So, it’s a moment in time. 30 years ago, the United Kingdom under the leadership of arch-BBC hate figure Margaret Thatcher, went to war with Argentina to defend the British people of the Falklands.  I was just our of University so my memory of BBC coverage at the time is cloudy. Can you recall how it was treated? This morning, on Today, there was an interview @ 8.20am with one of those soldiers who had fought in the battle for the Falklands, and the widow of one of our brave men who had died during the campaign. You know the inevitable question that was coming from the BBC correspondent Caroline Wyatt, don’t you? Yes – was it worth it? Back shot the answer, an unequivocal YES! The BBC must have been sickened with that and I am sure they will work hard to find somone who fought in the Falklands and now regrets it.

People ask if we have the military capability to wage a similar campaign in the south Atlantic 30 years on. I would phrase it differently. How would the BBC treat such a military campaign 30 years on? Based on its coverage of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the drumbeat of total opposition to war would be loud. And given the emergence of the 24 hour news cycle, would popular support for such a campaign be sustainable? There is a very real question here that needs consideration – is the UK capable of fighting and winning a war when the State Broadcaster has such a grip over the news cycle and can therefore influence and direct public opinion. What say you?

Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to THE FALKLANDS….

  1. Wayne X says:

    The BBC had very little reporting ability during the first Falkland’s war. A special announcer was appointed to give very controlled bulletins and no speculation. It was after all war not just a Blair PR opportunity to impress the Yanks. If it happens again just watch the real forces of conservatism show their hand. Dave will be told what to do and so will the BBC.

    As for, are we prepared? We never are but we are the best in the world at fighting our corner in a hurry.


    • Leftie-Loather says:

      Being very much in to all stuff military, I know for a fact, including from someone not long back from the Falklands, that the nowadays hugely sophisticated defences on and around those islands are VERY alertly “prepared” indeed. The Argies can hardly even fart without being heard.
      There is far from any complacency at all by our guarding and patrolling armed forces down in the South Atlantic.


      • doggywoggy says:

        We are indeed very capable of defending our Falkland Islands from the ridiculous and pathetic Argentine “forces”. Argentina are incapable of launching an invasion and we are more than capable of defending against one. The most recent ship sent to the Falklands is capable of shooting down the current entire Argentine air force by itself.


    • DP111 says:

      Labour led by Michael Foot was vehemently opposed to a military campaign. The BBC would have followed suit but for the fact that were not quite sure Mrs T would react. Privatisation was very much in the air, and it wouldn’t have taken much provocation of Mrs T for it to be seriously considered.

      In any case, the lesson of Vietnam had been learnt, and the media, including the BBC , was given no freedom to report the way it would have liked.


  2. david says:

    One overriding feature of the Falklands conflict was the control of news from the MoD- not necessarily in news censorship but in protecting news issues that could have been of use to an enemy. This gave rise to the famous ” I counted them out and I counted them all back” (Brian Hanrahan) about planes deployed in action. The BBC was fortunately limited in what it could do in a derogatory way. If there is a “next time” perhaps the BBC should report only from Buenos Aires….


    • doggywoggy says:

      Indeed. Today’s six o’clock news did report from Buenos Aires on what the Argentine’s thought about the Falklands. Who the hell cares? They have been lied to about the history of those Islands for decades. They believe that we took the Falklands from Argentina. The fact is, we took them before Argentina existed as a country. the French and Spanish have had people on their and claims in the past, but no claim is as strong as Britain’s and unlike Argentina, we actually care what the Falklander’s themselves want.

      IF the Falklanders themselves wanted to be Argentinian, we would allow that. But they do not want that. Not that the BBC give a damn!


  3. Jim Dandy says:

    This is pure propagandist nonsense I’m afraid. The bbc’s coverage on today this morning was excellent. John Simpson’s main piece at 730 was a very full piece on why Kirchner is posturing on the Falklands, which gave significant air time to Hague. The interview David cites was I think recorded so they could have edited it out. But of course they didn’t. Take a listen yourselves. You cannot pin the accusation that the BBC is overtly against the war on any of it.

    Very very thin stuff indeed.


    • hippiepooter says:

      JD, whose bias hunting here? DV hasn’t made any accusation of bias in the coverage on TODAY this morning. He has merely speculated on how they would have felt at hearing such affirmation of what Britain acheived 30 years ago by those who acheived it.

