It is satirical, but the point stands. The article points out that the right wing - prominently the Conservative Party and elements of the press - accuse the B

It is satirical, but the point stands. The article points out that the right wing - prominently the Conservative Party and elements of the press - accuse the BBC of having a socialist bias to the point of misrepresenting conservative viewpoints. (Example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32537024 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32537024) Likewise, the left wing - notably papers such as the Guardian and the Independent - accuse the BBC of giving too much exposure to right win parties. (More farage examples:https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/30/bbc-complaints-ukip-election-coverage-bias https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/30/bbc-complaints... http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/why-nigel-farage-question-time-so-often http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/why-nigel-farag...) The comment you are replying to is responding to criticism that the UK courts are 'not to be trusted' when it comes to human rights. The response is that the UK courts aren't trying to dismantle human rights - more that they are trying to find the best compromise and reach a fair middle ground. Human rights and, in this case, anti-arms trade activists will see this as being sympathetic to the arms trade. In other cases, the courts will frustrate those in the arms trade for being too restrictive. For example, it took 15+ years to be able to deport Abu Qatadar, a known hate preacher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada#Persona_non_grata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada#Persona_non_grata