Wel then, the BBC have gotten hold of another story that will be used to demonise OUR soldiers as they face the most savage enemy imaginable;
Photographs which appear to show at least one UK serviceman posing with a dead Taliban fighter are being treated “extremely seriously”, the RAF says. The pictures were taken after a 2012 attack on Camp Bastion, UK troops’ main base in Afghanistan. They first appeared on the website Live Leak. Two RAF Regiment members have been withdrawn from front-line duties.
The taking of so-called trophy photographs is strictly forbidden and military police are investigating The images show some of the damage caused in the attack, but two appear to show at least one member of the RAF Regiment giving a thumbs-up sign while kneeling next to the bloodied body of a dead insurgent. It is not clear whether the same serviceman is in both pictures.
You just KNOW that this one will run in the same way and hold the same legacy as the instance when US soldiers urinated on the bodies of dead Taliban or when Alexander Blackman killed a wounded Jihadist. The media seem to believe that in warfare one plays by the Queensbury rules. The Taliban don’t, they just kill in the most savage way possible. But when one of OURS steps slightly over an idealistic line – BANG – the inquisition starts.
The only good Taliban is a dead one in my opinion. I, and probably many millions more throughout the world, would actually like one of these photos as a souvenir on my mantlepiece. I hope their deaths were as slow and painful as possible.
Regards the attack on Bastion the bBC has gone out of its way to ensure that the British are made responsible for this:
In its latest report, the committee said more than half the guard towers had been left unmanned, leaving troops exposed to “unnecessary risk”. This included the tower closest to the point where the insurgents broke through the fence, contributing directly to the failure to detect the attack at an early stage, the committee said.
That is what the bBC say the MP select committee had to say. What they don’t say is that the manning of the guard posts was the responsibility of the Tongan Army. Not the British. The Terrorists entered the camp via the American sector and the British QRF (rock apes) went to the Americans Aid. (Still in the American sector) that is why 2 American generals were sacked.
The bBC, the mouthpiece for Islamic terrorism
The Taliban are cruel. They are also brave and daring, as on this occasion, and while I support our troops I think we have now become invaders and occupiers, and we’ve admitted defeat.
But this photo is unimportant in the extreme and is a minor disciplinary matter, not headline news.
The taking of so-called trophy photographs is strictly forbidden
Sigh. David Vance leaves morality and ethics way way behind shocker.
Our armed forces have, as the article states, rules for military conduct. They exist for a reason. Just because you can’t seem to see what those reasons are doesn’t make them wrong, it just means that your own prejudices are blinkering you yet again.
Scott,
Have you ever been in a War Zone? (Hurling abuse across the dance floor because somebody is wearing the same dress as you doesn’t count)
Have you ever had to wear, body armour, bin lid, webbing,Gat, ammo, and the rest and then run like fuck towards somebody who is trying to kill you?
Every had an adrenaline rush as bullets fly, explosions go off, people shout,cry and moan and nobody knows what is happening.
Then when everything finishes, and full of emotion that you are still alive (as are your mates) you have a photo taken
No I think not you obnoxious trolling little prat
So with all that in mind, why don’t you fuck off to the sites you love to cruise around and wax lyric about something you can talk about as a subject matter expert.
Ever conducted yourself with decorum in a discussion, without resorting to telling people to fuck off, Pounce?
And to think that only the other day you claimed that a brief use of profane language on my part proved I’d lost the argument. I guess by that reasoning, you must lose a hell of a lot of the time…
Scott,
I am more than happy to communicate in a civilized way. The problem is when trolls like you litter the pages of blogs you claim to dispise, with your many IDs and your vapid comments. I’ve tried being civil, but cunts like you only understand and respect harsh talk. and so I comply.
Now if you wish to play the little victim and scream and scream and scream, then Violet Elizabeth please do.
I’ve tried being civil, but cunts like you
You don’t seem to try very hard. And if you think using the c-word makes anybody respect you more, you’re deluded.
