Did you see all those BBC headlines about desertions from the army?
More than 1,000 members of the British military have deserted the armed forces since the start of the 2003 Iraq war, the BBC has discovered.
“Since” is such a useful word. It implies causation without actually stating it. The BBC are very fond of sincing.
When USS Neverdock had finished chewing up, grinding down and spitting out the remains of that desertions story there wasn’t enough left over to give dessert to a gnat. The key question was, you guessed it, how many deserted per year before the Iraq war, before the Twin Towers fell? Is the number up or down since then?
You guess. Because the BBC will leave you guessing.
I should have known. Back in March the US media ran a raft of stories about the numbers of desertions in the American army, sincing like mad. This is basically a rerun, a British cover version. Same headlines, same interviews with the deserters’ lawyers. Same profusion of anecdotal evidence and shortage of numerical. And the same subtle, deniable efforts to give an impression that, here as there, is the opposite of the truth.
UPDATE: The BBC story linked to is mutating by the hour. It says it was last updated five minutes ago, at 18.18 British Summer of Time. (Yes, BBC, we do have trained operatives observing your every move.) Wonder of wonders, the “Last Updated” field actually appears to tell the truth! The story now has lots of pretty MOD numbers that I don’t remember seeing before. The contrast between the (non) story the newly installed numbers tell and the crisis line taken by the original interviewees and featured quotes give the whole story an entertainingly chimerical air.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Drinking From Home has a screenshot of the original version. A middle version of the story had, I seem to recall, some figures near the end quoted by Don Touhig regarding the fairly constant proportion of soldiers who bunk off. These figures have now disappeared again.
The little discussion of the difference between going AWOL and desertion is also new. The original referred dramatically to numbers who had “evaded capture.” Made it sound like the French Resistance. In fact the typical unauthorised absence is not intended to be permanent, may well be unplanned – and in the case of commenter “pounce” was actually unintentional.
It’s all go at the BBC.
Sounds a pretty devasting case of biased presentation to me, Natalie. Well done for getting to Neverdock’s take so promptly. Oh, and the warmest of welcomes back to posting again.
The BBC are often treasonous, nothing new there. Here they are very plainly trying to subvert the army.
I see the BBC is continuing to sing the tune demanded by its Islamic masters.
We’ve had the British Army thugs
We’ve had the Taliban are going to get you
And we’ve had poor kit.
So continuing on its march of objecting to the removal of Saddam they now play the Troops have had enough and are deserting by the droves. Err Al beeb according to your mid day news slot on Al beeb 1 you admitted that you included people who had family problems and such.
So lets see you garnered the cumulative figures for people who are deemed as AWOL and then rewrote it to please your Masters at the MCB.
Just for the info I was once classed as AWOL. My reason British Rail didn’t get me to Harwich on time and I missed the ferry hence I was late. My unit posted me as AWOL until I walked into the orderly room at lunch time with a letter of apology from BR. No doubt according to you that also could be deemed as opposition to the war in Iraq. Only one problem it was in 1985.
P.S
If so many soldoers are doing a runner rather than doing as they are told. Then can you explain how you only have 2 ex squaddies (who are both members of the anti war movement by the way) crying foul play.
P.P.S
The TA is voluntary, you can leave when ever you want. George Solomou didn’t get called up and he left before he got called up;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1393503,00.html
Well that story has been updated today Sunday 28 May at 1608 pm and sounds rather different, different figures given and these figures are for being “absent without leave”.. Sounds like quite a bit of editing. Well done to USS Neverdock.
And damnation to the BBC!
Hazel
Screencaps at Drinking from Home:
http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/05/bbc-report-on-army-desertions.html#links
Contemptible, just contemptible.
Something of a slogan there I feel-
BBC News: ‘entertainingly chimerical’
heh, heh heh.
I’m sure they’ll use the ‘It’s technically correct’ argument against any complaints.