      Casting my mind back 30 years ago – and get this! – me and my anarchist mates were all for it, I’d say it even made us feel proud to be British! (we weren’t terribly set in the ideological mould, I think it was on the lines that democracy was better than a dictatorship).

      As for the BBC coverage, well nothing sticks out as bias. I was 18, and before having veered of towards anarchy, I was a 15 year old tribunite member of the Labour Party Young Socialists, and the only real bias I saw at the BBC in those days was towards the left. In fact, I think just before the Falklands there was a famous anarchist trial ‘Persons Unknown’ (acquited – but as guilty as the day is long, I know for a fact). The way the BBC covered it left me open mouthed. It was as if the BBC was run by anarchists.


      • ltwf 1964 says:

        the bbc has form on the Falklands,dating right back to 1982

        on wikipedia-
        during times of war, the BBC is often accused by the UK government, or by strong supporters of British military campaigns, of being overly sympathetic to the view of the enemy. An edition of Newsnight at the start of the Falklands War in 1982 was described as “almost treasonable” by John Page, MP, who objected to Peter Snow saying “if we believe the British”.


        • ltwf 1964 says:

          also-found this small excerpt from a longer piece-

          When Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in April 1982, the BBC made several very bad errors of judgment over their coverage. They decided that our brave soldiers should be referred to as ‘the British forces’, so the BBC could not be accused of bias (hah!). By far the worst thing they did was when they broadcast details of the our forces’ attack on Goose Green – before it had happened. As a result a number of British soldiers were needlessly killed; naturally the BBC denied reponsibility for this. The chairman and director-general of the BBC were summonsed to the Commons and over 100 irate MPs made their feelings clear in decidedly plain language. Don’t be silly now; of course there was no apology from the always-right but politically-Left BBC


          • John O'Connor says:

            During the Falklands War I was staying in France with my father (ex-RAF) and we listened to the World Service amost continuously. On one occasion a very excited reporter (better known as an ITN reporter but reports were shared) gushed that a ‘very daring operation’ was in progress which if successful would shorten the war. He said he couldn’t give many more details but it was obvious he was talking about an imminent landing. My father said, “He might as well tell the Argentinians where they’re landing,” which was my thought too. Later came the news that an attempted British landing at San Carlos Bay had been heavily bombed with the loss of ships and many lives. It has always been my belief that that reporter and the BBC were directly responsible for that tragedy, and I’m surprised that they never received any public criticism for that premature news report. However, Wikipedia notes this: ‘In his autobiographical account of the Falklands War, Admiral Woodward blames the BBC World Service for these changes to the (Argentinian) bombs. The World Service reported the lack of detonations after receiving a briefing on the matter from a Ministry of Defence official. He describes the BBC as being more concerned with being “fearless seekers after truth” than with the lives of British servicemen.’ That was certainly the conclusion my father and I came to.


      • Jim Dandy says:

        There is no basis for the speculation that the BBC was ‘sickened’. It’s just nonsense. And the tenor of coverage on today’s events shows it to be nonsense.

        I remember Brian Hanrahan’s coverage of the war (I think he was BBC). Hard to argue that was ‘leftwing’. From what I recall of the time, the large majority of opinion was united behind the war, including Michael Foot. I was certainly rabidly for it and it still boils my blood when I read arguments in favour of the Argentinian position ( which is paper thin).


        • Doggywoggy says:

          Of course the BBC are not left wing. If you are a communist, then the left wing leaning of the BBC must appear to be middle of the road.

          Why devote any coverage at all to the lies of our enemies? The fact that the BBC showed anything from the enemies capital shows how much they are betraying our soldiers. Why are they reporting from Buenos Aires instead of Port Stanley?

          Not biased? You are blind sir!


    • As I See It says:

      BBC News 24 report this morning on the memorial services for the fallen in the Falklands war. While generaly respectful of those who gave their lives the Beeb managed to work in a quote along the lines of ‘….there was political bungling beforehand….’

      Relentless leftwing anti-war messages from the Beeb. You don’t hear it? Then I can only assume that the message doesn’t jar with you.

      BBC have to cut away from the report because Ed Miliband just farted.


