Here’s pause for thought. The government has created a little quango here in Northern Ireland with the Orwellian title of “The Consultative Group on the Past” and the bottom line is it suggests that government should cough up £12,000 to the families of all those killed during the Troubles – including members of paramilitary groups.The families of paramilitary victims, members of the security forces and civilians who were killed will all be entitled to the same amount.
BBC journalist Mark Simpson, on the Ten News, has just given this story the usual BBC spin, managing to find a victim of IRA terrorism whose main anxiety was that 12k was not enough. Over on my own blog, A Tangled Web, where I have also overed this story, the daughter of a lady killed by the IRA at the cenotaph in Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday has expressed her view, which resonates entirely with mine and I suggest the vast majority of decent people; this is an obscene suggestion and it is aiming at equating the killers with those they killed. But the rancid BBC is quite happy to present this grotesquerie as if it were really all quite reasonable. God they revolt me!
Blair sold out to the IRA, and history won’t forget that.
Releasing those IRA prisoners was unforgiveable.
Richie,
As if releasing killers was not enough, now Labour want to pay their families. How sick is this?
I know what I’d do to the former members of the IRA and so called loyalist killers.
David what did you expect? You should know by now that the BBC is simply another Government department. Like the civil service, and the police, it’s been politicised.
Welcome to the Brave New World of Labour.
I watched that this evening.
I was struck by how the bBC summed up everything by claiming that;
The family of a loyalist terroist could claim.
As could the victims of a loyalist terrorist attack.
As could the victims of the British army
Then they brought out Martin (look at me I’m a man of peace) McGuinness.
in which to get his oar in.
I’m suprised the bBC didn’t have Obama’s grand-daddy in there as well seeing as he was tortured by the bBC.
Hi folks,
I wonder if you can help with this.
I live, and work in very close proximity to BBC TVC and I passed on the (shite) 220 bus to Shepherds Bush this evening, only to see a big demonstration opposite BBC TVC.
As I passed White City I saw a big crowd of people, perhaps 300/400 strong, demonstrating on the opposite side of the street.
The people there were demonstrating against the BBC’s lack of coverage with regards to the Sri-Lankan/Tamil conflict that is happening at the moment.
Whilst I didn’t stop to ask any questions (and with hindsight I wish I had, unfortunatly I had an appointment with a pint) the banners and placards displayed quiet clearly displayed the fact the demonstrators were Tamil supporters.
I wonder if this demo was covered on any of the major news programmes this evening (It’s 0125 as write this)
I know someone mentioned this conflict in the comments recently. Anyone care to comment?
It might be worth a new thread as the ‘we can’t do an appeal on Gaza so we’ll just have to get guys on news to do an appeal on Gaza’.
So sorry if it’s OT, but in the sense the headline is applicable.
I fully appreciate the issue of aid to the suffering, especially the innocent and even more children, is paramount, and thanks to the ‘uniqueness’ of the situation the BBC found itself on the horns of a dilemma if pumping out appeals to send money without a lot of safeguards.
However, the ‘fudge’ they have come up with seems even less satisfactory, namely wheeling out guys from chatities to make appeals by pointing at press ads on screen. How very British.
However, the chap I just saw also seemed to feel the need to get in a bit more than strictly necessary, mentioning that ‘over 500 women and children died’. I thought it was 1500? Oh, yes… they were those poor sods next to/in front of the 1000 ‘men’ of indeterminate activities who do not get mentioned as now not conforming to the needs of the new narrative.
But what really pricked up my ears was his passionate appeal for ‘all the children… under 18… who just want to get back to school’.
Now, I don’t know about others, but even here in education, education education-blessed Blighty, I think there might be more than a few 18 year olds that rate some activities a wee bit more enthusiastically to ‘school’, and if given a weapon, a target and the uncritical support of the MSM may still represent a heck of a threat.
So Aunty and its politicised mates can’t even handle aid to kids without sullying the whole thing with propagandising, which will probably, as with its morale effect on Hamas, have the exact reverse influence on the public, and hence benefit to those they claim to be ‘feeling for’.
If Brown has any backbone he will stamp on this insane proposal forthwith. Instead I expect him to dither and “consult widely” while crossing his fingers that it quietly goes away. But, hey, why limit payments to IRA and loyalist terrorists? Surely that would be racist? What about the poor grieving families of the 7/7 terrorists? Don’t laugh, if these lunatics can seriously propose paying irish terrorists’ families then 7/7 payouts is the next logical step. After all, we do want to be inclusive and show that all terrorists are equally valued in our rainbow nation paradise, don’t we?
Words fail me !
Peter: Tony Benn was on Today this morning reading out the phone and address details for those wishing to contribute to the Gaza charity appeal. In an interview with Ed he was allowed to give the contact details several times with no interruption from gentleman Ed. Also heard Ben Bradshaw say that the BBC had to stand up to Israel or words to that effect.