On the surface the ‘Deserters’ story appears to be yet another example of BBC pinko bias. But scratch a little and we find that the principal beneficiary of the Corporation’s third rate hackery is er…a lighter shade of pale pink – ‘Daz’ Cameron himself.
Over recent months the Tories have allowed a gulf of blue water to gush between them and a hard place known as Iraq. And since Michael Howard’s spat with the Republicans the electorate’s perception is that George Bush is Blair’s best friend. ‘Daz’, of course, has done nothing to alter that view.
So, whilst all RIGHT thinking people rail yet again at the idiotic pacifism in BBC ‘News Gathering’ they can find some consolation in the fact that this latest liberal fabrication ultimately plays right into their hands.
FAO Natalie – Lindsey German is a Trotskyist (executive committee member of the Socialist Workers Party)& Kate Hudson, whilst not being Goldie Hawn’s daughter, finds time to be both Chair of CND and a member of the Communist Party of Britain.
In the pre-internet days, if a newspaper had been caught out doing something half as devious as the BBC habitually does with its articles, it would generally publish a retraction/explanation/letters from the public on the issue/response from the journalist who wrote the story.
Any publication worth its salt has to abide, at least to some extent, to the principle of accuracy and fairness in reporting or lose all credibility.
The BBC evidently doesn’t know about this principle or doesn’t care that it continually misleads people who will have read the original articles on its site or heard them on the radio and will not necessarily be aware of the subsequent stealth edits.
This is not journalism. It is propaganda.
Oh dear. This is a really hopeless piece of ‘All Out’ rubbish, isn’t it?
It’s undoubtedly true that many senior officers felt deeply uncomfortable about the Iraq war. Many lower ranks felt the same and I don’t think it has ever been a particularly enjoyable tour. Consequently, I might have expected to see a much higher figure than 330 per year.
But the desertion rate is one-sixth of what it was in 2000. Hmmm.
This is a ‘good news’ story, surely? A testament to the commitment and loyalty of the British soldier?
‘Loyalty’ is the key word here. I have often heard it said that when British soldiers go to war, their loyalty is not to the Queen, to the government or to their CO: it is to one another.
That ‘loyalty’ might go some way to explaining why the desertion figure is so low.
British Broacasting Coporation.
Unworthy even of its name.
Somebody – some peacenik outfit – planted this story with the BBC.
They get these feeds from leftie outfits, NGOs etc and just love them because they fit th3e party line.
The REAL story here is that the desertion rate has declined dramatically.
The Min of Defence can say what they like to rebut this sort of story – but it is always too late. The BBC prints or broadcasts an out-of-context story before the MoD is half awake. Just like Gilligan’s false story that led to Dr Kelly’s death.
No shame at the BBC. Just spin, spin, spin.
Shame on the bbc, maybe it should be re named as El Beeb?
http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2006/05/lies-at-bbc-army-desertion-figures.html#links
The boat that the beeb wanted to float blew up and sank.
Anybody care to use the words ‘False Prospectus’?
And where is Jonathan Charles’ (BBC World Affairs Correspondent: LOL) byline? Surely the intrepid ‘journalist’ responsible should be proud to have his ‘john hancock’ on this report?
Enough is enough. They’ve been caught out blackguarding a fine bunch of men and women.
The BBC has been pursuing the Government over the Iraq war for four years and they don’t care who gets in the way of their ‘dodgy journalism’ – witness Dr. David Kelly.
The BBC should be publicly apologising for this smear.
So much for their charter
Military desertions triple since invasion of Iraq
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 29/05/2006)
The number of servicemen deserting has tripled since the invasion of Iraq, raising fears of a growing refusal to serve on dangerous missions abroad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/29/nawol29.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/29/ixuknews.html
Oh dear.
The Telegraph has fallen for it too.
Hmm. seems like there is more than one interpretation to this guys stuff.
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/new/TelegraphIran.htm
Here’s a pic of the bloke
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/01/ntyphoon01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/01/ixhome.html
Nice Nomex, shame about the fighter.
