A couple of BBC news stories, both on and offline, caught my eye this morning – both have been admirably fisked already by The Candidate and by Marc at USS Neverdock.
The BBC stories and their fiskings are as follows:
BBC: Army restricted ethnic recruits
The Candidate: Army restricted ethnic recruits… probably
As The Candidate says, the story, as presented by BBC News Online, makes an unsupported logical leap – the headline should really be Army recorded ethnicity of recruits – there is nothing in the BBC story to suggest that anything was actually done with the information recorded – yet the BBC, both online and in Breakfast Time and again on the One O’Clock News are spinning this recording of information into ‘secretly restricting numbers’. It just doesn’t follow.
BBC: Eyewitness: Taking detainee testimony in Iraq
USS Neverdock: BBC exposed using anti-war activist as source
This is far from the first time that BBC sources have turned out to have suspect backgrounds and/or motives – either unnoticed or undeclared by our fearless BBC inquisitors. In this case, the ‘eyewitness’ seems to be the BBC witnessing an anti-war activists allegations, rather than an eyewitness that’s actually seen something firsthand.
Their “online only” brodcasts are quite revealing. The one that they’re presently advertising like crazy is “Americans explaining America”. Naturally they found the biggest collection of rubes that they could. One soundbite was obviously with an old man who was asked about guns, but the ad put it in the context of immigration.
How charming.
USS Neverdock is also suggesting an email to complain to the BBC would not go amiss. His site has the address.
The results of the BBC’s drip-drip-drip bias can have some quite startling effects on the national perspective. In yesterday’s (3rd January) Daily Telegraph, their opinion poll revealed that the general public consider Egypt to be more democratic than Israel. One may have reservations about Israel’s stance towards Palestinians but it is a fact that Israel is a democracy and Egypt is not – but what is the news source which shapes such ill-informed opinions?. In the mirror that is the BBC where only light of a reddish tinge is reflected, there has been not a single report on the suppression of the Coptic christians in Egypt where it has been ruled by a judge that a christian’s testimony against a moslem is worthless. Imagine now that an Israeli court were to pronounce this ruling against palestinians …..
Allan, the BBCs soft left racism EXPECTS arabs to behave like that therefore it’s of no news value.
I don’t think it’s just the BBC which expects Arabs (moslems) to behave in such a manner – I expect the same simply because they do. But the BBC chooses as a consistent editorial policy not to report the oppression of non-moslems. Nonetheless, the reporting of “oppression” of Palestinians by Israel (Jews) has clearly affected the perception of Israel by those of us who use the BBC as the main source of news and opinion, and was almost certainly intended to do so.
On message:
You are being incredibly naive. I think teh BBC was quite right to highlight this information. The question you have to ask is how come in teh USA the son of Jamaican immigrants can become head of the armed forces and Secretary of State while in the UK it seems difficult for a person of colour to get beyond
warrant officer.
If the information was not being used to restrict ethnic recruitment, then what was it being used for? No one – not even Farrar-Hockley denied it was being used for this purpose.
There was very probably a racist undertone to it, most likely derived from a misplaced fear of “undermining discipline”, “mutinies”, etc and other Army obsessions.
David – I haven’t said, and don’t deny, that there has been racial (and other) discrimination within the Army, both in the past, and, to a much lesser extent, nowadays.
But, the BBC makes the assertion that 1) because the information was recorded that therefore, 2) it *was* used in this way – but they present no evidence, either factual or anecdotal to support their conclusion.
As it states in the article, “At Manning and Record offices, a broad division is drawn between north European and all others, and punch cards for the latter are punched in such a way they can be identified if required” – note the ‘if required’.
This sounds very much to me as if, yes, they recorded ethnicity in two categories, that they could therefore use that information, but, by this stage someone is already a member of the army or not – so it cannot have been used as a way to restrict recruits.
In a nutshell, there was certainly discrimination in recruitment, promotion, etc., but it doesn’
…doesn’t strike me that this system of recording ethnicity had much to do with whether the discrimination occurred or not.
I hope this clarifies my point.
Andrew –
I would have to go back to the source but my recollection is that the recording was taking place at medicals i.e. prior to people being admitted into the armed forces.
I’m not sure what your point is. Presumably you think this information should be suppressed?
If not then obviously it has to be set in some kind of context.
