Oh, it’s obvious…one of the station staff must have recorded it at home and brought the tape down to rebroadcast. Yeah…that’s the ticket!

Staff must live in a TV Market area different from where they work. Must be a long commute. Or maybe they have high gain yagis atop 200 foot towers at their homes. Or maybe they just have satellite dishes that can receive the raw network feeds at home. Give us a little while and we’ll work it out.

fecking have it your way. Listen to duray’s shite. When I check out it i for good.

Re:

It was the BBC who illuminated the topping of the nuclear expert to public attention AGAINST the directives of Blair & Co. The Director of BBC paid for that “indiscretion” with his position.

I very much recall that incident. At the time I was very well connected on another forum to a South African internist who pointed out that Dr. David Kelly could not possibly have died by the means of slit wrists that the BBC reported as the cause of death. The BBC was simply repeating an urban legend that wrist slitting is an effective means of suicide. It is not. The problem is that a severing of that particular artery almost invariably results in a retreat of the artery up the arm and a stanching of the flow of blood preventing the victim from bleeding out. Once again, your vaunted BBC was caught out in lie. Furthermore, thousands of us researchers know with great certainty that the Hutton Report was a whitewash of the same sort as the Warren Commission report, or the 9/11 Commission report. It was a document designed to exonerate the government from responsibility for what certainly does appear to be the murder of Dr. David Kelly before he could “spill the beans” about the fraudulent campaign Tony Blair waged through surrogates such as the BBC regarding Iraq’s purported WMD threat. Through this whole tawdry mess, the BBC was carrying water for the government, with the exception as you correctly point out where a managing director was sacked for daring to quote Kelly’s comment about the government “sexing up” the evidence against Saddam Hussein.

***
I’m really not sure where you are coming from with your personal attacks on me. I have been, throughout this tortured dialogue, making a valiant attempt to educate people about the true nature of the BBC and its place on the imperial chessboard. I haven’t attacked you. And yet you deign to attack me. Why is this? I can only suspect it is the case because you simply cannot refute my fact case regarding the BBC and such like MSM shills. Please, desist from attacking me. If you care to, attack my argument. I doubt you’ll get far, since the facts are on my side.

Thank you and good bye.

after all, the nyt printed miller’s lies AND broke the story of warrantless wiretapping.

examples of good and courageous journalism do not prove the absence of propaganda, likewise the presence of propaganda does not prove the absence of good and courageous journalism.

Scarecrow is saving my new zed upstairs for everyone to admire!