And don’t go on that “multiple IDs” nonsense again to me, either. You know you’re talking rubbish. You’re just not man enough to admit that you’re wrong.
Scott wrote:
” You’re just not man enough”
I’ll give you that one Scott, I’ll admit, I’ll never be a real man like you will I.
Poor Scott. That unstoppable desire for attention…
Yes, when Pounce lies about me using multiple IDs and I challenge him on it, that’s about my desire for attention.
But it’s easier to denigrate me than admit that this site is riddled with fantasists and liars, isn’t it?
” Scott,
Have you ever been in a War Zone? (Hurling abuse across the dance floor because somebody is wearing the same dress as you doesn’t count)
Have you ever had to wear, body armour, bin lid, webbing,Gat, ammo, and the rest and then run like fuck towards somebody who is trying to kill you?”
Your answer is?
My answer is that, like David Vance and the vast majority of people on this site who feel they have a right to make comments on the topic, I have not.
The question is, why am I the only person being quizzed on their experience? Funny how similarly inexperienced civilian Vance and all the people agreeing with him get a bye, isn’t it?
Why, it almost as if this whole site is founded on relentless hypocrisy. “If you’re as biased as we are you can say what you like: but if you disagree with us, we’re going to hold you to a standard we don’t meet ourselves.”
Scott, you would not dare say that to a mans face would you? You are a weak man, face to face i would predict you would be in casualty pretty quick.
Oh-so-cultured views from the safety and comfort of your chair. We’re not talking about a game of tiddlywinks between two teams of big jessies, Scott. These are hard people most probably scarred by the horrific psychological trauma of fighting an enemy who disembowel captives and eat their vital organs, before hanging the remains on a tree out-with the local village. Yes, it’s not what we want from our soldiers but, please, spare your sanctimony – at least until you can speak from experience of such circumstances (God forbid!).
Oh-so-cultured views from the safety and comfort of your chair
I wonder how comfy Vance’s chair is, don’t you? Or do prejudiced loons who talk bollocks that you happen to agree with get a free pass on furniture comfort from you for some reason?
But Twinkle toes, the question was aimed at your ruby red slippers and not DV.
In otherwords don’t digress
I’d love to know what circumstances make David Vance eligible to comment on such things, though. Unless the Chartered Institute of Marketing is a lot more dangerous than it would have us believe.
‘… bollocks…’ –
Revise your comment without the vile language and I might reply.
Bless. I notice you don’t pull Pounce up on his use of “fuck” and “cunt”, but you clutch your pearls at the use of “bollocks”.
Still, one rule for the resident bigots, another rule for the rest of us… That’s how it’s always been in Vance’s little pit of prejudice, and so shall it ever be.
You appear to be a very rude, but smug person, Scott. Put a sock in it (or something harder, if it’ll fit…).
smug as well as rude to all and sundry is Scott to a T
Scott,
For someone who claims that the majority of other posters are bigots, I find it ironic / sad that your own posts are littered with ad-homs, misdirection and smears…indeed following your definition of what constitutes a bigot it is clear that you yourself are arguably the worst of the bigots that you claim to despise.
I find it ironic / sad that your own posts are littered with ad-homs, misdirection and smears
And at the risk of repeating myself, your condescension would carry more weight if you criticised others who say and do far worse in my direction.
But you don’t.
So tell me, why should I care what you think of me, when you wilfully ignore other people’s behaviour?
‘Still, one rule for the resident bigots, another rule for the rest of us… That’s how it’s always been in Vance’s little pit of prejudice, and so shall it ever be.’
Scott, please explain why this website still holds such a fatal attraction for you.
Scott does your Mummy know you are using the computer again?
Wow. Great contribution. Biased BBC is clearly blessed by the presence of your intellect.
Do you have any family in the military Scott?
Scott Whose side are you on in this war – The Taliban or the British army? To say ‘neither’ is not acceptable.
Are you suggesting that believing servicemen should obey their own armed forces’ rules about behaviour in combat operations is somehow supporting the Taliban?
That seems a rather imbelic viewpoint.