    • TigerOC says:

      Do you really believe that the John Simpson’s report was good?
      Hello; this is the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation which is funded by the British license fee payer.
      When it comes to the defense of Britain or British interests there is no impartiality. You back Britain and British politicians end of. Anything else is treason. If they want to be impartial go off and get funding from someone else but don’t expect us to fund it and then turn on the hand that feeds it.
      If they had treated Hitler and his goons with the same impartiality they would probably have been lynched in the street.
      JS goes to Argentina and asks young Argentinians whether they think their country has a claim on the Falklands and they say yes, he doesn’t ask why. He just accepts it. Why, because he is a useless journalist. If he was any good he would have a good knowledge of the history of the conflict and give a British perspective; i.e. it existed as a British occupied territory before Argentina even existed.


  4. Swiss Bob says:

    Found this which is from the period:


    • james says:

      Swiss Bob

      How do you embed youtube videos.


      • Swiss Bob says:

        I just posted the link, didn’t have to use any kind of ’embed’ html, just the link to the YouTube video, and I watched the lot, with a little skimming. Almost ended up there myself, phew!


    • More upset than they were supposed to be… says:

      I after watching the introduction I got the feeling that was just going to be the start of the BBC telling it like it isn’t.

      How right I was, first it was the line about how there has been a competing claim to the islands by Argentina from the get go, missing out the fact that Argentina didn’t exist back then.

      Then we have a good moment in the second part at around 3 minuets, with regard to the retaking of South Georgia and the capturing of the argy sub there, about how there was no film of the event and how a propaganda moment went begging because there was no professional camera man to record the argy sub captain surrendering. just a Navy lad with an 8mm

      I thought how funny it was that the BBC was complaining about propaganda going begging as we all know they are the experts in that area.


  5. john in cheshire says:

    Jim, once again I ask are you employed by the bbc or any organisation related to the bbc?


  6. David Vance says:


    Why is it “thin” stuff to consider how the State Broadcaster might cover the Falklands in 2012? Precisely?


    • Jim Dandy says:

      That wouldn’t be thin stuff. But your bias hunting this morning David was very thin indeed and easily refuted.


      • Doggywoggy says:

        Refuted? I just watched a current report from F***ing Buenos Aires and NO current coverage from the Falklands. The only film from the falklands was the Argies raising their flags and then the British raising ours from 30 years ago.

        They should NOT be showing any of the utterly irrelevant and wrong opinions of our enemies in Argentina.

        The BBC care more about the opinions of our enemies than those of the British people.

        BBC not biased? You must be on hallucinogenic drugs!


  7. As I See It says:

    The plethora of BBC agenda-driven history is one of several bug bears of mine.

    So I feel I must acknowledge the Max Hastings documentary on the Falklands this evening. Honest, sensible, thought provoking and fair to both Thatcher and Blair. An exceptional BBC history show that proves the rule that most of their stuff is PC obsessed crap?

    Meanwhile for a flash of historical lefty stupidilty I caught a moment of Channel 4 Time Team where the twelth century civil war between King Stephen and the Empress Matilda was discussed. A female obviously making a bid for a future BBC gig adds the corker ‘….and it’s the peasants who always suffer….’

    Yeah love, that’s what I always say ‘Bloody Normans and Angevins, what did they ever do for the workers?’


  8. zemplar says:

    At least Maggie’s covering her hair in that photo. Should please the muslims.


  9. Burkean Outlook says:

    The Falkland War is one of the most important conflicts to take place in the Cold War.

    Until this point, the West was in retreat. In 1979 we saw the Iranian Revolution and the US hostage crisis; we were in a grip of stagflation and industrial unrest.

    The USSR had invaded Afghanistan and was on the march in Africa and South East Asia, the Killings Fields and the Vietnamese Boat People were symbol of the humanitarian tragedy that came after the US withdrew from the region.

    China was convulsing from the Cultural Revolution, Pakistan was descending into Islamic fundamentalism under General Zia.

    The Western response to all this was to boycott the Moscow Olympic Games, under Jimmy Carter.
    With the event of Mrs Thatcher being elected, many on the Left and establishment Right believed she would fail.

    She was engaging in “voodoo economics”, her policies were failing on the streets of Brixton and Toxteth. Even her supporters thought she was weak and ineffectual.
    Then the invasion took place.

    The view of the BBC, and the Labour Party was that her decision to send the Task Force was that she was unlikely to win, and anyway she was bound to fail at home.

    They didn’t count on her conviction that she was not going to be cowed by a fascist dictatorship, nor the ability and skill of Her Majesties Armed Forces, nor the British people.

