The General Slant of BBC News remains consistent. Today the BBCOnline top slot was devoted to Amnesty International's fanciful condemnation of the "WoT" (big double quotes there) for provoking so much more human rights abuse. It's fanciful, when you consider the end of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime as two of the WoT's (no quotes at Talking Hoarsely) considerable fruits, but it does coincide with the BBC's belief, and that's BIG NEWS for us all.

So, just another day of bad news for Bush, sigh. That's on top of Abu Grayib (whatever the spelling I'm tired of writing it), Wedding bombings and that damaged Mosque in Najaf.

Now, ignoring for a moment the bogus wedding, what about that damaged Mosque? The BBC reported that it was damaged in clashes between 'the Americans' and followers of Al Sadr. Aside from wondering why the Americans come first in this scenario, I am also wondering why, when BBC correspondents talk of Shia 'outrage', it is automatically assumed that it is the US that must defend itself, which it is duly reported as having done.

Of course the next thing we hear about the attack in the report (after we have dutifully read about the overnight 'civilian' casualties in Najaf and Kufa, presuming them as reliable as the figures for Falluja or the "wedding bombing" where so many children died, ahem) is when Al Sadr reportedly comes to inspect the site 'amid chanting from crowds'. Whether they were chanting 'go home you idiot' is not made clear.

It is not until two thirds of the way down the report that we hear

'A representative of militant cleric, Ahmed Shebani, said five or six missiles had hit the building.

It was not clear who fired the missiles. ',

but when the US Brig. Gen. Kimmitt (who seems to me to be a quite inspired spokesman) claims that the US had "no involvement" you can be sure that double-quotemarking it is not designed to inspire confidence.

So, I guess it will be up to The Scotsman to tell us that a senior Shia (far more senior than Al-Sadr, the whippersnapper) under the patronage of Al-Sistani believes that Al-Sadr's men were responsible for the damage to the Mosque.

They do, though, find time to report elsewhere (alongside the 'good news' of Al-Sadr's Lieutenant's capture) a remark made to Reuters by someone called al-Khazali that

"This is part of the US military escalation against the Shia. We've lost hope in negotiations. What is happening is a liquidation of Shia, especially the Sadr movement." ,

which is just plain ridiculous (trying to recall the actionas of Saddam against the Shia) and unworthy of any reputable News Agency, but from Reuters it comes to us via the BBC. It's obvious that this is emotional blackmail from a deceitful loser, and therefore right up the BBC's street.