Does this come under guilt by association?
http://www.ampleforth.org.uk/OANews/html/Journalism.html.
– and in the case of commenter “bounce”
Natalie – I think that should be “pounce”
😉
Sorry, “pounce” it is. Probably the effect of re-reading “Starship Troopers” not long ago.
On the bounce, soldier!
Natalie – I thought maybe your keyboard was upsidedown:
¶?MÓ
Biodegr?d?ble
Natalie Solent
A real film of the book would’ve been great (I still liked the film).
I wonder WHERE the ‘B’BC (and others) got this “story”. If we could find the source it would be extremely revealing.
The song of the same name (Starship Trooper) by YES is still one of my favourite tracks.
Excuse me, my age is showing.
Soulders have different reasons for joining the armed forces. So their are many reasons why they might want to choose to leave.
One reason why some dont join and why some get bored and leave, is the lack of real action, or any usefull things to do. Such is the stupidity/braveness of many young men and now some women.
I have 3 members of my family currently in the armed forces, and one just left. The one that left got a bit bored after his 4 year contract because he had not got to shoot at anyone yet.
“British Broacasting Coporation.
Unworthy even of its name.”
i half wonder about that , when i see Masai Kenyan warriors jumping up and down in slow motion in one of those BBC idents.
not that i have anything against those noble, brave, and fascinating people – but i just wonder, “what the hell have they got to do with the ‘British’ bit?”
you might as well put on Riverdance with a BBC logo behind it.
this army story is all par for the course, when you think of the bigger picture here.
“because he had not got to shoot at anyone yet.”
well, he couldnt anyway – because an army of human rights lawyers will be down on top of him like a ton of bricks.
boom boom.
The important thing is to remember the name of the journalist who perpetrated this:
JONATHAN CHARLES, BBC world affairs correspondent.
Holding the BBC to account for its lousy and in this case contemptible journalism is virtually impossible under current circumstances. But we can and should remember and document the names of particular journalists who have been prepared to disgrace themselves. Can I propose that B-BBC institute a “Hall of Shame,” complete with exhibits, for BBC journalists who, like this one, produce exceptionally scummy work.
Jonathan Charles can have the honour of inaugurating it.
Michael Taylor | 30.05.06 – 11:44 am
I second that.
The first thing to do is find out where the “press release” that Jonathan Charles put his name to came from. These (almost certainly) leftist liars need to be tracked down.
I’m not sure what people are protesting at – what exactly are the BBC “fabricating” here?
If it’s the fact that desertion rates have risen since the start of the war then this seems to be true (from the Telegraph link):
“Figures from the Ministry of Defence show that the number of permanent Awols has risen from 118 in 2002 – the year before the invasion – to 377 last year.”
However, I’m still not sure what the phrase “still missing” (used by the BBC) means – surely at any time there are bound to be more soldiers “missing” in more recent years as the army has had less time to find them?
Minster Minit,
Yes, if you look at the version of the story you see now it doesn’t look too bad. Now there are all sorts of figures, and a distinction made between desertions and mere AWOLs amd various other changes that I haven’t tracked in detail.
But the original version of this story – the one that for millions of viewers will be the one they remember – was a load of crock.
Marc of USS Neverdock says that his site referrals show visits from the BBC. I would bet a pound to a penny that it was the attention from blogs that prompted the change.
“But the original version of this story – the one that for millions of viewers will be the one they remember – was a load of crock.”
I did read the original story, but the problem to me seems to be in the older story that had the lines:
“There were nearly 2,000 recorded cases of desertion last year”
Now according to the new figures, only 81 soldiers deserted in 2001 – obviously a huge drop in just two years.
The most likely reason I can see for this is that in the 2000 article, “desertion” included more general AWOL cases rather than stone cold desertions (or some other distinction). This would tie in with the new article which quotes:
“According to MoD figures 2,670 soldiers went “absent without leave” in 2001, with the figure rising to 2,970 in 2002 and falling in 2003 to 2,825. In 2004 it rose to 3,050, falling back again in 2005 to 2,725.”
