But that didn't stop the Turks, and they had to cross the water.
International Law is only as good as its enforcement and acceptance. I'd say you may be putting too much faith in it. With the EU as his patsy, I doubt Vlad cares too much about international law, where his country's interests are at stake.

Mel - Nobody is accusing the BBC of "lying" as such. It's just that they have a well documented history of avoiding certain issues or disproportionate pressing of other issues, according to political mantra.
The BBC 24 newsfeed and indeed Question time is clear evidence of this.

It cannot be denied - they have even admitted it themselves.

Anyone here served on ops with a BBC embed? They have their own opinion and create the story to support that. In my experience.

My points are more about RT than the BBC. As Ronald pointed out, it is RT that is raising the spectre of Russian military intervention to protect the Russian (speaking) minority.

Seeing as the BBC has come into this, whatever your thoughts on the organisation (notwithstanding personal experiences on ops with individual journalists), I stand by my assertion that most people around the world would trust the BBC in a way they wouldn't RT (or Fox News, or whoever).

I agree Lonewolf, I wouldn't think that international law would make Putin pause for a second.

RT tends to tell it how the BBC avoids telling it. When opinions on RT and Al-Jazeera appear to align, with the BBC saying otherwise or avoiding then..it's very telling.

I take my current affairs from various sources - even the Daily Mail!. I have to say - I find non of the most remotely impartial sources are English.

The BBC has decreed that the Ukraine was under a dictatorship and the released former prime minister is heaven sent. All opposition to her will now be labelled accordingly and the in exile prime minister will be labelled a tyrant.

Lots will be carefully ignored.

The Dail Mail?? Jeez ex_matelot, the point of an argument is to make your position more credible!

No BBC (or any other Western news outlet) report that I have been watching has presented the situation in Ukraine in such cleat cut black and white terms as those. That's just you ex.

No, that's how you interpret it, and indeed I.Maybe we are both indoctrinated to our sources of media?

Like I have said though, I utilise many, Mainly BBC, Al Jaz, RT and a selection of German newspapers with which I practice my learning of the language.

ex-matelot,

You said earlier that Google is your friend. I challenge you to find one single instance where - just one.

I would never trust the BBC. In my opinion I regard it as pro London propaganda, as simple as that. It would be one of the last places I would trust for good quality media coverage of a situation. I do watch it sometimes to see the '' UK establishment'' position, trying to telling us what we should think, it gives me a good laugh!

Gorbachev: Bulldoze EU & US aides from Ukraine and let the people decide - YouTube


US supports Ukraine turmoil though media blame Putin for chaos - YouTube

When the BBC is attacked for anti-US bias - Blair attacks BBC for 'anti-US bias' | Politics | The Observer

Anti-UK bias - anti British - Biased BBC

and now anti- rest of the world bias -

I would suggest that they've probably got the balance about right.

PS; Still waiting on that BBC reference to Ukrainian dictatorship...

Hone your google skills - ample examples on there, and also of BBC correspondants "Tweeting and re-tweeting" - 'A dictator has fallen'.

You are trying to defend an organisation that has already admitted to its shortcomings.
Good luck with that. Are you blinkered, blind or just obtuse?

Is NOT the BBC decreeing that Ukraine is under a dictatorship. It is reporting the words of the freed former prime minister, as you very well know.

You have accused the BBC of manipulating facts to support its agenda, which is precisely what you have just done. I hope the irony is not lost on you ex_matelot.

I would suggest all of the above in your case.

If St Anthony attacks Anything, it's a hearty vote of confidence in Anything.

You need to google further Jedi. In any case, should a fine upstanding organisation such as the BBC be perpetuating certain opinions without analysis or comment?

The BBC has already admitted it has political bias. That is not up for question. If you seek to deny what they have already accepted then good luck with that.

Send a link...any link.

No one said the BBC was perfect, but I'd sooner trust a news organisation that admits its failings than one that doesn't.

Now, whenever you're ready with that link.

Find it yourself - there are plenty out there, and whilst you are at it - find an example of the BBC being impartial on the matter, as opposed to automatically supporting the "protestors".

The BBC uses 2 main tactics... promoting a cause or completely blanking something. Are you able to explain why the BBC has thus far ignored the wideley publicised previous support of paedophile groups by Harman & Co? Even though fellow left-wing media outlets such as the Guardian have found it simply cannot be ignored or apologised for?

Why is your trusted news outlet the only one to be quiet on that matter?

No, there are none.

Will this one do?

BBC News - Ukraine, as viewed from Moscow

Not that it has anything to do with Ukraine, but this story was feaured on the BBC's 6 o'clock news, tonight.

BBC News - Harriet Harman condemns paper's 'smear campaign'
See the link above.

Now, either send through a link showing that the BBC has decreed that Ukraine was a dictatorship, or just shut up on the matter.

Starts to feel weird when you realise Russia has been acting rationally v Syria where as US/UK/France have been acting as Saudi/Qatars bitch.

BBC Worldservice is funded by UK Foreign Office......................hmmmmmm

From this year funded by TV licence fee, hmmmmm indeed. And nothing more rationale than supporting a dictator murdering thousands of his own citizens.