BBC, they just can't help themselves can they....

[andymadmak]

Nice story this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14740054

Minister Alan Duncan uses his knowledge / contacts to help devise a plan to reduce Gadaffis powers of resistance.. No doubt saved hundreds, if not thousands of lives...
And then you get to the attempt at a slur in the last paragraph...

[powerstroke]

Yes just typical no news is good news if there are torys or any body vaguely right wing involved!! oh well aleast we know what to expect when we turn on the bbc

[Balmoral Green]

They might just as well say that "It emerged last night that Mr Duncan had once worked with the BBC", as indeed he has.

[pacman1]

That'll be the BBC for you, well down to their usual standard. Taken to task, they'd probably defend it as simply adding 'balance' to the story.

Gits.

[freecar]

Has it been edited since this thread was started?

All I see is an article about government dealings and then a statement clearing one of the ministers of a conflict of interests.

Am I missing something?

[andymadmak]

freecar said:

Has it been edited since this thread was started?

All I see is an article about government dealings and then a statement clearing one of the ministers of a conflict of interests.

Am I missing something?

bbc website said:

It emerged last night that Mr Duncan had once worked with Vitol, the oil company that provided fuel to the rebels. But Whitehall sources said there was no conflict of interest because the Libya oil cell had no commercial relationship with the company.

Mr Duncan was not available for comment.

I can't decide if you're joking or not. Why would you add this paragraph at all? Mr Duncan once worked with Vitol? So what? What possible relevance was there to the story, given the nature of what had transpired?
It's a nasty little innuendo type comment, designed specifically to generate the kind of suspicions that it purports to be attempting to clear up.. Mr Duncan not available for comment.. the kind of closing line associated with articles about wrong doers who refuse to face the media..

[DJRC]

andymadmak said:

freecar said:

Has it been edited since this thread was started?

All I see is an article about government dealings and then a statement clearing one of the ministers of a conflict of interests.

Am I missing something?

bbc website said:

It emerged last night that Mr Duncan had once worked with Vitol, the oil company that provided fuel to the rebels. But Whitehall sources said there was no conflict of interest because the Libya oil cell had no commercial relationship with the company.

Mr Duncan was not available for comment.

I can't decide if you're joking or not. Why would you add this paragraph at all? Mr Duncan once worked with Vitol? So what? What possible relevance was there to the story, given the nature of what had transpired?
It's a nasty little innuendo type comment, designed specifically to generate the kind of suspicions that it purports to be attempting to clear up.. Mr Duncan not available for comment.. the kind of closing line associated with articles about wrong doers who refuse to face the media..

?
Its a human link, minister once worked for a company involved in a conflict we are involved in. Id sy there was immediate relevence, what I cant work out is what is the "nasty" angle? We had an oil company on our side? Er...thats a good thing! It would be a bad thing to find out Duncan had links to an oil company supplying the Baddies.

[DrTre]

Of course it's directly relevant to the story. He used to work for the company that was supplying the oil. Stop jumping up and down over every single thing the BBC does, it's tiresome.

[freecar]

andymadmak said:

freecar said:

Has it been edited since this thread was started?

All I see is an article about government dealings and then a statement clearing one of the ministers of a conflict of interests.

Am I missing something?

bbc website said:

It emerged last night that Mr Duncan had once worked with Vitol, the oil company that provided fuel to the rebels. But Whitehall sources said there was no conflict of interest because the Libya oil cell had no commercial relationship with the company.

Mr Duncan was not available for comment.

I can't decide if you're joking or not. Why would you add this paragraph at all? Mr Duncan once worked with Vitol? So what? What possible relevance was there to the story, given the nature of what had transpired?
It's a nasty little innuendo type comment, designed specifically to generate the kind of suspicions that it purports to be attempting to clear up.. Mr Duncan not available for comment.. the kind of closing line associated with articles about wrong doers who refuse to face the media..

It's completely relevant to the story and clears him of any wrongdoing.

You're imagining things which aren't there.

[DrTre]

Actually, another leftist outlet futher puts the boot in

[davepoth]

So hang on a minute;

"Minister uses his prior experience and contacts in industry to further the interests of democracy"

And the BBC are complaining?

'tards.

[MX7]

It's like they are looking for that Haliburton link. Still, I'm sure the David Icke forum will love it.

[mybrainhurts]

You BBC apologists can't see beyond the end of your noses. They're constantly giving air time to the likes of Ed Balls. They didn't fawn over Conservatives when they were in opposition.

I think the analysis of the Beeb story has merit.

[DrTre]

But they're not complaining about anything, they're stating a fact that's relevant to the story....and as for the Halliburton suggestion, read the Telegraph link...yes..that's about right...

Now the beef is going to be that they have slyly insinuated something when others have proudly and properly (later in the day) written entire news stories on the matter.

BBC apologists???? Oh man, that's brilliant, nice one.

[mybrainhurts]

That's right...BBC mudslinging worked as intended..

[DrTre]

Sorry? You're suggesting the BBC brought this to light and no one else was aware?

[mybrainhurts]

DrTre said:

BBC apologists???? Oh man, that's brilliant, nice one.

Nice to be appreciated......I can always spot a red, under the bed or not...

[Mojocvh]

DrTre said:

Sorry? You're suggesting the BBC brought this to light and no one else was aware?

Don't worry Dr T, once the oilympics [ ] are over they will be able to use those 50' hd's to get the REAL truth across, oh yes.

[MX7]

DrTre said:

But they're not complaining about anything, they're stating a fact that's relevant to the story....and as for the Halliburton suggestion, read the Telegraph link...yes..that's about right...

There's a massive difference. The BBC article is about how Gaddafi was defeated, with a rather vague and cowardly implication at the end. The Telegraph is forthright and direct, as it usually is.

If you like your news mixed up with weak insinuations, stick to the BBC.

[colonel c]

Good grief. I think the OP is really scraping the barrel with this one.