Scott,
Perhaps you should enlist and request a posting to a combat zone and then see how long your naive views would last.
So do you believe that servicemen should be allowed to pick and choose which rules of conduct they should, and shouldn’t observe?
As this is a site dedicated to discussing BBC standards of reporting, do you think it, as a national broadcaster of the nation for whom such servicemen fight, was justified in making a 2012 incident follow-up a deck-clearing story broadcast top of the schedules along with a special dedicated email alert?
Especially when, and possibly still, the actual BBC stories listed use words such as ‘apparent’ and ‘could’ on matters of life and death, knowing full well such journalism is just what the Taliban love to see and share to prop up their fading support and morale as they conjure up new and improved ways to attack and kill people from the shadows?
Sorry, the combination of narrow column width and Guest Who’s prolixity makes it harder to digest this.
Do I think the BBC should cover this? Of course. I’d rather our enemies in combat see that we treat such occurrences as aberrations; sweeping such incidents under the carpet only for them to emerge later would be far more damaging.
As for being a deck-clearing story broadcast top of the schedules along with a special dedicated email alert – well, I don’t receive any email alerts from the BBC so I couldn’t speak to that, but deciding where it goes in a bulletin running order is hardly “deck clearing”. Are you being disingenuous with your hyperbolic verbose pomposity again, perchance?
‘Do I think the BBC should cover this?’
Not the question.
As you well know.
And an ad hom sandwich to avoid answering what you admit to not knowing about, steering around the actual point.
You should be sorry, but clearly are not.
I am astounded that anyone who cares for you, knowing your emotional maturity, allows you to expose yourself so cruelly like this.
They are not your friends.
Bless. Thank goodness you’re above such things as “ad homs”, eh, Guest Who.
Yes.
As we prolixity-prone, disingenuous, hyperbolic verbose pomposity types might say.
Have a nice evening, Scott.
But I don’t think spending it here will be good for you.
He’d probably be 4F……..
You didn’t answer the question.
*rolls eyes*
It was a stupid question, Fred. I was trying to get to the nub of why you would ask it in the first place.
Do you believe that taking the view that servicemen should obey the armed forces rules of conduct is somehow supporting the Taliban?
You something Scott, according to the rule book :
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols
No crime has been committed. In all my lessons on MATT5, never have I have taught that having a photo with a dead body is wrong. Yes we all assume it is wrong, but it isn’t in Ink. (Not even at the red cross) so to that end just what is the Rock ape guilty of, when according to the rule book he hasn’t done anything wrong.
(Please feel free to check up on me, as I have already done my homework)
In other words while the entire Islamic world and Catholic world thinks it is wrong and a criminal act for two men to have sex. In the UK it isn’t. So on that note want to point me in the direction of the law where it says it is a crime to have a happy snap next to a dead body?
In all my lessons on MATT5, never have I have taught that having a photo with a dead body is wrong.
Funny, the Army’s own documentation on Values and Standards suggests that it’s MATT 6 which covers this ground. MATT 5 covers navigation. If, as you say, you’ve done your homework, maybe it’s just not on the correct module… 😉
I’ve looked over the RAF and Army handbooks on values and standards, and as you’d expect they don’t list each item which might be considered an offence – I assume there are other documents available to the armed services which aren’t easily Googleable. However, the Army code is online and it does explicitly say:
Respect for others is a hallmark of the British Army: it comes from the duty to put others first and means that there is no place for prejudice or favouritism
So how does this tie in with you calling me a cunt, or any other of the numerous instances where, on this forum, you’ve made highly prejudicial comments about either individuals (not limited to myself) or generalised groups of people?
Don’t try and pretend just because you are, or were, a squaddie that you’re above such matters. You’re taught that you ought to held to a higher standard than civilians, and yet every day on this board you fail at that.
Perhaps the Islamist savage shown in the picture with the British soldiers were as “cute” as Faisal Shahzad…..Oh what might of been, huh Scotty…
Perhaps the Islamist savage shown in the picture with the British soldiers is as “cute” as Faisal Shahzad…..Oh what might of been, huh Scotty…
Sad little homosexual troll.
