Who'd Have Thunk It ?

Three good proofs of guilt:

1. DNA
2. Witness Evidence
3. Sympathetic Profile By The BBC

For proof of point 3, consider the latest news about the Martyrs of Malaga. Turns out that their holiday lasted all of 7 hours. They flew over there to check out if it was worth going there, and have a look round in the dark. What's suspicious about that ?

This isn't a minor point. Liberals always claim that their objection to what they call 'racial profiling' is justified becuase there are so many other factors that can be used to profile. Well, here it is. Even the Indie - the paper for people who think the Guardian is too right-wing - can see that this sounds like garbage.

Incidentally, the Indie report strongly hints that the Polar Exporers were paid by the BBC. It would be interesting to hear if this is true and if so, whether any of the other passengers were paid at the same rate for their story - and, if not, why not ?

Aside from purely financial considerations though, the BBC's coverage of the Michellin Men of Malaga made 'Hello' magazine look like the Spanish Inquisition (and, as a corollary to that, they smeared both the airline and the passengers). Didn't anyone at the BBC feel the need to do any kind of 'due diligence' here ? Or was the story 'too good to check' in the way it chimed perfectly with the BBC's own prejudices ? And does anyone think that a story from the opposite angle would get onto the air so easily ?

Yes, that last question is rhetorical.

UPDATE:

Down in the comments, Rotty Pup reminds us that the BBC has a record of trying to conjure up 'Islamophobia' atrocity stories.