“Marc of USS Neverdock says that his site referrals show visits from the BBC. I would bet a pound to a penny that it was the attention from blogs that prompted the change.”
As far as I can tell, the criticisms the Marc made were:
1. The BBC were misleading in their statement:
“More than 1,000 members of the British military have deserted the armed forces since the start of the 2003 Iraq war, the BBC has discovered.”
as in fact “Army desertions have plummeted from 2000 a year during peace time, to 330 during a time of war.”
2. The use of the opinion of Ben Griffin.
Now the latest version of the story STILL uses Ben Griffin AND STILL is misleading if the statement Army desertions have plummeted from 2000 a year during peace time, to 330 during a time of war” is indeed true.
(Personally, for reasons I’ve stated above, I have my doubts that it is true).
“Marc of USS Neverdock says that his site referrals show visits from the BBC. I would bet a pound to a penny that it was the attention from blogs that prompted the change.”
But in the more general case I agree with you – blogs like this one and USS Neverdock obviously provide a sort of editorial service that sometimes forces the BBC to clean up some of their articles, and I would not be surprised if BBC personnel did read these sort of sites daily.
The BBC personnel would have to read the blogs: from where else would they find out what is happening in the real world?
“But the original version of this story – the one that for millions of viewers will be the one they remember – was a load of crock.”
Natalie,
I sort of remeber the original version, but I was just wondering, why did you think that it was a load of crock?
Mister Minit,
Do not just look at the BBC web site.
I heard the “Today” programme – they ran this story as the 2nd or 3rd story in the 8:00 am and the 8:30 news bulletins on Saturday.
On both occasions it ran as a “more bad news from Iraq” type story – you know the kind that the BBC love to gloat over.
It was “over 1000 desertions since the Iraq war began”. Without any other figure for comparison, 1000 sounds like a lot. And the words suggest a link.
If the story had been “500 desertions since new Pope sworn in” that would plant the idea of causality in the listeners mind.
more than 30,000 people a month desert the tv-tax.
Any movement on that “Hall of Shame” idea?
You’ll never discpline or hold accountable the Institution – your only chance is to hold individuals responsible.
BBC Accountability – One Journlist at a Time.
Jack,
I don’t ever listen to R4 so I can’t comment on that.
But if the commenters here are protesting because of USS Neverdock’s analysis, I think that analysis is wrong and the statement “Army desertions have plummeted from 2000 a year during peace time, to 330 during a time of war” is false.
If there are other reasons for protest on this article (except that it is a general anti-war one) then please tell me.
And I still can’t understand why Natalie thinks that the new article is any better if she agrees with the USS Neverdock criticism, which would seem to be the case considering that she linked to it and from the statement:
“The key question was, you guessed it, how many deserted per year before the Iraq war, before the Twin Towers fell? Is the number up or down since then?
You guess. Because the BBC will leave you guessing.”
MM,
My problem with this story is that it was given prominence on R4 as a “bad news from Iraq” story.
Further investigation shows that it really should be “army desertions show random variations each year”.
I cannot speak for, or defend, the B-BBC site or USSNeverDock. This is a red herring.
I do not think anybody here is claiming that B-BBC or USSN are perfect, unbiased, impartial reorters of everything.
They have pointed the finger at a blatant example of BBC bias – and if their fingers are nicotine-stained, or wearing blue gloves, then that is a side issue – just look where they are pointing.
MM,
The “Iraq war causes army desertions” story also appeared on the BBC TV news on Saturday.
As a ex-serviceman I may be accused of bias. The BBCs original take on this story was depressingly familiar from an organisation who likes to distort truth in the pursuit of political gain. This time it was our armed forces. I knew of many such ‘desertions’ which in fact were nothing but the case. Sometimes soldiers just take an illegal day or two off – absence without leave. They come back. Desertion is not the case and gives an impression of breakdown which probably serves the BBCs purpose.