Oh no! There’s a gay man making comments! Quick, let’s be particularly stupid and obnoxious, that’ll demonstrate our superiority!
Scott, old man,
You do sometimes have useful information which may highlight another point of view, which is, of course, healthy for debate.
All too often though, you spoil your argument in the tone and manner of it’s delivery .
The way I look at it, when I comment on this blog, People have made this facility available to me for nothing, and therefore I try not to trespass on David Vance Et al’s hospitality by using abusive or sarcastic personal attacks as a primary weapon.
A word of advice; Try being polite, and others, I’m sure will reciprocate in the same vein.
Hope all is well with you.
MVR
I second that motion
Telling that you think I’m being impolite, but you stay silent when Pounce calls me a cunt.
A little bit of consistency would make you sound like less of a craven hypocrite.
People on here run out of patience with you (some more quickly than others) for all the reasons Manfred has given.
You post relentlessly in this vein, whereas in return you get a mixture – a few insulting (see ‘run out of patience’ above) but most trying to engage in a civilised debate.
Lighten up, eh?
Interesting use of “most”, there…
It is quite clear that Scott knows nothing whatsoever about what is involved.
Should probably save that comment so it can be easily cut ‘n’ pasted as required.
Perhaps this would be Scott’s idea of the armed forces.
Good sketch.
At least I’m not as desperate to scream “ad hom” every time somebody attacks the person rather than discussing the issue as some of the rather more sensitive creatures on this site.
Well done – not a bad answer.
Having experienced what is like during the late 60s when I was part of what was laughably called a UN “Peace Keeping” force and then in the early 70s in Dhofar, I can say that when things kicked off it was quite terrifying, especially in the aftermath.
Mixed emotions took over when you realised that someone had been trying to do maximum physical harm to you. I saw a lot of things and fully understood why they had happened.
The problem with the BBC is that they are giving free rein to anyone who wants to have a pop at these guys who just posed for a photo.
So what if they did. The realities are that someone has just tried to kill someone else and paid the price.
Why this is being discussed at all, let alone by the BBC freakery is beyond me. They posed for a friggin photo and that is all.
Were you up on the hill then, when it was all going on? I was late to Salalah 3 Sqdn ’75 and later – ’77 for a few years. Quiet by then.
“Contractor” in Salalah 1970 -72
Quite an interesting time then, by all accounts, even inside the wire. Respect.
Scott, once again you selectively critique a minor point in DV’s argument. He makes a solid argument with a whole lot of substance, yet you decide to ignore this and instead go down the ‘moralistic’ route.
Your anti-English attitude stinks and one which is reflected daily in the BBC’s output. You, my friend, tick all the BBC’s boxes. Ever considered applying for a job? Perhaps you already do.
And the same BBC gleefully broadcasts the pre-suicide videos of ‘British’ jihadists, prior to their attempts & successes at wreaking carnage in the UK.
A couple of days ago I noticed this story. It was compiled to little more than one or two lines as a backwater piece.. That was of course until the BBC came on board, and now it’s everywhere….
Still, no doubt it will help Choudary and his bearded Muppet’s radicalise hot heads to enact in carnage and butchery on British streets……And at that juncture, the BBC will be on hand to placte the Jihadis as persecuted minorities who are quite simply misunderstood.
In the 7/7 aftermath the view prevailed on the BBC that it was our fault – Afghanistan, Iraq and the poor little loves feeling ‘alienated’ from our society, despite some of the bombers having had terrorist training before the ‘War on Terror’ kicked off.
Then there was the post-9/11 edition of ‘Question Time’, the BBC’s fawning over Moazzem Begg and….and….
You add it all up over the years and the result is one massive stinking pile of anti-British Broadcasting Chite (pronounce as the ‘ch’ in ‘champagne’ or as the ‘c’ in ‘socialist’).
After a 25 year career in the military I feel that the nations funded broadcaster should take much more care over the way it reports on the guys and gals that give them their freedom to report.
