Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
J B-H
It is not I but you who is being disingenuous.
You complain at 01.11.06 – 3:59 that the BBC ‘failed to report’ what you regard as ‘important’ evidence in its Court report of George Carman QC’s examination of Mr Whiteman.
I suspect the reason is simple.
It did not come up in that day’s proceedings. That would explain why there was no mention in the first of the three articles you cite. It would hardly be a point Carman would raise. So far as I can determine, Browne did not cross examine that day.
I have read every quality newspaper’s (except for the Telegraph’s which is no longer available) account of the Carman examination and of Desmond Browne’s subsequent cross examination. Some of these are exhaustive, blow by blow accounts. No-one mentions the Fayed-Whiteman connection being mentioned.
Unless you are nutty enough to believe that all Fleet Street and the wire services were all in cahoots to suppress it, then it is clear that the matter did not come up in open court during Whiteman’s examination.
I suspect it may have been discussed when the court spent two days in closed session. If so, the BBC would not have been allowed to report it until the trial was over. As we have seen, the BBC did report it when the trial ended.
Unless you can show me that it was raised by Carman (with respect to the first article) or by Browne (with respect to the second) then I will continue to believe that you have made an ill-founded and malicious allegation.
…..contd
J B-H
By the way, you really dropped yourself in it in your reply over on the other (Adloyada) thread.
I asked you when you first knew about the Mobil money. You answered:
“Question #1:
Back in May 1997, when I first began to investigate the CFQ affair.”
That’s very interesting. That was when Sir Gordon Downey’s investigation into Hamilton was in progress wasn’t it?
Funny that, because through some ‘lapse of memory’ Hamilton didn’t tell Downey about the Mobil money.
Understandable that he might forget something from 9 years previously. But not if he’d been going through it with you.
Did you conspire with Hamilton to mislead Downey and the Committee on Standards & Privileges?
Odder still that you knew all about it back in 97, when Hamilton’s own counsel Desmond Browne only discovered about Mobil through a note in his chambers pigeon-hole the day before the trial.
Times December 22, 1999
http://www.newsint-archive.co.uk/pages/main.asp
On October 25 1994, five days after the cash-for-questions allegations appeared in the press, Hamilton was called in by Michael Heseltine, the deputy prime minister, cabinet secretary Sir Robin Butler and chief whip Richard Ryder. According to Butler’s notes they discussed a tip-off that had come from a tax consultant about the deal with Mobil. Hamilton resigned that day.
Are you going to claim Whiteman was already in some conspiracy with Fayed? Only 5 days after the story broke?
Also you say Hamilton registered his interest. The Register of Members’ Interests shows Hamilton registered it in November. He had put down the amendment to the Finance Bill in June. How/when did he declare the interest earlier, if at all?
Do you think putting down amendments for money is an acceptable thing for a ‘consultant’ to do? More or less acceptable than asking questions for money?
More Anti-American bias from the BBC brazenly broadcasted crap.
Paul Gambaccini, celebrated BBC dj, of both pop/classical, close friend of that well known former BBC employee & paedophile Jonathan King and who also said of Pete Townshend’s misdemeanours, “…this is a subject which has concerned him for many, many years, and I therefore do trust him implicitly.” has a new Saturday morning Radio 4 programme:
10:30
Living With Aids: Britain’s Battle
(4 November 2006)
Twenty-five years after the first recorded case of Aids, Paul Gambaccini takes a look at the social impact of the disease in the UK. Doctors and campaigners recall the terror associated with the first diagnosed cases, as well as the popular myths about how the disease was spread, and politicians talk about the government’s emergency response which sought to educate the public about safe sex.
And guess what we get to hear quoted in the trailer:
“I remember my first thought was: has America developed a weapon targeting gay men”
+ Also implicit Anti-Americanism in the depiction of France’s so called rejection of Halloween.
French shun Halloween ‘gimmicks’
I read in John’s link to The Times’s report on the trial of the BNP’s leader that (see link)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2432203,00.html
the Leftist crowd were shouting “Auschwitz, never again” at the leader of the only political party which explicitly stated its support for Israel’s absolute right of self-defence. The irony of that is lost on the left who are, it must be said, not the brightest bulbs in the house.
Now this is a very juicy revision, just watch how the BBC nurses their favourite american senator.
