Here, by popular demand, is a a new open thread. Mr Blair, as usual, would like to hear your sharp-eared observations…
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- StewGreen Nov 23, 21:10
Weekend 23rd November 2024
GBnews now claiming a BBC reporter was “OWNED” by YouTuber crypto scammer Logan Paul as ever “owned” is a big… - Zephir Nov 23, 20:55
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Some of the most corrupt countries in the world, look at them… They have found a new method of extortion,… - Zephir Nov 23, 20:45
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Lazy Cat, don’t read this just before bedtime……. 🙂 “John the cat gets stuck in drainpipe. A cat had to… - MarkyMark Nov 23, 20:28
Weekend 23rd November 2024
‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ The letter I will regret for ever This article is more than 9 years… - Zephir Nov 23, 20:19
Weekend 23rd November 2024
The far left in all it’s bitter, nasty glory: After Clinton lost: “At the time, it was said that filing… - MarkyMark Nov 23, 20:05
Weekend 23rd November 2024
World Heritage Site for World Heritage Travellers https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Gypsies Connected Sites Site Rationale Link Auschwitz Birkenau Over 20,000 were murdered here… - MarkyMark Nov 23, 20:04
Weekend 23rd November 2024
‘Trouble Causing 650 MPS who lie and impose laws’ - StewGreen Nov 23, 20:01
Weekend 23rd November 2024
🔥Dispersal order in place across Manchester over ‘Trouble Causing Youths’ 📜The order, signed by a senior police officer at 12.13pm…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Oh dear – whats this?
“Homosexuality illegal in Qatar, and can be punished by imprisonment, or 90 lashes.”
Tweets by MrAndrewCotter
“Article 201 of the Qatari Penal Code punishes sodomy between consenting adults (irrespective of sex) with up to five years of imprisonment.” ”
Tweets by NickyAACampbell
“Qatari Penal Code punishes sodomy between consenting adults (irrespective of sex) with up to five years of imprisonment”
Tweets by richardpbacon
Now why is all this relevant?
The BBC and anal sex? I have no idea why the BBC would be interested 🙂
If INBBC isn’t careful, it might find itself learning something about ther sexually repressive Islam laws of Sharia.
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/SexInIslam/sex_and_sexuality_in_islam.htm
Forget the fact that Quatar’s only got about two football stadiums, alcohol is illegal and it’ll be 50C+ in the shade which may present a serious health risk to many fans.
Last time I was at a footy match fans weren’t bumming each other in the stands (no doubt a fantasy for the BBC).
Nice to see the Beeboids have got their priorities in order as usual.
Would anyone care to mention it’s an Islamic state? No, let’s keep that bit hush hush……
Maybe by then the BBC will have regained the broadcasting rights and will then look the other way for business reasons, much like they ended up doing regarding China and those bruised Tibetans right before the last Olympics.
DV, I know you come from the football desert of the six counties but surely auntie losing england the chance to stage the World cup demands a ‘it woz the beeb wot lost it’ thread.
( And before you say it yes George Best was a good player but as the BBC rent boys say ‘One swallow does not a summer make’ 😉 )
I will be posting my giant poo in a jiffy bag to the Panorama team.
I just love the BBC when they close their ears to things they don’t want to hear. Listening to the Radio 5 rant about the football one of our ‘ethnic minority Brits’ just called in talking about “you English”, so presumably he’s not English? I presume living in Willesdon and living off benefits (no doubt) doesn’t make him ‘English’
Funny that when someone white ‘English’ talks about ‘them’ (say Muslims) the BBC are VERY QUICK to pick up on it.
At least half the callers on ‘Your Call’ are called Hassan, Sadiq or Mohammed and are living off benefits. I think it’s a prerequisite to getting on there.
I’m white and middle class and have no chance – believe me I’ve tried!
Beeboids claim they took on FIFA in the interests of truth, and in the interests of Britain. (And see where that got us.) Will Beeboids now do a follow-up on why the FA must leave a corrupt FIFA?
Incidentally, will Beeboids ever change their subservient attitude towards the European Union?
A comment on the Spectator blog re FIFA records Andrew Neil’s defence of the Beeboid Corporation and the Sunday Times:
<!– end:column1 –>
When interviewed today, Andrew Neil claimed that the BBC was right to expose FIFA and it is their duty as journalists. What I would like to know is where was the BBC’s sense of duty and integrity to report alleged wrong doing when the climategate story broke last year? It would appear that the duty of the BBC is merely to further their own agenda. I would strongly suspect that the motivation of the BBC as in most of the things that it does is to discredit the Coalition Gov.
