Also correcting the BBc (again!)

Non football related this one. As I was reading the BBC website the other day I noticed that they branded the Uruguayan Tupumaros as a "violent Marxist" group. This is erroneous. So I sent the Beeb this letter. "I was reading your country profile on Uruguay. Generally speaking it is a good overview. I must object however to the description of the Tupumaros as "violent". The Tupumaros were famously non-violent, although they did perpetrate illegal and unlawful acts. The British ambassador Geoffrey Jackson, kidnapped by the organisation, is a sound witness as to their non-violence. Perhaps the phrase "unlawful Marxist" would be be better. I think when discussing these matters it is important to distinguish between revolutionary organisations that use violence against the general population and those that don't (even though they may commit crimes in the name of their cause). If we fail to make this distinction we end-up branding all radical groups as "terrorists" and risk justifying the unjustifiable and disproportionate. This is of particular importance when writing about Latin American history. " The website now reads "urban Marxist". Which should well be down to my letter, I think/hope. As director generals have resigned over lesser erors obviously offending the queen is more important than accurately describing Latin American history. Of course "urban" does not really mean anything in this instance. It is a geographical term not a sociological term. Even if it conjures up borderline legal/shadowy activity. Or groups of kids in Dalston litening to to MOBO award nominees. There is also no information on the tupumaros activities either- how they used to rob banks and give money to the poor, rather like Robin Hood. Imagine for example if the Merry men were described as a "rural anarchist group", when we all know they are folk heroes. Notions of neutrality and objectivity depend on context and ideological convenience, so it seems. Hamas for example "are described as a terrorist organisation by the US, EU, and Israel." The Israeli government is not. Despite the fact that both kill civilians in the course of military operations. Traditionally this was down to the fact that the Israeli government is legitimately elected, but since Hamas were given a democratic mandate by the Palestianians the distinction remains. This confirms what we already know. What constitutes terrorism is dependent on the ideological and tactical concerns of those in power. Semantics are important. The West, and its allies, are engaged in a War On Terror. Yet what this means is woefully loose. The plurality that makes up the mass mind falls into line, or at least silence, behind the definition. The electorate are left dumb as to the real military objectives of the foreign policies they are responsible for franchising. The media, our representaives of free speech, limit our capacity for independent thought through "good journalistic practice". To quote Ian Hislop, who I have always secretly thought was a thoroughly good fucker- "if this is democracy then I'm a banana."