    Freedom won. The fascist junta fell days later, and from this point onwards the growing confidence of the peoples of the United States and the United Kingdom, lead by Ronald Reagan and Mrs Thatcher lead to the liberation of Eastern Europe and the end of the Cold War and potential Nuclear Armageddon.

    As I pointed out, the BBC believed she would lose, and therefore she got a comparative easy ride. The real venom, hatred and destructive tendencies of the media Left started afterwards. From BBC Scotland’s Marxist narration, to the “comedy” of Ben Elton, the paranoid conspiracies illustrated in drama like “Defence of the Realm” and “Edge of Darkness” to the anti-nuclear deterrent polemic “Threads”.

    There is a point that is relevant today. When you are in global retreat, economic collapse and nihilism and isolationism, basket cases like North Korea and Iran will take advantage.

    Leave Afghanistan and the Islamists will come back, leave Iraq, then Iran fills the void, leave the world, and the world comes after you.


    • Doggywoggy says:

      Agreed. Since then the left have betrayed our military with underfunding, cutting basic training in half and imposing weak political correctness upon them to weaken them so that we will find it much harder to defend British territory in future.

      Remember when the Iranians took some of our seamen prisoner? One of them had his iPod confiscated and it made him cry. Political correctness in the military turned our ferocious, brave and brilliant troops into a global laughing stock. Unfit, untrained and soft! In my day basic training was twice as long as today and it was brutal!

      They wanted to stamp out bullying in the military? Bollocks! I want our troops to be highly disciplined vicious bastards. They are no good at what we ask them to do otherwise.


  10. Burkean Outlook says:

    Just remember-there is still a hole in the ground where the Twin Towers once stood.

    When the people of Iran tried to overthrow the theocracy, we stood by and did nothing.

    When too few stand up for freedom, both here and abroad, then freedom dies.

    Lord Bless our Country and God Save The Queen


  11. james says:

    “is the UK capable of fighting and winning a war when the State Broadcaster has such a grip over the news cycle and can therefore influence and direct public opinion. What say you?”

    Thatcher had a deliberate news blackout when it came to the Falklands conflict. A lefty teacher at school (back in those days) complained that reports from the Crimean War came back quicker to England than during Falklands. Because of Vietnam, Thatcher was never going to let the lefty media run down her troops.

    Even so the BBC still did broadcast British troop movements to the Argentinians over the world service. And the army brass complained that the BBC were always sniffing around trying to find an anti-war story. The BBC claimed to be neutral, but in my eyes the sort of neutral that gives comfort to the enemy.


  12. Jim Dandy says:

    ‘….real question here that needs consideration – is the UK capable of fighting and winning a war when the State Broadcaster has such a grip over the news cycle and can therefore influence and direct public opinion. What say you?’

    Well dodgy presumptions aside, given the number of wars we have fought and won (in a military sense) in the last decade, the answer would need to be yes.


    • hippiepooter says:

      Did we ‘win’ Iraq? Did we win Afghanistan?

      I’d say the victories that were there to be had were denied by holding back due to the propaganda pogrom by the media left. That is why the Viet Cong saw the western media as an ‘extra regiment’, capable of turning defeat into victory for them.


      • demon1001 says:

        As did the IRA. The BBC aided by the incoming Labour government turned a chance for true peace into an IRA victory.


  13. Jim Dandy says:

    Interesting article I found here about the early heat the BBC faced about the Falklands:

    Click to access falklands.pdf

    The perils of impartiality!


  14. Burkean Outlook says:

    The question should be, should our national broadcasters be impartial when the nation engages in conflict.

    The answer is no

    The most misguided policy of the BBC is this sense of “impartiality” after 9/11. Like others in the MSM it decided to be “aloof” from the the struggle that directly effects us.

    Hence we get the term “militants” when we describe Islamism, which is in direct conflict of the values that the BBC itself is supposed to uphold-fairness, diversity, freedom of speech, press freedoms and the pluralist traditions of the United Kingdom.

    Even worse is the “Lauren Booth” mentality that some, although I grant you a minority,openly support these reactionary forces and clearly have a violent anti-Western political stance.

    Imagine if you would the modern BBC reporting of the Second World War?

    Would we not have endless debates regarding why we did not send even more troops to Greece in 1941? Or the questioning of the conduct of Allied forces in Italy or France? Or should Winston Churchill resign after the failure of the Anzio landings? Or why are we calling for the unconditional surrender of the Axis in 1942? Or the moral case of the Bombing Campaign in 1944?