<!– end:column2 –><!– x –><!– end:centre –>
============================
It’s not mentioned there but Andrew Neil added for good measure that if England lost the bid because of the press and broadcasters drawing attention to corruption, it was a price worth paying.
I did wonder when I heard that where Andrew Neil was on numerous other occasions of corruption which the Beeboid Corporation has been a great deal more reticent about.
I see incidentally, that the Beeboid Corporation is very happy to field Livingstone tonight – he who presided over corruption in the Mayoral administration, the LDA etc.
Andrew Neil is a big supporter of England in international sporting events, no? I for one would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
At the same time I will not give the other 31,999 Beeboids the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making a fuss about the treatement of homosexuals and females in Qatar should they hold the broadcasting rights when the time comes around. Based on their behavior regarding China at the last Olympics, I expect they will throw integrity under the bus for a month or so.
Sadly. the state of BBC integrity is such that a Corgi Routemaster could drive over it while standing ‘proud’, without grazing its beehive.
Panorama on Qatar ?
I doubt it.
CRISIS.
Barry has said Qatar does not deserve to host the 2022 world cup.
What does a beeboid do ?
Obama – good ! Qatar (muslim) – good ! Cameron – just very bad !
That well known “hot hot” bed of football that is Qatar will no doubt please the BBC as it is another Muslim country they have never been to before. (Link – go to SKY TV and find out where it is.)
“We have concluded (BBC) that his masters voice (Barack) has enlightened us sufficiently that Sepp Blatter, whilst posing as the world’s most stupid and corrupt man, is indeed not one of us after all”.
Therefore :
Having in no small measure sabotaged England’s 2018 bid, the BBC can rest easy, Result.
Congratulations to ourselves, Cameron got stuffed, allowing the dedicated followers Racism in football (and that is most of the Russian happy-go-lucky public) to look forward to making the best of 6 weeks of unadulterated hatred towards black people during 2018.
The BBC – we’re unique !
The only problem with Quatar is that being gay is illegal and snorting cocaine probably results in death which is clearly a problem for beeboids….
Aunty does irony, again.
BBC Brekky business ‘expert’ (he’s got spex now, which proves it) holds up newspaper article about how the RBS inquiry found everyone in the clear.. shock horror… BUT… the detail was not published.
Unpublished reports? The very idea.
What- you mean like the Balen report?
Did the BBC mention that RBS got $97 billion from the US TARP bailout?
Contrasting views of Qatar’s 2022 World Cup:
1.)
“If Tiny Qatar Can Spend 100 Billion Dollars For The World Cup..”http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/31046
2.)
INBBC:
“A World Cup miracle”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9252710.stm
3.)
And looking to the future?:
“In 2022, there is no country with the name Qatar, and there is no province called Kuwait and there is no Saudi (Arabia). Instead, there is an emirate called the Islamic State”
Found this amusing, too..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/12/access_all_areas_life-changing.html
Check out the update.
So has anyone heard the BBC commenting on the one eyed mong being shit according to the yanks?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335217/How-U-S-wrote-Brown-abysmal-track-record-just-year-premiership.html
BBC website not a word that I have found but Radio 4 is reporting this – http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/12/bbc-wikileaks-and-gordon-brown.html
For BBC-NUJ-Labour:
“Gordon Brown ‘went from disaster to disaster’, leaked US diplomatic cables”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23903523-gordon-brown-went-from-disaster-to-disaster-leaked-us-diplomatic-cables.do
This is the man who the BBC have speed-dial, they actually pay him:
‘Terror supporting’ Arabic-daily editor to speak at LSE
And, of course, there is strong Islamic funding of many ‘British’ universities, which INBBC wouldn’t mention, not least Islamic funding of the London School of Economics: Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Turkey in that case mainly. (See pages 89-96 below.)
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1238334247_1.pdf
Typical BBC balance. Two very similar stories, on the same day, involving publishing comments on Twitter.
One gets a full page, 20 odd lines of text. The left get to attack. The Conservative in question doesn’t get to defend his comments or apologise for them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-11897602
The other story gets 5 lines tucked in at the bottom of a different article. There are no complaints made, and the lefty who made the twitter comment is allowed to apologise and the whole point is brushed away.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11899933
Yesterday, one of those stories even made it to a page of its own on the BBC’s local news pages on Ceefax. The other one didn’t. Can you guess which got the wider coverage on the old-fashioned Ceefax news service?!
Given that the whole subject of England losing the World cup bid was headline news yesterday, you’d have thought that the latter story would have required more coverage.
Interesting
Israel appeals for help over wildfires
So, the main point is Israel needs assistance. Does Israel give assistance? [Rhetorical question but it would have been a reasonable point to put in context.]