I say this since it sticks in my claw that I was on a ship in the Total Exclusion Zone down the South Atlantic hearing reports that Labours Tam Dalyell was questing the sinking of the Belgrano for example and that he BBC had let the enemy know the Paras were about to attack Goose Green:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Goose_Green
BBC incident[edit]
During the planning of the assault of both Darwin and Goose Green, the Battalion Headquarters were listening in to the BBC World Service. The newsreader announced that the 2nd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment were poised and ready to assault Darwin and Goose Green, causing great confusion with the commanding officers of the battalion. Lieutenant Colonel Jones became furious with the level of incompetence and told BBC representative Robert Fox he was going to sue the BBC, Whitehall and the War Cabinet.[34]
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/what-lessons-were-learned-falklands-page2-t68833.html
http://belgranoinquiry.com/sound-archive/tam-dalyell-sabotage
Freedom is not cheap. Roll on Chilcott.
Charlatan ,I was recently on walkabout took a few photos:
http://the-eyeontheworld.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/im-back.html
Pounce – are you ex-Military too? I love your pics and immediately recognise your first pic for example with the view into Stanley with the wreck of Lady Elizabeth and the hard fought over mountains behind Stanley.
I was also posted back there in 1986 as Superintending Clerk of HQ BFFI, (our Joint military HQ then in Port Stanley – now at Mount Pleasant).
Ex Sapper now a REMF
Ex Scaley – 22 years plus a few stabbing.
Great to see a few of us on here.
And also broadcast that the argentine bombs were wrongly fused.
On hearing the anti-British bBC inform the world that 2 Para were marching on Goose Green. The Argentine commander airlifted 1000 extra troops into the town.
The BBC were definitely aiding the enemy.
Until the socialists/communists in the bbc are fearful for the consequences of their actions, then they will continue in their jihad against our country, our nationality and our civilisation. At the moment, what’s the worst that can befall them for doing and saying what they do?
The media seem to love this kind of shock horror anti armed forces shite. They should put on the the recruiting adverts. Fight for other peoples freedom and then be prepared to be crucified by the press for doing your job. If the media & the left are so outraged in situations like this for starters maybe they should for stop trying to get the UK military involved in every little cause they are following. And then instead of persecuting individual squaddies go after the politicians who deployed them in the first place. It’s a war what do they expect.
I believe this footage of a UFO attacking the Taliban is a fake.
But that would not be the reason the BBC failed to report it. If it were Martians, Klingons, or whatever, the BBC could not slag them off for war crimes. Still, whoever blasted the Taliban…hats off to them.
Looks like the Lockheed F117A Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter) or a Top Secret ramjet aircraft Aurora .
JDAM Joint Direct Attack Munition
I still remain ready to be told why, last night, of all stories from around the world that the BBC saw fit to elevate to ‘breaking’ and further warranted a special email, it was this one.
It refers to an investigation being conducted following events in 2012.
In the BBC’s ‘reporting’ still, rushed out to ‘scoop’ the rest presumably, in a highly febrile area of conflict and journalism, where propaganda is the main source of succour to those seeking to kill or maim our troops, what I find is the following:
“It is not clear whether the same serviceman is in both pictures”
“appear to show”
“It is believed”
“the incident could represent a breach of the Geneva Conventions” [or not, reading later, much later on]
Might I suggest that in life, death and situations like this, the nation’s state media wait until these things are confirmed, and even then apply sensible ‘analysis’ in light of context?
Yet the rush by the BBC’s rapid defence force has been to deride anyone mentioning the rush to broadcast or ask questions on what has motivated this.
As has been recently pointed out, trying to corner the market in promoting asking questions solely by the BBC and not of it is unwise.
It also often serves to highlight the need to pick battles wisely.
Hard to see those who know only how to jerk knees no matter what as serving the BBC well on this one.
‘they don’t allow them to take close-up photographs of dead ‘
In the spirit of two wrongs that is a restriction not constraining many, but the BBC can be selective.
