The parliamentary human rights committee today announced various conclusions they’ve reached on the detention without trial of foreign terror suspects in the UK.
The crucial point to remember about the twelve foreign nationals currently detained under this legislation is that they are free to leave the UK at any time. They are people the UK government would ordinarily deport, but in these cases cannot, because, under our human rights legislation, we cannot forcibly return them to their home countries because of their home countries human rights records.
I’ve watched BBC coverage of this story today on the One O’Clock News, the Ten O’Clock News and on BBC News Online in a story headlined Terror detention law ‘must go’.
All three of these treatments of the story are fairly lengthy – but only one of them – Mark Mardell’s report on the Ten O’Clock News, mentioned the crucial point about the freedom of these suspects to leave the UK whenever they wish, and even then with emphasis on the torture (surely he meant ‘alleged torture’!) in their home countries.
So why was this? Why wasn’t this point mentioned on News Online or on the One O’Clock News report? Is it because it puts an entirely different slant on the rationale for the legislation? Or is it just the usual amateur-hour performance of these two BBC news outlets?
Or maybe Mark Mardell read Rob’s comment here earlier in the day and decided that such an egregious omission would be indefensible even by the BBC!
the Beeb doesn’t care if they’re free to leave.. the Beeb wants them to STAY, FREE.. not only free in a civil sense but free-LOADING on the backs of British taxpayers as well..
And if one asks, “why should British taxpayers fund a group of people who are actively trying to change British society for the worse?”, then one must in the same spirit ask “why should I buy a TV licence?”
Dave Perkins, former expat now safely back home in Texas and watching Fox News every day…
NOT THE BBC but ..
Jon Snow (would be BBC person), interviewing Tory Dominic Greive (Channel4 News 4/8), was aghast when Greive stated that it would be better to extradite these undesirables. “But to torture & death”, spluttered Snow. Snow for once accepting that Belmarsh is not the worst of fates.
I find it odd that Snow & co, who would prefer our foreign policy to be determined by the UN, suddenly find the regimes of some UN members to be lacking when it comes to the UK throwing out foreigners who have lied their way into our country.
Wish I knew how to do Smileys! The 1 above appeared on its own accord.
This stress on the rights of foreigners who are suspected terrorists, while ignoring the rights of the rest of us to public safety, fits exactly the Guardianesque world view that the BBC elite espouse.
What the PC/Multiculti brigade who whitter on about “persecution of Muslims” fail to understand is that if a major terrorist attack hits the UK, the public will not be in the mood for lectures on “civil liberties” and “tolerance”.
BTW In Sudan yesterday there was a protest against Western interference in Sudan.
Surely, if we intervene as Snow, The Independent, the BBC, and the Guardian want us to, we will “inflame the Muslim world”.
Surely, if the 12 detainees weren’t actually facing horrible things on their return home, they’d, err, leave? While I know the British prison regime isn’t as harsh as some people here would like, it would be hard to describe it as preferable to freedom…
john b “Surely, if the 12 detainees weren’t actually facing horrible things on their return home, they’d, err, leave?”
Well you may think so. I do not.
They know they will find plenty of bleeding hearts & taxpayer cash in this country to enable them to mount numerous court challenges until they are finally allowed to remain at large in this counrty.
including plenty of Cherie Blair’s colleagues at the Bar to milk the legal aid scheme.
john b “Surely, if the 12 detainees weren’t actually facing horrible things on their return home, they’d, err, leave?”
They don’t have to go to their home country – they could find a third country .There are plenty of muslim states on the planet , I’m sure the army of do-gooders who service these parasites could find somewhere – they won’t of course as the taxpayer gravy train for the lawyers would dry up.
Watching Sky News on this subject , they too seem to have a bleeding heart-by pass when it comes to mentioning that these undesirables can clear off(being polite!)whenever they wish.
“Surely, if the 12 detainees weren’t actually facing horrible things on their return home, they’d, err, leave?”
I quite agree. But, so…?
The fact that they are free to leave detention by leaving the UK is the vital cornerstone of the story. Without that aspect, the story presents as forced detention without recourse to law. This is absolutely not the case.
The BBC story states that these individuals are “currently being held without trial at London’s Belmarsh jail”. This is true as an irrelevant statement of fact, as would be mentioning that they don’t currently have access to Alton Towers. They aren’t charged with anything here and they don’t face trial here. They are undesirable aliens awaiting deportation; in the meantime free to leave whenever they so choose.
It isn’t a question on this blog of whether the real state of affairs is acceptable or not, it is a question of the BBC failing to report the real state of affairs.
.
Arse
PJF – as long as you view the political system in these guys’ home countries as ‘law’, that is.
I agree that the BBC is unfortunately eager to believe that judicial systems outside North America, Western Europe and certain other former British colonies can be classed as ‘law’.
john b, your utter confusion over this issue demonstrates the failure (or rather success…) of the BBC in its reporting.
Once again – the story reads that the detainees do not have recourse to the law (here!); that they are being forcibly detained by the UK government against their will. This is absolutely not the case. It is a lie.
When the Liberty spokesman makes his scurrilous comparison to Guantanamo and says, “Surely the British Government can also realise that they must release the detainees they hold, or put them on trial?” he is being deliberately misleading. He is lying. Unlike the Guantanamo inmates, the Belmarsh detainees are free to go whenever they want.
