at any time deserve to be in bloody jail, not in a position of power and authority.
Quite right.
And we should make a habit of complaining that the BBC has failed to ask tough questions of them, whether or not anyone from the BBC actually had a microphone pointed at them.
Biased BBC: Furious about non-existent interviews
Sadly for you Aussie Bystander, I won’t dignify the dross you spew forth with further comment.
The people of the United Kingdom, including its armed forces, have suffered terribly at the hands of IRA terrorists and the idea that to seat such a terrorist warlord in government, and to have then hear him boast of his desire to kill “every British soldier” in Londonderry and for the BBC to remain MUTE on such a point IS a topic for debate here. If the BBC wishes to work with the UK Government to enable terrorists getting into power, then they can expect some of us to refuse to let it pass.
“You avoided the issue. The issue is not whether the BBC is biased for supporting the agreement… Its not about BBC bias.”
I give up.
David Vance | 25.02.08 – 12:27 pm
for the BBC to remain MUTE on such a point
But the BBC didn’t remain mute.
It reported McGuinness’s statement and invited reaction from others and gave some prominence to those of the DUP’s William McCrea.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7260541.stm
Mr Orange:
The people of the United Kingdom, including its armed forces, have suffered terribly at the hands of IRA terrorists
…And in Northern Ireland they then voted by a large majority to accept a peace settlement involving McGuiness, Adams and co.
At the last time of asking, the population made Sinn Fein the second most popular party with 26.2% of the vote. The DUP, which shares power with Sinn Fein, got 30.1%.
Mr Vance’s chosen friends at the UK Unionist Party (although he had sidled away from them by this point) did rather less well… 1.5%.
If the BBC wishes to work with the UK Government to enable terrorists getting into power, then they can expect some of us to refuse to let it pass.
Yes, but how many of you? And just how unrepresentative would you like the BBC to be?
Biased BBC: Reservoir Dogs. With A Sash.
John Reith,
Cute, but no cigar.
The DUP shares power with the IRA, as you well know. The DUP is well aware of the background of the Sinn Fein figures with blood on their hands, as you well know. The BBC supports the idea of power-sharing with terrorists, as you will deny. The grinning faces we saw amonst the BBC commentariat last March when Paisley trooped into power with Adams, McGuinness was all the evidence we needed of that. The substantive point being asked here is WHY does the BBC’s alleged investigative reporters see no issues surrounding the statement by McGuinness. Indeed let me ask you directly WHY has it not occured to the BBC journalists to pursue the bloody pedigree of a self-confessed senior terrorist, as McGuinness is? The reason is because the BBC sees itself as a PLAYER in the appeasement process, it is not neutral, it is not balanced, and it is an enabler of government policy – in this case also meaning enabling terrorists into power. The BBC is like the three monkeys when it comes to delving into the backgrounds of terrorists…
At last Hillhunt comes out in his real colours,better than pretending to be neutral.
“It is that Vance is using this blog as a bully pulpit and the BBC as a foil to attack the great majority of the British people, their values, the sense of right and wrong, their beliefs about democracy and the rule of law.”
What concern are the British people to an Australian?
Peter:
What concern are the British people to an Australian?
Ooooh, about as much as the posse of rednecks who parade their ignorance on this site from the darker recesses of the USA (to general applause)…
Or even the Israeli commentators who share their tolerance of things Islamic with us from, er, time to time.
Biased BBC: Foreigners Out (unless they’re Islamophobic)
.
Hillhunt,
Are you on medication? If not, I would suggest you try it. Stop wasting my time with your infantile gibberish.
Mr Orange:
Are you on medication? If not, I would suggest you try it. Stop wasting my time with your infantile gibberish.
Must be the paracetamol.
Don’t be churlish. I’m working hard on your behalf.
At the moment I’m locating foreign reports which the BBC took no part in so that we can complain about their lack of penetrating questions.
And I’ve got an army of psephologists working out what other policies appeal to 1.5% of the electorate so that the BBC can follow your lead and throw its weight behind them, too.
Biased BBC: Recommending Drugs To Its Fanbase
lOL lOL
The interview was on the eamonn dumphy show on RTE, I listened to the full interview, and McGuinness was clearly talking about his past – the fact that he admitted how he felt after such an outrage as bloody sunday is no surprise to anyone at all.
However, it was an inopportune time to say what he did as the devolving of policing and justice is being debated.
Local BBC journalists were instrumental in probing Paisleys finances and brought about change within the DUP, since it is rumoured that paisley senior will go perhaps around may. Now that the press are not chasing ambulances they will uncover things that have not been aired before-whether it be financial scandals, or indeed the backgrounds of those in power. For sure it will come out, in time as will all the rest, as things progress.
Wait until around may when the Eames Bradley result comes out and I hope to hear David on biased bbc then about the amount of collusion the British govt was involved in re loyalist and IRA groups.
Good luck with your agenda on here David but having said that sash or no, he’s a dead likable guy, I’m one of his taig/nationalist fans!!
Hillhunt: “1.5% of the electorate?”
If the peace process was as popular as you suggest old Trimble would still be first minister. To suggest it’s such a tiny minority who have qualms about IRA members sitting in government that these should be ignored by BBC journalists is a bit stupid. If the BBC is an active supporter of the process, as you so casually seem to concede, it is ignoring it’s obligation to be impartial.
Hugh:
If the BBC is an active supporter of the process, as you so casually seem to concede, it is ignoring it’s obligation to be impartial.
Apologies for the confusion. My position is:
1. The BBC is making a mistake being impartial, charter or no.
2. David Vance is our man, and it should follow his lead.
3. David’s closest recent association with popular choice was UKUP’s 1.5% showing in the 2007 Assembly Elections.
4. Biased BBC being the influential organ it is, the least the BBC can do is follow Vance’s lead.
5. Henceforth, it should align itself with the 1.5% of the population which approximates to his public support.
Hope that’s clear.
Part 2 of today’s strategy is to locate the foreign reports we can accuse the BBC of failing to ask the right questions in, even though they took no part in the original interviews.
Biased BBC: Forward with 1.5% of the people (of Northern Ireland)
Why does Hillhunt even bother? I noticed you and John Reith didn’t have much to say about that Panorama investigation framing up members of British Army as savages.
Maybe you’re being Radically Impartial?
“Biased BBC: Forward with 1.5% of the people (of Northern Ireland)
Meaningless (aka hillhunt) | 25.02.08 – 2:29 pm”
But quite all right to do so for the whole of the UK and its 2.7% muslims though eh Meaningless?
David Vance | 25.02.08 – 1:03 pm
From where I sit (London, not Belfast) I simply don’t recognize your characterisation of the BBC as uninterested in the terrorist past of Sinn Fein leaders.
Peter Taylor’s Provos: Sinn Fein and the IRA, Mark Devonport’s (with David Sharrock) Man of War, Man of Peace? suggest otherwise.
Okay, I grant you there’s more to say. But if you think BBC journalists haven’t been crawling over every bit of evidence on the Frank Hegarty story or haven’t looked into a link between McG and Claudy, you’re wrong.