Ironside 1:32
I have posted about the BBC’s lack of coverage of Sri Lanka several times.
It is puzzling as Sri Lanka is a lovely island, lovely people and with many luxury hotels. Normally you would expect the Beeboids to be out there in droves.
My only explanation is that the BBC cannot decide which side to take, although normally you would expect them to side with the Tamils.
I suspect that it is because neither side is identifiably Muslim, nor black African, so no story there then.
zamboy | 24.01.09 – 9:30 am | #
Trying to get back on track after a wee glitch that had me double posting on another thread, I would like to add this here:
Just wanted to add that I now watched the morning host – who seemed a little slow with the charity guy’s claims IMHO – interviewing Douglas Alexander, and pretty much tearing him a new one for politicising the issue for taking the BBC to task and telling them what to do.
Might shape up to be an interesting set of exchanges between the government and our national broadcaster.
Certainly they are between them ‘working around’ the issue!
One of the BBC’s tactics is to interview BBC reporters for an analysis of every news item. They spend most of their time interviewing each other. At first I thought it was just their egos that made them do it, but perhaps there is another motive. If they interviewed more polititians, they would have to interview some from the Conservatives and some from Labour. That would include some Conservatives out there like David Davis who are not ‘a fan of the BBC’ (quote of Cameron)
What sort of sick-minded person could come up with such a scheme which defies the standards of a decent society.
Caveman 9:59
The Beeboids relentlessly incestuous interviewing of each other is nauseating and, strangely , lacks the hostility reserved for Conservatives, Republicans and Israelis ( I was almost going to say “Jews and dogs” for a moment ).
It makes me suspect that all Beeboids have identikit opinions. Surely not ?
The today programme covered this in huge depth this morning. They interviewed two people. The first was the warrington chap , who presented his cogent views against the proposal. Later, ed stourton interviewed trimble, who seemed broadly in favour. Stourton pushed him hard on his reasoning. The item is still leading, and the Dup were heavily quoted throughout the coverage. Exemplary jounalism. And david, this isn’t a government proposal is it? it’s a report to government, which shaun woodward is likely to consult upon.
Can you start a thread on the DEC issue David? I’m sure your readers are struggling to reconcile the BBC’s supposedly pro-hamas stance with this decision.
mwl,
Can you advise me who appointed Eames and Bradley to their positions? Then again, don’t bother. Two political whores.
mikewine 10:27
But no guesses what the end result will be, of course !!
Actually, not quite right. I bet they increase the amount from £12000.
This government always commissions a report which gives it the result it wants.
Please don’t be so naive !
Whichever way you look at this idea, it’s crazy.
No-one, whoever they may be, thinks the life of a father, brother, son etc. should be valued at less than a second-hand Toyota.
And no sane person thinks that the families of criminals should be compensated to the same extent as the families of their victims.
Indeed, surely no sane person thinks the families of terrorists should be ‘compensated’ at all.
I thought it safe bet that the majority of completely unreasonable people in NI would have been killed in the troubles. But it seems enough have survived to man the political class and constitute stupid quangos like this one.
The only proper question for the BBC to ask is: “You cannot be serious…..?”
Grant, yes, nauseating is the word, watching Mr Nasty turn into Mr Nice.
The rights or wrongs aren’t the issue. The fact is the bbc’s coverage on today was exemplary.
I won’t easy until the brave Omagh bombers are rewarded for their actions. Blowing up shoppers inc little kids surely deserve a 12K Government hand out.
Bernadette Devlin for prime minister!!
Good advert for your other blog, but I thought this was supposed to be about BBC bias. Your posting is short on that. In fact I can’t see any substance to it.
No mention of the BBC conflating the fatality figures in Gaza anymore? You posting that argument at least 3 times, and when Alex demolished your point (which wasn’t very hard to do) your response….Hamas is evil.
Pathetic even by your standards David.
No mention today of the BBC’s decision not to broadcast a charity appeal for Gaza?!
That’s a starnge ommission isn’t it David? How come? And how come the BBC has been covering this story on its own news broadcasts? Oooops, better not think about that one too hard, it might cause you to have to consider your whole twisted world view.
Any one see Newsnight last night? The discussion entitled ‘Recession UK’? Or maybe the headline on the News at One, News at Six and News at Ten, that the UK is now officially in recession? Ooops, it seems Labour’s mouthpiece is completley incompetent as well.
I will now resume my ban, which is automatically implemented when I dare to dissent from Mullah Vance’s line. Goodbye you nutjobs!
Boba Fett,
A typical NULAB droid with a spelling problem and a fixation on DV, they only come out at night or in his case during the day(release).
mikewineliberal | 24.01.09 – 11:57 am
The rights or wrongs aren’t the issue. The fact is the bbc’s coverage on today was exemplary.