The Palestinian angle? Early reports (none I heard) said the bus caught in the fires contained Palestinian prisoners but it turns out it was only Israeli prison guards. [That’s all right]
BBC Persian’s Mohammad Manzarpour is at the scene of the fire [WTF the BBC doesn’t have any local staff?]
Israel forest fire kills dozens near Haifa
It’s correct as far as it goes but does miss the relevant point that the unfortunate prison guards were on the way to evacuate a prison in danger from the fires.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11899534
“MPs’ expenses: £3.1m claimed in three months”
They ahve several other articles about this news too…in NONE does it mention that expenses claimed by MPs have halved in the new Parliament:
“MPs’ expenses plummet”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cheap-at-half-the-price-mps-expenses-plummet-2149756.html
“BBC email on reporting the World Cup decision”
While BBC-NUJ pushes Wikileaks for more information, responsible or irresponsible, BBC-NUJ now censors its own reporting on FIFA and World Cup decision.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/bbc-world-cup-fifa
The Jeremy Vine Show seemed pretty keen to ‘discuss’ it, only after the obligatory rantfest by two extremes to whip up the ratings.
One presumes that, subsequently, the only views they will wish to hear will be carefully vetted to ensure that the narrative is properly enhanced.
One also has to wonder if Mr. Hucknell has a new creative endeavour to plug as the BBC finds his sex life disclosures as worthy of Mr. Vine’s sanctimonious ‘interest’.
Looks like News 24 is gearing itself up for a robust defence of Woolas.
Well, the BBC does have a long history of backing winners.
Nothing to do with the BBC, but it does show you the state of the country XD
999 call after snowman theft
It was me !
I did it, I was bored, it looked like she had gone out of her way to re-create Snowman Sepp.
So I melted him !
Hey, BBC News economics geniuses: the fact that job growth in the US is stunted is NOT a surprise. Businesses are circling the wagons right now and not hiring and not growing due to the looming destructive power of ObamaCare and next year’s massive tax increases. Nobody serious expected that the Democrats’ policies were going to help small businesses, which employ the majority of people in the country.
Only Paul Krugrman and his co-religionists at the BBC thought The Obamessiah was doing it right, and the BBC is now reacting accordingly. Gosh, how could this have happened? Stupid economy making people doubt their faith in Him……
Spot on David, the BBC were painting the ‘rich’ as greedy scum as not as most of the people are who will be hit by the tax hike as small to medium businesses who will refuse to hire an extra worker so they can use that money to pay the extra tax.
If every small business in the USA took on just ONE extra worker each it would make more of an impact on unemployment than all of Barry’s shovel ready crap.
Head over to the BBC News website and you will find that an ‘ex MP’ (can’t be a Tory then or that would be in the title) has pleaded guilty to some crime or other. Duck house? Moat? No none of that nonsense from the Tories but REAL FRAUD.
But also look, Phil Woolas (you know that scumbag that Red Ed put in his cabinet – not a good decision hey BBC? but we won’t mention that will we?) has also lost his appeal, but it’s buried away on the news page.
Oh and wikileaks is still there, but still no mention of the yanks thinking the one eyed mong was a complete and utter disaster, oh and Guido has a nice story on a Liebour MP who attacked Cameron over his photographer putting in a large wad for her OWN photographer. Bet the BBC won’t report on that either.
Hopefully Margaret Hodge will be the next to go!
Technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones takes a political stance on WikiHacks and then sheds crocodile tears over yet another complaint about Google search results, all while ignoring a very large elephant in the room.
Google, Amazon and the end of web innocence?
First and worst is the perspective from which Cellan-Jones discusses the fact that Amazon has cancelled their server hosting for WikiHacks. When he says that this is a blow to freedom of speech and quotes only complaints against Amazon for supposedly violating the First Amendment, he is taking the position that WikiHacks is correct to do what it has done, and that it is wrong to consider it an act of treason (by the US soldier involved) and an act of espionage, both which are considered by adults to be illegal and wrong.
Yet here is the BBC Technology correspondent writing as if Amazon is wrong to drop criminal activity from its servers. I shouldn’t be surprised because, as sharp and generally okay as RC-J is on technology matters, only last month he was scolding Amazon for dropping a book instructing men how to commit crimes of paedophilia. It’s against US law to sell books providing instructions (i.e. “giving advice”) on how to commit crimes, but for this Beeboid, an imaginary “web innocence” makes it okay.
Note to BBC: The First Amendment concerns what the Government can and can’t do. Private enterprises can allow or block any speech they like because of it. Most children don’t understand this distinction, and whine every time somebody does something like this.