Reporting the fact that they are free to leave, whenever they want, would put the comments by the MPs and others into essential perspective. As it stands, the BBC report merely continues and encourages the misinformation. In my opinion, this is deliberate.
.
No confusion on my part. I’m entirely aware they’re free to go to their home countries and die at any time they choose; I just don’t think the fact that they have this choice is terrbily relevant.
(most people in jail who would prefer not to be there have the option of killing themselves instead. This fact doesn’t mean they’re not being held in jail…)
There are lots of other countries they could go to in the Ummah. A lot of these guys get round a lot anyway.
john b, of course it’s relevant!
It changes the story from the fiction that these individuals are being held without recourse to law, to the truth that the British Government is providing dangerous and undesirable aliens (they would otherwise deport) with secure sanctuary.
If someone you considered to be dangerous sought shelter in your house from a fatal storm, would you keep them out? Would you let them stay inside and leave them free to roam with access to your family? Or would let them stay inside in secure accommodation where they wouldn’t pose a threat, until it was safe for them to leave or until they chose to leave of their own accord?
I think you might choose the latter. And I think you would have cause for complaint if someone went around maliciously misrepresenting your generosity and claimed you were holding your dangerous guest against his will.
Many groups are misrepresenting the truth of this matter. The BBC included.
.
That’s actually the best analogy/argument I’ve heard on this case so far – although if the storm were going to go on for many years, it might be polite to determine whether your visitor was actually as dangerous as you initially believed, rather than keeping him locked in your brooom cupboard forever. Perhaps some kind of ‘trial’ would be the best way to determine this.
OFF TOPIC
I have a post here regarding the amount the BBC charge for DVDs. It’s not so much that they charge too much as that their pricing appears to contradict their anti-market raison-d’etre.
Cheers.
Squander 2,
The question secondly is:-
What are consumers doing paying for programmes they have already paid for through the TV-Tax? Surely the BBC should charge only media costs?
A trifle OT, but speaking of bias by omission…let’s all pause to admire the BBC’s continuing non-coverage of the deadly anti-Kerry book Unfit for Command — about the revulsion of Viet Nam vets at Kerry’s endless invocations of heroism. These guys are the real thing, not some Michael Moore agit-prop college kid collage. Which means the BBC won’t touch them. Some stuff here: http://tinyurl.com/4e6sk
One for Orla Guerin, maybe, just as soon as she’s had her annual wash? Yes, right, that’ll do it…
Rob,
Yes, that was exactly my point.
Cheers.
“Perhaps some kind of ‘trial’ would be the best way to determine this.”
I quite agree.
Indeed, these cases are reviewed by the judiciary. At least one such detainee has been deemed to be sufficiently safe to be released under supervision. The others are still classed as a threat.
This is another aspect of the issue that should be mentioned when these stories arise.
With the knowledge that the detainees are free to leave whenever they want, and that the detentions are subject to periodic review and challenge; then the comments by the MPs and Liberty can be seen in a wider perspective.
What possible reason would the BBC have for not reporting relevant facts and offering a wider perspective? Why doesn’t it present a balanced report?
.
Times report says audience confidence in BBC World Service impartiality falling sharply, as shown by the BBC’s own research. That’s strange – they haven’t mentioned that anywhere ? :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7946-1196616,00.html
Re JohninLondon’s link to Times report.
Unfortunately the BBC is deemed to have less impartiality because of being too pro-war.
I did like this in the report “When I asked for a comment, Bush House avoided any mention of the year- on-year fall, but pointed out that rivals, such as Voice of America, are trusted even less.”
It reminds me of Sambrook’s written reponse to Campbell’s complaint about Gilligan. Instead of Sambrook spending time determining just what Gilligan’s notes could suport, he instead researched other press mutterings & filled a page pointing these out to Campbell.
OT
The web – and quite a few newspapers – are giving full coverage to claims by other Vietnam vets that John Kerry lied on several occasions as regards his war service. Lies which got him out of danger, and lies which got him medals.
If similar allegations had been made about George Bush, they would have been in the BBC news on the hour every hour for the last several days. But precious little coverage so far – because these serious allegations cut straight to the heart of the Kerry campaign ?
No anti-Bush bias at the BBC ? Yeah, sure.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002202.php
Under international law, such as it is, being able to leave *does not necessarily mean* going back to where you came from… Don’t those losers understand that?
OT: scare quotes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3549200.stm
The bottom line, “war on terror”.
The problem with those ‘scare quotes’ being what exactly?
The ‘war on terror’ is far from a universally accepted tangible concept whether you agree with US and friends’ actions or not – given the wooly definition of terror in this context, the somewhat inconsistent selection of opposition and the question as to whether ad hoc security measures constitute a war.
The BBC would be evading its responsibilities if it used the term without the scare quotes.
Do they put the “war on drugs” into scare quotes then? A quick search of the BBC website would suggest not.
Whilst searching for war on poverty I dscovered that now
“Food is a basic human right”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/011016_hunger.shtml
Amazing! Food is a right, I wonder who’s going to grow it?
Also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1751167.stm
No scarequotes for the “war on poverty”, hmmm maybe the BBC are very selective? It is also a blatantly left leaning article, and takes everything worldwatch says at face value! Typical unbeleivable SCBBC. Balance they may have heard of it.
It’s amazing what you can find by accident! Read this as well. NUJ is run by a trans-national socialist, quel suprise.
http://www.marxist.com/Europe/jerdear_interview.html