To my mind the BBC interviewers were very mild in the way they handled the issue. I think we could ask questions about how we end up now fors instnace with so many Fijians in the Black Watch – is there now a policy of “if we must have Black people in the army we’ll go to Fiji and get some in.”
Suppressed? No – just not spun from known facts into unsubstantiated conclusions.
David: I think we could ask questions about how we end up now fors instnace with so many Fijians in the Black Watch – is there now a policy of “if we must have Black people in the army we’ll go to Fiji and get some in.”
Er, no, that would be because 1) Army recruitment isn’t as high as needed, which is why regiments like the Black Watch are under strength; 2) Commonwealth recruits, including Fijians, are used to make up the numbers in such regiments.
Last I was there, there wasn’t such a big black community living around Perth, Angus, Tayside, etc. (the traditional recruiting ground of the Black Watch), so I suppose it’s not too surprising that there aren’t many Black Britons in the Black Watch.
Or are you suggesting something more sinister, and can you prove it?
Andrew –
I’m suggesting a good journalist woudl ask the question. Why would a Scottish regiment go to the other side of the world to look for recruits when they are (potentially) on their doorstep in England? There might be a good reason. But in the light of what we know about policy back in the seventies, it is reasonable to ask some searching questions.
David
There aren’t that many good recruits just over the border in England whereas Fijians make outstanding soldiers (they have a long tradition of servibg in the SAS) and are keen to serve in the British Army.
JH –
Well that’s your opinion – but I think it shows why we won’t be getting a Colin Powell over here in the foreseeable future. By the way if Fijians make such fantastic soldiers where are all the Fijian generals? Or did you mean they make fantastic low rank soldiers only?
As for the SAS if they are so brilliant why has virtually every operation since the Iranian Embassy siege (when they were up against some amateur leftie Iranians) been such a disaster? Their reputation is very much over-inflated.
David
It takes many years to ‘grow’ a senior military officer. The far reaching social changes in the British armed forces over the past few years will take some time to bear fruit higher up. The demographic make up of the junior elements of the officer corps is very different now from that of only a few years ago.
It is ridiculous to suggest that every operation undertaken by the SAS has been a disaster. They performed with distinction in the Falklands, Bosnia, Kosovo and during the recent Iraq war. If you can think of any ‘disasters’ other than the Bravo Two Zero mission I would be surprised.
The whole point of Special Forces is to operate covertly so theblogging public can hardly expect to get a read out on the outcomes of their operations.
JH –
South Georgia during the Falklands was a disaster: they had to be air lifted out. Can’t remember exactly why – I think they got frostbite or something. The idea of “covert” operations is nonsense given all the books in recent years including one by ex chief of staff.
As for “growing” senior military officers, why was the USA able to “grow” a senior military officer out of Jamaican immigrant stock and mature him more than TEN YEARS ago while we are still waiting for any evidence of a non-racist army.
David
The SAS literary club is about past operations. When I refer to covert I mean what they are doing now. They dont write their memoirs in real time.
South Georgias was a high risk operation – It worked largetly due to the excellence of the RN helicopters
As for the US growing Colin Powell – My point exactly – I don’t deny that attiTudes to racial minorities in the UK military have been wrong in the past and that the US are ahead of us – We just aren’t yet at the Colin Powell stage but that doesn’t mean we are not trying our best.
What is your miltary background? I am in the Royal Navy, have worked in our equal opportunities programme, from which we have received much credit from the CRE.
JH –
I’ve no military experience but I’ve read a fair amount of military history so have some understanding of the basics. The armed forces are of course the servants of the nation (mediated by the Crown) so as I citizen I feel free to comment on their policy and performance. I have had direct contact with military personnel who have moved into other work on retirement from the armed forces and afraid can vouch for the fact that they are soaked in racist attitudes.
I will remain sceptical about the armed forces’ commitment to encouraging a truly merit-based approach until I see evidence of it.
David
The scepticism you have about the armed forces may be as well aimed at other aspects of our national life. How many racial minorities are in City boardrooms? The BBC remains ‘hideously white’, the upper ranks of the Civil Service are prety much entirely Anglo Celtic.
Once again you have weakened your argument by quoting retired military personnel – Who I agree contain a fair number of bigoted dinosaurs. If you were to speak to currently serving soldiers, sailors and airmen you would have a different view albeit one that doesn’t conform to lazy media stereotypes.