How about some quotes from customers who are pleased with Amazon’s decision to drop the criminals? Here’s a bunch from Amazon’s own site, unfiltered by the BBC.
The same thing can be said for how Cellan-Jones frowns at Google for thinking maybe they ought to support legal businesses in favor of criminal activity. Of course, I’m sure to technology dreamers like him, all property is theft and file-sharing is wonderful, don’t mention the words “illegal”. Furthermore, Google has for years put its ad client results above all others, so it’s a bit weak to start whining about them “tweaking their algorithms” to support business now. But since that would detract from Cellan-Jones’ “web innocence” narrative, he leaves that out.
The elephant in the room? The strong march towards “net neutrality” in the US, otherwise known as actual suppression of speech and Government control over the internet and providers. Unapproved thoughts will be further suppressed if they pass the Fairness Doctrine. Hey, the US will be catching up with China! Matt Frei will be pleased. But since that’s being pushed by Democrats and Obamessiah supporters to stop Fox News and non-Left bloggers, I don’t expect Rory Cellan-Jones and the BBC to think that’s worth discussing.
Our Rory is to IT issues what Richard Black is to enviro/science, singing idealogically from the same hymn sheet but knowing (or wanting to know) b-all about their so-called topics of expertise beyond what gets faxed in and retyped.
One only has to look at the past few blogs of either to see they are, essentially, laughing stocks.
RCJ’s endless bum licking of Apple is also sickening along with his love of Twatter.
“When he says that this is a blow to freedom of speech”
Please quote the bit were Rory Cellan-Jones says that this is a blow to freedom of speech…
It’s the part where he says this:
Last month I noted that two of those giants, Amazon and Google, were diluting that pure stance (of “commitment to freedom of expression” mentioned in the opening sentence) in the face of commercial and political realities and now it seems to be happening again.
What else is he concerned about here? This is the entire point of his piece. The fact that he quotes only customers unhappy with Amazon’s actions only supports this position.
So now that we’ve learned that England’s bid to host the World Cup was a complete waste of time (dear God, I agree with Gavin Esler) because FIFA these days want it to go to countries who have never hosted it, it’s basically moot to wonder if the Panorama noise (referred to as “the British media”, *DONT_KNOW* ) killed the bid or not.
Having said that, when people claim that various FIFA officials have said that the “British media” really did change some votes, one has to wonder exactly why minds were set against England because of it. Could it be that the FIFA voters weren’t spurning England out of spite, but because the stink raised by the media about corruption in FIFA made them think twice about voting for England for fear of appearing to pander or cave? Of course, I realize one could just as easily say that the Russian win is just further proof that bribery works as advertised.
Nobody on the BBC seems interested in asking this question either way. As for their defense that it’s journalism, which must reveal the truth regardless of the timing: it’s only a damn sport. What harm would there be in holding it back until after the vote? It’s silly, and seems like a bit of arrogance on their part to put themselves above everyone else.
I mean, they sat on the CRU emails for over a month, which is infinitely more important than a game. Oh, wait, silly me, I forgot about the BBC’s revolving-door principles when it comes to these matters.
The BBC often sit on stories, if the Balen report had been done by the Government about unfair treatment of Muzzie’s you can bet the BBC would be demanding its release.
The BBC sat on the Lee Jasper story, the BBC often simply refuse to report some stories, it goes on and on.
The BBC would have demanded it under the Freedom of Information act.
Well timing seems to be getting better on Pandarama as the Programme about I.O.C corruption when Labour was pimping the country out with the BBC’s full backing for billions of pound of expenditure! was a full year before the vote aired August 2004 and the vote was July 2005 ?? O:-)
“The BBC sat on the Lee Jasper story”
Completely untrue:
Mayor’s aide in funding dispute
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7129278.stm
Mayor’s aide in grant dispute
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7120000/newsid_7129800/7129854.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&nol_storyid=7129854&bbcws=1
Jasper denies abusing funds
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7130000/newsid_7131700/7131700.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&nol_storyid=7131700&bbcws=1
Jasper under pressure to quit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7210000/newsid_7214200/7214237.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&nol_storyid=7214237&bbcws=1
LDA project investigated
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7220000/newsid_7221000/7221042.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&nol_storyid=7221042&bbcws=1
Jasper to be questioned
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7270000/newsid_7275900/7275971.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&nol_storyid=7275971&bbcws=1
Mayor suspends funds row adviser
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7246468.stm
Mayor’s police advisor quits body
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7251605.stm
Mayor suspends funds row adviser
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7246468.stm
Mayor’s race adviser steps down
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7277973.stm
Mayor’s race advisor resigns
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7270000/newsid_7278100/7278139.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1
Jasper’s road to resignation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7270000/newsid_7278100/7278133.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1
City Hall probe clears two groups
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7414791.stm
Mayor’s aide cleared in funds row
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7183929.stm
Ex-mayor’s aide cleared of fraud
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8146096.stm
.
