Liberal rot, al Qaeda terrorists and the BBC

“The number is associated with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).” Analysis by The Daily Telegraph suggests the number is one for Bush House, home of the BBC World Service.

The assessment continues that US forces uncovered many “extremist links” to this number, suggesting that extremists could have made contact with BBC employees who were sympathetic to extremists or had information on “ACM [anti-Coalition Militia] operations.”

It would be useful to know whose number that is and how it was used, but the BBC isn’t saying. The Daily Telegraph tried calling the number, but it has been disconnected. Surely there are records within the taxpayer-funded behemoth that link the number with a desk, a person, something? The BBC seems to believe that British taxpayers, who have been attacked by al Qaeda in their capital, don’t need to know.

Meanwhile, here’s how the Beeb’s Andrew Marr, a major host on the network, described his employer during an “impartiality summit” the Beeb convened after a previous scandal regarding his network’s biased coverage of the war.

In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Bin Laden if he approached them, it was decided the al-Qaeda leader would be given a platform to explain his views.

Andrew Marr later told the newspaper: “The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people.

“It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.”

That liberal bias would hand BBC airtime to one of the world’s most illiberal figures, apparently in the service of fulfilling the Beeb’s own cultural liberality. That cultural liberal take on the world is pretty much the first thing the likes of al Qaeda want to destroy. But apparently you won’t get Mr. Marr interested in covering that story. He’s been far too busy trying to cover up a story of his own.

The married dad of three, 51, won the High Court ruling in 2008 to ban reports on his 2003 fling with a Fleet Street political columnist.

At the time he believed he had fathered a child with her – but after paying maintenance he discovered through DNA tests he was NOT the dad.

Last night the ex-BBC political editor effectively tore up his superinjunction and said he is embarrassed to have ever taken one out.

He used British courts to gag British journalism so they wouldn’t report on his peccadilloes, meanwhile he’s parading around as a cultural liberal, tolerantly presiding over his nation’s demise.