    What about the rightly heroic actions of the BBC itself during the early Cold War. Coded within BBC radio broadcasts were messages to the various resistant groups
    operating across Europe.

    You can imagine today if the BBC was asked to the same? No doubt it would be engulfed in some Wikileaks row, and those people who look to the BBC as a voice would be sold down the river, all because of the “liberal group think” of politically motivated journalists who believe that they are the next Woodward and Bernstein.

    My friends who lived behind the Iron Curtain, Iran and Iraq risked their lives to listen to BBC World Service for hope and liberty. That tradition is now dead and the BBC killed it with political correctness.


    • ltwf 1964 says:

      found this on

      sounds like the minutes of a bbc briefing meeting-

      For us, the two crucial definitive qualities regarding how terrorists endeavour to advance their social/religious/political agenda are: intent to hurt or kill; and hurting or killing unarmed and/or helpless people, and sometimes property. It’s people getting hurt and killed which is most important for us to address, though. Also, we’d like to note that while it is certainly true that not all Muslims are terrorists, we cannot deny that most terrorists are Muslims. It’s not politically correct (q.v) to say that, but it is nonetheless true. And on the topic, the mainstream media has adopted the maddeningly frustrating policy of not wanting to offend terrorists. So now there are all sorts of euphemistic terms for terrorists, and Daniel Pipes has compiled a list:
      Criminals (This one actually isn’t too bad, we think.)
      Another one we have spotted that is used increasingly, particularly at the diversity-intoxicated al-Beeb (q.v.) is:

      ‘Men’ i.e. ‘a group of..’ Guaranteed 100% Muslim and Islam-free
      And the best one of all:

      Activists. If we could somehow get Reuters, AFP, and AP to use the word terrorist as it should be used—:i.e., when talking about a terrorist, and not in quotation marks— that would be our Pulitzer.


    • hippiepooter says:

      Hi Burkean, in a hurry so just read your first question, but one could argue that in a limited war where our media were free to report in Argentina, the ‘objective terminology’ the BBC and others assumed were justified. I believe I’m right in saying that Michael Nicholson from ITN used the same terminology, and he was no red under the bed.

      The same though, cannot be said when reporting from terrorist strongholds like Gaza and Southern Lebanon, or from Iraq.

      The rule of thumb should be that if our reporters cannot report freely, are subject to intimidation, it is not possible for their reports to have value, the enemy only allows them in their territory to serve their propaganda interests. They shouldn’t be there.

      Of course, many BBC reporters in Gaza dont need to be intimidated to report in favour of the terrorist enemies of our democratic ally Israel.


  15. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The Battle of Goose Green, anyone? The BBC News Channel is talking about it right now in a special feature report. It gave a psychological boost to the British Troops, and mostly Chinese troops were killed. No mention of any controversy about the BBC giving advance notice of the attack.

    Also, the BBC News Channel just told me that during the conflict, the Belgrano was “hit, under continuing controversy”.


    • More upset than they were supposed to be... says:

      It was a warship of the enamy. in a time of war you fuck the basterd over so hard that makes sure he can’t hurt your own. If the BBC find that hard to understand I’m sure there are enough people out there willing to set them strate.


  16. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Two of the first three questions from the female Beeboid to Maj. Gen. Julian Thompson were interesting. After asking the general if he ever expected to go and fight a war down in the Falklands, she asked if things were difficult when his troops landed just after the initial haphazard battle. He said that he didn’t land until seven weeks later, and by then they’d had time to fix things up and settle down. Nice research, BBC producers.

    Next question: Was it a fair fight, as the Argentine troops were “very young, and looking down,” and surrendered.

    No bias there, then.


    • David Vance says:

      Impartiality. It is in the DNA.


    • hippiepooter says:

      Strewth, outnumbered 3-1 by the Argies. Was it a fair fight? Sheesh!


    • Doggywoggy says:

      They also outnumbered our troops several times over.


    • Pounce_uk says:

      So the bBc feels the argentine soldiers were all young. You mean like me and mates all around the 20 mark. I remember watching an infantry squad tabbing off and the one I noticed was how young they all were. But then the same can be said of nearly all wars. Didn’t Paul hardcastle have a hit with a record called: 19?. But to the bBc only the argies were the victims.

      The bBC the traitors in our midst.