Oh Dez…didn’t have that pre-prepared AT ALL did you? Have you been sat here all this time (months?) ready to pounce with your pet subject?
“Oh Dez…didn’t have that pre-prepared AT ALL did you?”
Erm, yes dear. Whatever you say dear.
Hmm not much really is it what 12 local reports mainly put in the bit marked ‘beware of the leopard’ of the player or website now if it was Boris it would get stuffed prime time across the main news channel/BBC comedy networks just like Coulson and Ashcroft!
“if it was Boris it would get stuffed prime time”
What like this:
Tories in ‘disarray’ over Lewis
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7491167.stm
Mayor Johnson ‘misled’ by deputy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7491084.stm
Mayor Johnson urged to sack aide
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8105234.stm
Mayoral aide quits over expenses
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8112945.stm
Ex-deputy mayor on fraud charges
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8238060.stm
Mayoral aide reported to police
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8115528.stm
London Mayor Boris Johnson faces misconduct complaint
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11858520
Johnson’s web expenses rejected
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8235749.stm
Martin’s post about Lee Jasper was untrue. Your “what if” post is also untrue.
Get over it and move on ;p
.
Dez Darling, the BBC had the story months before they finally reported on it, what part of that don’t you understand? The BBC only reported on it AFTER the Standard reported it.
“the BBC had the story months before they finally reported on it”
How do you know that?
Oh, and which story are you talking about? The one where he was accused of fraud? Or the one where those accusations were found to be completely false?
No Dez darling the story was in the hands of the BBC long before the Evening Standard, it was well commented on at the time.
Now I am sure on WATO this lunch time it was mentioned that Phil Woolas had lost his appeal – and it was proved that he knew he was lying in his election material – but of course the reporters implied it was what all politicians got up to. But by tea time there was a total news blackout on both the 6pm news (and Channel 4).
Following on my comment above about Rory Cellan-Jones ignoring the move in the US for the Government to control the news in order to keep the public from learning about unapproved thoughts, I missed Katty Kay egging on the FCC commissioner about just that.
FCC Commissioner Mike Copps talks to Katty Kay about the state of the US media. Copps calls the current status a ‘pretty serious situation’ and says that American media has a ‘bad case of substance abuse.’
“We are not producing the body of news and information that democracy needs to conduct its civic dialogue,” Copps told the BBC.
At one point, Katty asks Copps about instituting means testing for “public service value”. In other words, should the government be allowed to decide what may or may not be reported.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a baby step towards totalitarianism, yet it is encourage by the BBC.
I wondered why this person had not been arrested.
“The Swedish Supreme Court has upheld a court order to detain Mr Assange.
Mr Assange – reported to be staying at a secret address in the UK – has vowed to contest the allegations, saying they are part of a smear campaign against him”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11911162
He is not British but Australian – so why don’t the authorities send him back to his own country? Or has he become a “British Resident”?
The article Wikileaks warrant ‘issued to UK’ 3 December 2010 Last updated at 16:18 GMT is typical to the BBC but unusual. It ends with a semi relevant cut-n-paste boilerplate. The latest cables released on Friday suggest that Gordon Brown’s premiership was written off as almost “beyond repair” by the US embassy in London after less than a year.
It’s typical because the BBC is known for padding articles with material that promotes the BBC agenda, whether or not it is pertinent to the story. For example, it is a rare BBC Israel piece without The settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. (A quick Google shows 662 results were this exact phrase appears on the bbc.co.uk site).
However it is rare because this particular cut-n-paste diminishes Gordon Brown. Watch for the stealth edit.
Broadcasting House this morning on R4 had a “peace activist” from Londonderry, in reality an IRA terrorist, delivering a Derry Diary. It was unmitigated terrorist propaganda, a humourous account of getting one over on the Brits.
Remember this man’s colleagues forced people to become unwilling human bombs on threat to slaughtering entire families and also murdered young mothers for collecting cenus infomation to get a few punds to feed the kids.
No one who suffered from IRA terrorism in the city will be around to give a Derry Diary, they are dead, have been ethnically cleased by the “peace activists” or will keep quiet for fear that the peace activists and human rights campaigners will order punsihments for sayign anything that is not approved by the SF / IRA news managment office.
So was BBC R4 so incompetent as not to understand what tehy were dealign with, or are they happy pitching IRA propaganda?