Dead local staff children appear to get rushed to print (along with poorly-substantiated claims on who killed them).
Colleagues of local sources being towed behind their motorbikes… not so much, ‘until confirmed’.
Watertight oversight is clearly a very, very, flexible entity in the hands of BBC editorial, making the BBC’s rush to apply or ignore it depending on how it suits the BBC’s narrative demands, truly disturbing.
Guest Who ..good points.
Thank you; means a lot.
Especially as I feel quite strongly on how this one plays out.
I’d still actually like some of those points addressed by any who feel the BBC has delivered sensible news coverage in volume, accuracy, speed, consistency* and tone, but so far… nothing.
What we are being inevitably treated to is the daft attrition decoy sent out at such times to draw fire on themselves, with the added bonus of a possible ‘ism-excess strike to squeal about to detract from… the topic.
And as is now clear, in the bonkers immoral relativism world inhabited by such as the BBC and its groupies, what is done (or not – the worst we’re looking at here is a photo-image of a gesture) matters for nothing compared to twitterspun weasel offence-words being uttered or not showing ‘respect’.
*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20340810
(This video contains some disturbing images)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/20/hamas-executes-informants-israel-gaza
Not sure due process followed to the letter here. Maybe the EU has a view?
‘”They should have been killed in a more brutal fashion … said one of the bystanders, 24-year-old Ashraf Maher.”
The Graun appears to feel no further editorial necessary.
Maybe they are right. At least they covered it.
One is sure the weekend archive crew will oblige, but this was the result for what the BBC had to offer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/?q=Izzedine+al-Qassam
Possibly they are less keen to go with what ‘appears’ or ‘could’ be happening in such a case?
The *links*, yes the all important links. This is what makes posts like yours so effective when they are backed up with “check here to see what I am talking about”.
So unlike most of this site’s detractors who simply spout “well, you are all wrong and I’m not listening, so there” as they stick their fingers in their ears and yell na-na-na-nana!
(Or maybe thwceam and thwceam until they feel sick. :-))
A very clear, concise and factual “fisking” of this story on the BBC with questions that should be – though will never be – answered by the BBC’s regular supporters who post here.
If they cannot answer questions, they can at least leave comments though I suspect such posts as this one by “Guest Who” will receive the proverbial barge pole treatment from them.
After all, why apply a little thought and consideration to comments when a general slagging of DV and other BiasedBBC regulars will give our beloved trolls the warmhearted feelings they think they deserve?
Keep up with such posts “Guest Who”. If even another single person has their eyes opened by such lucid, easy to understand points about our national broadcaster your efforts are more than worthwhile.
Too many people accept what they see on the BBC evening news (and hear in the background as they get ready for work) without a second thought, and I often link to posts like yours to make them think again.
Well, we have to think of all those millions of muslims we have invited over to live amongst/off us.
Wouldn’t want to offend them old chap! They might stop voting Labour…
All power to the glorious RAF, ROYAL NAVY, BRITISH ARMY.
and our dependable allies from the Commonwealth, the US and Europe.
I think we need to accept that this incident shows that members of the RAF Regiment cannot be trusted to do the right thing when in contact with the poor, misguided indigenous population. They should immediately be confined to barracks and then withdrawn from theatre as soon as the MoD can deploy a battalion of social workers – reinforced by all those BBC journalists currently down for deployment in Brazil.
My nipper is joining the army after 6th form and the BBC are undermining everything I stand for. Regulars in our family back to 1914. I feel like emigrating. But where?
There are two points here:
1. British soldiers should not stoop to the level of their enemies. We hold the moral high ground in these terms, and have done so for centuries. I know this small incident is not much of a “stoop” when compared to the depraved behaviour of the Taliban, but nonetheless we should be above it. There is a difference between between posing by the wreckage of a downed enemy aircraft and posing by the body of a dead human being.
2: The BBC is a living, breathing, treacherous obscenity. We know why they gleefully broadcast these pictures – which is that they hate everything our military stands for.
It is up to commanding officers to discipline soldiers behaving in a less than appropriate manner. It is NOT up to the BBC to actively work against our military in a time of war.