  17. james says:

    The BBC is so deluded it is still taking the side of King Phillip of Spain during the Spanish Armada! 🙂


  18. Beness says:

    Sky news have interviews with Falkland Islanders. They want to remain British. End of.


  19. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Beeboid Ben (usually not too bad) on the News Channel asking a former British soldier who was wounded in the Falklands – after the obligatory “Was it worth it?” – about why he and his fellow troops felt it was necessary to defend the territory because – with a pause and a giggle – it’s so far away and much closer to Argentina.

    I’m not inferring anything here. He paused and did one of those short “heh-heh” giggles before the “it’s much closer to Argentina” part. If they repeat it, all may judge for themselves.

    Fortunately, the soldier said that it didn’t matter how far away it was, as the real questions was about to whom the Falklands belonged, who lived there, and did they want to be British.

    I’d like to see a Beeboid ask someone from Argentina who lost a family member in the fighting if it was worth it.


    • Doggywoggy says:

      They did on the six o’clock news. They asked an Argentine who lost a relative in the Falkland’s conflict.

      They have stopped asking our troops or their relatives if it was worth it, because they ALL say it definitely was. We successfully defended British territory and British citizens from an extremist left-wing dictator, (and weakened the left at home).

      So now they have taken to asking relatives of slain Argentine conscripts, because then they get the answer they were looking for. They say it was not worth it! That is why they asked him!


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘with a pause and a giggle – it’s so far away and much closer to Argentina.

      Maybe she was reading from the PR faxed over by President Kirchner of what she ‘will say’ at the speech I saw just now on SKY, after that reassuring spectacle with a failing government and economy of a mob whipped up by the leadership attacking an embassy over some hapless police, with obligatory flag and effigy burning. Always ends well on the not inflaming front.

      Including the bizarre claim that the Falklands is ‘just a few kilometers away’. Geography not her strong point then.

      I can see why any reference to this barking bint’s latest is a bit hard to locate anywhere on the World or even South American pages. Maybe the BBC are just waiting to ensure their facts are correct first, in case they still think ‘a few kilometers’ is ‘getting it about right?
      On giggling over a shooting war, I have an outstanding complaint being escalated up to ECU and (inevitably as they simply rubber stamp , ‘we cannot see anything wrong’ on all that passes through them too) beyond regarding the Esler Dateline London where, for balance, he had a ‘debate’ with four less than objective journalists, and even chipped in to assist their biases, concluding with a ‘lighthearted quip’ about ‘defending a few penguins’.
      They seem to be having some trouble wiggling around how that sounds on the anniversary of hundreds dying to defend freedoms of self-determination. Speaking of weak defences…

      Jim Dandy says:
      April 2, 2012 at 8:28 am
      This is pure propagandist nonsense’

      Raising that term around the BBC is dangerous path, especially by one revealed too often as no more than an inept contrarian unable to check facts before rushing to conflate what is ‘thought’ or ‘believed’ with more substantive fare. Or on the case of subjectivity, presuming ‘I’m right because I am’ actually counts as anything of value beyond being perfect CV fodder to apply for work experience as a BBC Complaints Director.
      Mr. Dandy, you are an apologist for the BBC, and a very poor one, highlighting the paucity of cases that can be made in their defence. I thank you for that.
      Whether it is for reasons of personal kicks or ‘something more sinsiter’ I have no clue, but I do not thank you for taking lightly and sides in such a partisan manner the BBC’s grotesque handling of this conflict, in commission or omission, up to and including the present.


  20. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Stage Performer Maitlis just now on the News Channel asking some reporter (after we heard that it was a distraction by Thatcher from her leadership troubles) why people supported the war in the Falklands: was it just patriotism, the “idea of victory”?

    In other words, Maitlis can imagine only pathetic, weak reasons for it, as she did not ask whether or not people thought maybe it was a British territory worth defending because the British people living there wanted to remain that way. Only negative from the highly-paid Stage Performer.


  21. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Now we hear that the Falklands victory turned Mrs. Thatcher into Boudicca, and secured her premiership for years. Yet another reason for the Beeboids to hate the Falklands War.


  22. More upset than they were supposed to be… says:

    ‘….real question here that needs consideration – is the UK capable of fighting and winning a war when the State Broadcaster has such a grip over the news cycle and can therefore influence and direct public opinion. What say you?’

