Damien

Sorry but what does that prove? The british armed forces have always had a problem with the BBC since the falklands why the bbc refered to the british force as 'The British" for example peter snoow said this "if you belive the argentines or if you belive the british. Which is a sign of its impartality. I want actual proof here not sensentional storys. This just shows that they are impartl instead of siding 'with the boys' fox news. Just because the BBC wont say we where right to go to war doesnt mean they are not impartal.

SO can you give actual proof or do you just like to strike out against stuff. THe BBC is general accepted as the best news service and compared to fox news is excellent.

Also if you read the report the BBC said poor mantinace may have caused the crashs instead of automatically agreeing with the army. Impartal means just that so they do ot take the armys version without prooof. And how can someone who doesnt seem to understand the concept of proof (instead linking to someone elses views) be in a postion to tell us about news companys?