1. Agree fully.
2. That’s your opinion. Adding “we know” to the beginning of a sentence doesn’t make it true, just demonstrates where your prejudice lies.
prejudice prejudice prejudice, that’s all the regulars on this site ever see when you decide to contribute.
I’d like to add my own prejudices to the discussion by saying, you, sir, look a complete cock in your display picture.
“Adding “we know” to the beginning of a sentence doesn’t make it true, just demonstrates where your prejudice lies.”
I am so pleased to hear you say this Scott, because barely an hour, never mind a day goes by without the BBC reporters, medical and scientific correspondents stating that “we know”. More often than not it is not known nor proven and I have oft felt that the “we known” covers up many a prejudice and falsehood.
Your comment confirms that I am not the only one.
There’s a difference between a journalist using a verbal shorthand and an internet conspiracy theorist believing far too much that whatever they think must be the truth.
But as usual, Biased BBC commenters are so full of themselves they don’t realise that such a difference exists.
Guessing McAlpine was just BIJ/Newsnight indulging in a bit of ‘verbal shorthand’ too?
Lucky they didn’t use any n(aughty) words in the mix as that would have been on the spot marching orders vs. the protracted side-stepping, rehiring, sideways promoting process that took forever, plus dropping the legal bill and compo on the licence fee payer.
The BBC journalistic difference that exists can be pretty unique, not to mention pricey.
Erghhh… Scott of the anarchic. He who is without prejudice should cast the first stone. If you did not have ‘prejudice’ you would not be here at all. Your ‘selfie’ vanity photographs (see Google+) are clearly all over the internet. Maybe it’s because of my prejudice against Media studies students (from Durham University). Smile your on camera.
http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/6f9eea37d3dbcfd7a49b0369cf826bbd=128&d=identicon&r=PG
Are we missing something here ?
The BBC itself broadcast the same photograph, albeit with a face smudged out – are they not complicit in the deed ?
As with using various words, or their coyly if daftly-acceptable v-word coded equivalents, if it’s for the purposes of smearing ideological opponents or engaging in rampant double standards, if the BBC does it it’s fine. Otherwise not, a BBC spokesman says.
Let us not forget Vance’s military record.
Nothing
This obnoxious coward left Ulster with his degree to England. He never defended Ulster, never joined either Police Reserve or UDR.
When the peace broke out the yellow bellied coaward slunk back and started strutting about spouting his brand of hate.
The nauseating wimp was roundly whipped in the last election he stood in.
But he hides behind support of the Army when he hadn’t the balls to help Ulster.
An utter coward.
Oh yes he’s the coward says fake named anonymous !
Oh, buggeration, it’s emerged from the lair once more with yet another fresh nom-de-plume but the same unmistakeable syntax. Tut tut. Many more of these slapdash efforts, matey, and they’ll send you back to the treacle mines. Children will point at you in the street and shout “Watch out for Old Sticky !” then run away screaming and honestly who could blame them ?
The BBC cannot deny involvement in terrorism charges in encouraging Islamic radicalism on web pages and social media (and then offset this by claiming only a minority involvement). According to this report in the TELEGRAPH (13/05) and the American CIA they can now trace 400 radicalised BRITS back to England.The CIA now refer to “Londonistan” as Britain’s ability to incubate Terrorism. Thanks to political correctness it is harder to identify the obvious suspects who all now claim to be ‘British’. We should we extradite the entire BBC to the US for questioning, Social media (as displayed by the BBC) is an obvious area to look at as well as its selective International ‘news coverage’. It says here: ‘That there have been 385 terrorism-related convictions since the September 11 attacks shows the scale of the battle on the home front”. The BBC years of media abuse, has serious consequences when anybody and everybody claims rights to be ‘British’ and they go off to fight a war knowing the BBC ‘homefront’ is an ‘Islamic’ support network.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10786205/Terrorism-in-the-UK-Social-media-is-now-the-biggest-jihadi-training-camp-of-them-all.html