At the weekend, Irish Republican terrorists tried to kill police officers in the nearby town of Lurgan. On “Today”, this morning, (7.32 no link yet) the BBC covered the issue. Naturally there was no one from the majority Unionist community on to express an opinion.
Instead we had a Police Chief Inspector and Margaret Ritchie – the staccato-speaking Dalek sound-a-like leader of the nationalist SDLP. The Inspector gave a pretty accurate view of what actually happened, Ritchie was then allowed to explain why in her view MI5 don’t have the necessary skills to gather intelligence on terrorists here! This surprised Humphyrs (as it would any sentient human being apart from SDLP supporters!) and he enquired how this could be. Ritchie explained that the absence of the name of one of the many “I can’t believe it’s not the IRA” groups from the MI5 website was proof testament that they were not up to the job. She then alleged M15 did not share intelligence with the Police. Humphyrs rightly asked the Chief Inspector if this was the case and he advised that the Police were happy with the sharing of intelligence. So Ritchie was thoroughly exposed. Yet, amazingly, she was allowed to continue to waffle, there was no attempt to press her on her ludicrous statements, and indeed Humphyrs tone was remarkably sympathetic. Why do Nationalist politicians get SUCH an easy ride from the BBC? Do you think, and this is just a wild guess, it is because there is a large degree of sympathy for their cause amongst BBC staff? And if there is latent sympathy for Nationalism, do you think that might extend to the more militant breed in IRA/Sinn Fein? And if that is the case, isn’t it ironic that the British Broadcasting Corporation is little more than a mouthpiece for those who hate Britain? And isn’t THAT a total disgrace?
Its funny how the BBC seems to have sympathy for ‘Nationalism’ anywhere but its own country. Any hint of Nationalism here is dismissed as Racist. Bastards!!
Oh but for the calibre of Gerry Fitt and Paddy Devlin, not to say Seamus Mallon too. The reason the SDLP has reversed its support to PIRA/Sinn Fein is because on the issue of PIRA/Sinn Fein decommissioning they were identical, if not considerably more shrill. Between them and HMG they legitimised 30 years of PIRA/SF terrorism and gave them the political ascendency in the nationalist community.
It’s not that they hate Britain so much as that they hate Britain in their country.
Yes the BBC is (overly) sympathetic to the IRA “cause” but part of the reason is that it reflects a portion of the mindset of our political class: in this case, the wish for a quiet life. Accordingly, although the PIRA was militarily defeated by the British Army (why, after all, would the PIRA agree to talks? Terrorists don’t start talking – especially talking compromise – when they’re winning) a quiet life meant dumping the Unionists and with them the semblance of NI as part of the UK eg changing the name of the RUC. The Unionists of whatever stripe weren’t going to start planting bombs in London whereas it was always possible, though increasingly unlikely, that the PIRA would restart the mainland “campaign” (which is now threatened by the publicly irredentist part of the PIRA).
The same desire for a “quiet life” strategy marks the establishment and BBC response to Islamic activity in the UK. It is highly unlikely (pace the IRA) that anyone from the non-Muslim majority is going to blow up the London Underground or burn books* or seriously advocate the introduction of an alien system of law into the UK or shout “offence” or “racism” backed up by a threat of force at any mildly critical statement. Appeasing a community which has a substantial minority approving such actions is easier than confronting it, especially if the chances of the majority adopting similar strategies is vanishingly small.
* although Sikhs were successful in closing down a play in Birmingham while Christians have failed to close down “The Romans” at the NT or prevent the BBC broadcasting “Jerry Springer – the Opera”. However, there was a chance that the Sikhs would turn very nasty. The worst the Christians would do would have been to write to the Times or a few MPs. That the BBC would contemplate broadcasting a musical entitled, for instance, “Mohammed – the porn years” or any programme making even mild fun of Mohammed is, literally, inconceivable.
All depressingly true Umbungo.
Reminds me of a quote I came across yesterday, attributed to Chesterton:
‘It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it.’
G.K. Chesterton
Splendid post, Umbogo. Absolutely spot on.
It would not be the first time that state forces did not share intelligence, infact its a known fact that during the troubles there was ‘professional jealousy’ between the many branches of state intelligence in northern Ireland, Special Branch, the many British Army intellignence units and MI5. Infact some of the intelligence units of the british army were involved in collusion and didn’t so far as is known share that information with others. This is what Ritchie alludes to in her own gobby way.
Humphyrs rightly asked the Chief Inspector if this was the case and he advised that the Police were happy with the sharing of intelligence.
Considering he is a police man he would say that wouldn’t he?
Naturally there was no one from the majority Unionist community on to express an opinion
I suspect that is because the various ‘not the IRA’ organisations are from one side of the community, and a leader of that community is calling for better intelligence sharing to disrupt the dissident organisations has escaped you? Would some one from the unionist community be saying any different?
I just always assumed the BBC supported IRA/Sinn Fein. I never gave it another thought until now !
i see that David Vance is once again confusing his personal views with that of the bias at the BBC.
is the BBC biased in favour of a Republican point of view ? yes – it probably is. is that right ? no -its not. the BBC should be neutral over such matters – which is clearly not.
but the language david vance uses and his clear anger towards anything that has any hint of republicanism in it undermines his bigger point.
some of david vance’s comments are wide open to criticism. the comment about ‘those that hate britain’. well thats a pretty generalised comment. implying that all those who wish to see a united ireland ‘hate’ britain. some do. but i doubt all of them do. it also opens up the question of whether you see the partition of ireland as ensuring the loyalist community was protected or gerrymandering to ensure catholics would never have a say in their own determination. either way – thats not an argument about the bias of the BBC. its a political point of view
Further more david vance’s comments totally undermines his point about the BBC. ie he is every bit as biased against republicanism as the BBC is biased in favour – does it matter ?
yes it does – why ? because two wrongs dont make a right. lurching from one bias to another simply suggests you think bias is ok – as long as it runs in the direction you approve of.
if this site is to have any impact it has to be seen to be advocating a neutral BBC – not simply replacing it with a BBC biased in the other direction.
david vance has every right to his opinions. and i suspect they are opinions a majority who read this web site agree with. fair enough. but this is NOT a web site either dedicated to david vance’s opinions OR the politics of northern ireland. its about the undeniable bias of the BBC.
i have said this before and will say again. if this site is to have any effect it MUST itself be neutral. because i will tell you those on the left that love the BBC will see a post like the one above and say that it represents the ravings of an ardent right wing loyalist. it might not be true. but why give those gits on the left a stick to beat us with.