    I think the answer to the question is yes, yes we could fight and win a war in the South Atlantic, even with the BBC doing it’s best to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

    The thing the BBC will forget is that the people and the Falklands are British and an attack on our own is a different kettle of fish to when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

    But if it happens again they will do their best to run our forces down and tell us all how wrong it is and in doing so hopefully bring about their final demise.


  23. Pounce_UK says:

    Is the bBC biased in its coverage of the Falklands.?

    Have a look at the main photo from today’s bBC’s main article on the subject. What message is the bBC sending to those too young to remember 1982.

    Now click on the photo and read its file name.

    Now compare that image with the one the bBC imparts when it comes to British troops in Iraq/Northern Ireland/Afghanistan.

    The bBC, the traitors in our midst.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I was going to say they’ll just claim that’s what Getty called it, and wash their hands of it. However, the Getty Images website says something very different.

      BBC caption:

      Argentinian conscripts buying souvenir postcards in Port Stanley post office after the invasion

      Getty Images caption:

      Argentine soldiers buy postcards at a souvenir shop in Stanley, 13 April 1982. Twenty-five years after the Falklands / Malvinas war, Argentina continues to claim sovereignty over the islands, which the country’s then military junta invaded on April 2, 1982. More than 900 people died, including 655 Argentines, 255 British troops and three islanders, before Argentine forces surrendered on June 14, 1982. Argentina returned to democracy in 1983.

      Never mind the extra details, of course. The key bits are “conscripts” rather than “soldiers”, and the decision by some very young, very low-paid Beeboid making the decision to label it Malvinas, even while the article title says Falklands. This matches up with the Narrative being pushed earlier on the News Channel, that it was not a fair fight as the poor Argentines were young and inexperienced. It’s not really the BBC’s place to make judgments like this, yet it seems to be reflexive across several departments.


      • Span Ows says:

        The photo is no longer there…


        • Guest Who says:

          ‘The photo is no longer there…’

          Maybe the story evolved?

          Or someone tipped them off that their settings were not hitting the right target?

          Mr. Dandy… any access to that ‘special’ intranet search you enjoy to locate what happened to the now missing image?


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          The story has “evolved” 18 times already. Sadly, News Sniffer doesn’t pay attention to images, and it’s too new for the Wayback Machine to have caught it.

          Defenders of the indefensible will just have to pretend that pounce made up the photo, and I got a telepathic vision of it and then found it on Getty Images anyway.


          • Guest Who says:

            The story has “evolved” 18 times already… have to pretend that pounce made up the photo, and I got a telepathic vision of it and then found it on Getty Images anyway.

            Oh, so you are also dealing with the BBC complaints dept., ECU and ‘Trust us, we’re family’ as well?

            No worries, I’ll mention it to them next time I pop out London way from the Borders. According to our Christina, unmocked by half the MSM, they are only a few doors down.


  24. As I See It says:

    The BBC’s idea of political impartiality appears to mean triangulating to some point on the spectrum roughly halfway between a rabidly left trotskyite student and Shirley Williams. Which I guess is just about where Ed Miliband sits. Now I understand.


  25. Doggywoggy says:

    The BBC are unashamedly pro EU, pro Globalist and prefer the UN to Parliament, They will be in the front row cheer-leading for the EU and UN over the next 10 – 15 years as our seat on the UN security council is removed from the UK and given to the EU instead.

    Once that happens the EU led by Spanish and French supporters will support Argentina’s appeal to have the sovereignty of the Falklands re-investigated and handed over to Argentina without a shot being fired. The wishes of the people of the Falkland’s themselves will not be considered and our Islands will be handed over to Argentina.

    Can anyone here actually imagine the BBC standing up for the British over this?


    • eadwulf says:

      “The BBC are unashamedly pro EU, pro Globalist and prefer the UN to Parliament”
      So is our dear leader, Cameron. The BBC are the voice of the elite, while we have professional politicians who live in the Westminster bubble, nothing will change.


      • geyza says:

        Sadly, that is entirely true. Labour, conservative and liberal democrat are the same. In policy area after policy area they are almost identical. Their rhetoric changes but they implement the same agenda.

        From pro-surveillance state to :
        pro-EU subservience,
        Pro immigration,
        pro high taxes,
        pro climate change taxation and control,
        pro big government,
        pro ECHR,
        pro corrupt corporate lobbying,
        Pro-big banker,
        pro high debt,
        pro-politically correct nonsense,
        pro-merging our defence with that of France,
        soft on crime and law and order and
        soft on welfare and benefits cheats …

        … and pandering to the lefty agenda of the BBC!