Really?
Did they invite David Vance on?
Re:Sri Lanka.
The BBC are reporting this conflict, but hidden way down in the depths of their website:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7845311.stm
This section is interesting:-
“At least five civilians have died after a makeshift hospital was shelled in a rebel-held area of northern Sri Lanka, health officials there say.
Pro-rebel websites blame the army for the deaths, but the military has strongly denied being responsible.
There is no way to confirm the claims as independent journalists are barred from the conflict zone
”
Hospitals shelled? Civilians killed? Media prevented from accessing conflict zone?
Sound familiar?
Surely this would be reported on their Tv/radio news programmes? Funny i’ve seen or heard the square root of F.A. about this on the BBC apart from piddling little entries hidden away in the never-regions of their website.
Boba Fett,
Thanks for the good wishes.
This proposal makes no sense at all. Why £12k? Why that amount? Why just the Troubles – what about road accident victims? What about the 7/7 victims.
What about those who didn’t die, but were ‘only’ blinded/crippled/paralysed?
And equating terrorist killers with their victims is so wrong as to defy belief. You would struggle to make this stuff up.
John | 24.01.09 – 3:52 pm |
Why just the Troubles – what about road accident victims? What about the 7/7 victims
Nobody supporting this scheme will understand the comparison to 7/7 victims. In their view – as we know from the long-term BBC Narrative on the IRA and NI – the British government is ultimately responsible for the conflict itself. It’s not the IRA’s fault: they weren’t the evil occupiers. They were merely fighting for their independence.
If not for nasty Mrs.Thatcher (or words to that effect), the IRA never would have had to kill anyone. So they’re just as much victims as the people they killed.
7/7 was caused by George Bush, of course. If you start asking for payments for those victims’ families, the commissioned report would recommend that the US pay for it.
Boba Fett:
Good advert for your other blog, but I thought this was supposed to be about BBC bias. Your posting is short on that. In fact I can’t see any substance to it.
No mention of the BBC conflating the fatality figures in Gaza anymore?
Do try and keep up Bubba, conflating the “1,500 innocents massacred” was last weeks meme.
Now that investigations are in train, we’re down to “500 women and children”.
Like the Jenin “massacre” (estimated by the beeb as 40,000 plus civilians at the time – but later revealed to nbe around 50 militants and civilians) – it’ll probably turn out to be civilians killed in the low double figures and “others” never mentioned again.
tom
“Did they invite David Vance on?”
I’m not sure an ex-member of a failed fringe unionist party would have added much to the nation’s consideration of the matter.
MWL,
Better I was a terrorist, a Jew-hater, a soaking wet liberal droid, eh? Still, there’s always Will Young….
Oh – and I was Deputy Leader of a pluralist Unionist Party that refused to accept any form of contact with the sort of terrorist filth the BBC shill for. Better get it right before you comment.
Can’t wait for the IRA to dig up the weapons they’ve still got –you know the ones we saw them “destroy”
We allowed them to decommission a load of old defunct BARs and Armalites when they have stacks still hidden in bunkers.
We have allowed terrorists to become gangsters, and paid them for the priviledge!!!
David – yes, i know. I googled your @rse some time ago.
No disrespect: any party that attracted the great Conor Cruise O Brien as a member clearly had a lot of merit. But it was a fringe party, it did fail, and you are an ex-member.
mikewineliberal | 24.01.09 – 6:46 pm |
I’m not sure an ex-member of a failed fringe unionist party would have added much to the nation’s consideration of the matter.
Why not?
The BBC is supposed to air a wide range of different views.
Vance is at odds with the NI Establishment parties.
This is just the sort of issue where his ‘rejectionism’ has some practical relevance.
Your response is a bit like saying a representative of UKIP wouldn’t add anything to a discussion of EU farm subsidies.
….oh I forgot, that’s what the BBC thinks too.
But ukip are an extant party and relevant to the issue. David these days, alas, is an ordinary Joe.
mikewineliberal | 25.01.09 – 12:53 pm
Aha… most revealing.
So the BBC isn’t interested in views of ordinary Joes?
Ordinary Joes aren’t to be allowed to have their opinions reflected, only collectives, pressure groups, parties etc?
How is the ubiquitous Tariq Ali not an ‘ordinary Joe’ since the collapse of the Trotskyite 4th International?
How is the now semi-retired Tony Benn so very different in kind?
Was the environmental protester Swampie not an ordinary Joe?
And that George Monbiot, before the Guardian had the idea of giving him a column, …what was he but an Ordinary Joe?
Tom: nicely prepared trap, which MWL walked straight into – oblivious in his BBC bubble!
Tom;
Youve just mentioned most of the people in my “kick to death by 2010” list.
How did you know?