        Even on deficit reduction there is now less than 1% difference between what Osborne has done and Alistair Darling’s plans.

        I am now a UKIP supporter.


  26. John O'Connor says:

    Worth remembering is the strange saga of The Falklands Play. This was suggested to Alasdair Milne in 1982 by Ian Curteis who had scripted many BBC productions. When Curteis delivered his script it was considered too favourable to ‘the Iron Lady and went through several rewrites. When Curteis refused to put in fictitous scenes showing Mrs Thatcher in a deliberately bad light, the production was shelved while another, highly critical BBC film about the Falklands War, ‘Tumbledown’, was given the green light. It wasn’t until 20 years later(!) that the BBC allowed the project to be made and then only in a low-budget, heavily cut version half the length of the Curteis’ original script. Fuller account at Wikipedia:


  27. As I See It says:

    I caught another BBC report today from the Falklands which seemed to be bemoaning the way the islanders ‘wear their patriotism on their sleeves’.

    You know what….I think the Beeb reckons they need a bit more diversity down there.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Hey, those Brits are an oppressed minority down there. The BBC ought to have a little compassion.


  28. alan says:

    Not a great deal of diversity in Argentina.

    Cristina Kirchner says Britain is colonialist….odd coming from a woman of Spanish and German descent in a nation that is occupied by a population that is 90% of european extraction.

    Wonder what happened to the indigenous people?

    Oh wait…is this what?…..

    ‘Our self-respect as a virile people obliges us to put down as soon as possible, by reason or by force, this handful of savages who destroy our wealth and prevent us from definitely occupying, in the name of law, progress and our own security, the richest and most fertile lands of the Republic.’
    —Julio Argentino Roca

    The Conquest of the Desert (Spanish: Conquista del desierto) was a military campaign directed mainly by General Julio Argentino Roca in the 1870s, which established Argentine dominance over Patagonia, which was inhabited by indigenous peoples. The Conquest is commemorated on the 100 peso bill in Argentina.[1]


  29. Johnny Norfolk says:

    Could we repeat the Faulklands war. Well maybe not in the same way, but the point is we now have a new airport there that would be used for early reaction. The BBC never mention this.


  30. Pounce_uk says:

    I was out tonight (flicks) and prior to Pirates and scientists. We popped into the local for a meal and a drink.

    Anyway the major story on the bBC news channel was how the smelly Argentine twat was referring to the Brits as relics of a bygone age. The thing is the bbC spent no time informing the British populace who fund its anti-British mantra about what the PM had to say on the matter.

    Which brings me to how the bBC has been pushing out every story from every washed up general going. You know those who keep on saying the Uk would be unable to retake the Islands if Argentina took them. Thus promoting the view to the X-factor generation that we should actually hand the Islands over to the Spic cunts across the water because they want it.

    Well here’s something the bBC (and their defence experts) don’t tell you.

    The Islands are over 400 miles from Argentina. (And that is just the west Island) the East island is another 100 miles further east.

    There are numerous land based radar stations (I know I helped build one in 1983 on my second tour)

    The major runway is in the middle of a huge military base in the middle of nowhere. Have a look on google maps for anybody to take it, they will have to land on the island, tab over 30-50 miles take the base and then hold it.

    1 sub with tomahawk missiles (like the UK has) can take out an entire invasion fleet over a cup of coffee. I tranche 3 Typhoon with Storm shadow (of which we have 900) can do even worse.

    Lets say all that fails and somebody actually lands troops on the Islands. The reason why the British won in 1982 is because the Argies presumed we would go by road. We didn’t we tabbed X-country, a country I should add which isn’t friendly to vehicles or to DMS boots. So will the invaders do like wise, across terrain they know nothing about. Come on, I’m talking Latin Americans here, they can’t fight for toffee, talk a good fight, but as soon as you square up to them, its “One Sheet” and its a white one with brown stains. Oh they can bully the sick,lame and lazy, but to anybody else. It’s time to call in the UN.

    The bBC know all of this,yet instead of reporting the facts they report tripe.

    The bBC, the traitors in our Midst”


    • Span Ows says:

      “It is a fire and forget missile, programmed before launch. Once launched, the missile cannot be controlled, its target information changed or be self-destructed. “

      So I say to the Argentines beware, all I have to do as Prime Minister is press this button and …oops, why didn’t you tell me it was so sensitive!