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/9429/diff/3/4
“A statement released by his office said the two cancellations had been agreed by mutual decision with the candidates concerned.”
becomes
“The Massachusetts senator’s office said he had scrapped two campaign appearances so as not to become a distraction to Democratic candidates.”
How munificent and gracious of Mr Kerry not to show up.
the Leftist crowd were shouting “Auschwitz, never again”
i’m just surprised they didn’t add
we are all hezbollah…
Little Bulldog..
Watch out for the stealth edit….BBC call a terrorist a terrorist with no ‘scare quotes’:
Probe into terrorist’s Tube work
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6107994.stm
This is how it should be done:
Mayor U-turn on Tube ‘terrorist’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6103484.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6104858.stm
“Israel launches major Gaza raid”
Wednesday, 1 November 2006, 18:22 GMT
===
“An Israeli military spokesman said the operation was aimed at stopping rocket fire into Israel.”
Can we have a little more detail about this rocket fire?
Where does it come from?
Where is it directed to?
How much is there?
Are the rockets crude?
Are the rockets home made?
“Israeli forces have made regular incursions into Gaza since late June, following the capture of an Israeli soldier in a cross-border raid by Palestinian militants.”
Let’s get the name up quick, the first time it is appropriate. It seems that BBC copywriters need to brush up on thier news writing skills.
BTW: Who where these palestinian “militants”, who lead them, which flag did they fight under?
“Wednesday’s attack comes amid some sign of movement to end the deadlock over Israeli soldier Cpl Gilad Shalit, who was captured on 25 June by Palestinian militants.”
Is it so hard for the BBC to put 2+2 together? Merge this with the first paragraph to create coherrent whole.
Cure this schizophrenia!
BBC bias is one problem, but the low quality of the writing is also a problem.
===
Overall this article is pretty bad. I would grade it a C-.
The writing is choppy. And several points have yet to be addressed.
1.) Who were the people participating in the cross boarder raid?
2.) What is the ideology of Hamas government. Why are talks indirect?
3.) Tell us about the rockets that started this mess
John Reith | 01.11.06 – 9:18 pm
Taking each point in turn, yes, Peter Whiteman’s employment by Fayed most certainly did come up during the hearings. Hamilton’s Leading Counsel Desmond Browne QC asked Peter Whiteman directly if it was true that for the past fourteen years he had also acted Mohamed Fayed’s personal tax adviser. Whiteman confirmed from the witness box that he had.
I have the transcripts in storage and can extract them if you like.
Don’t be so surprised that not one news organisation reported it. It’s merely another manifestation of the cliquey closed shop called the “Westminster Village”, John. Never heard of Cheriegate? You know, Cherie Blair’s financial dealings with convicted Australian fraudster Peter Foster?
On Sunday 1 December 2002 The Mail on Sunday splashed the story of Peter Foster’s intimate financial dealings on behalf of the PM’s wife with a front-page splash headlined: “BLAIRS USED FRAUDSTER TO BUY FLATS”.
Don’t you remember John, the entire British media closed ranks the next day to bury the story • that is, the entire British media except the Mail on Sunday’s sister newspaper the Daily Mail? Don’t you remember?
Here’s a few comments of reflection from the Daily Mail of Thursday 5th December 2002:
“PERHAPS the most disturbing aspect of the scandal of Peter Foster and how he came to help the Blairs buy two flats was the utter failure of the British media to report the matter properly. Rather than seek to examine the murky affair, the media were cowed by an intense Downing Street spin operation that tried to portray the Mail on Sunday’s exposé as a disgraceful smear.
“Broadcasters, led as so often by the BBC … studiously avoided mention of the tale.
“On Monday, the left-wing Guardian, extra-ordinarily, branded the story ‘just another smear on Blairs’. …
“The Labour-supporting-Times was just as supine. …
“The Labour-supporting Independent was almost identical …
“The Labour-supporting Express said … ‘Downing Street yesterday dismissed the claims as ludicrous.’
“The Labour-supporting Mirror’s denial was to the point …
“The Press Association, the agency which supplies newspapers with hundreds of stories every day, did not produce a single word on the scandal.
“Alone among the British media, the Daily Mail reported the story faithfully.’
So if you thought that the British media is pluralistic, now you know it isn’t. It’s appallingly cliquey, self-serving, left-leaning and homogeneous. And that’s not the only example. Charlie Kennedy’s alcoholism had been known by the entire press pack for ages. Then there’s Prescott’s extra-marital trollies-off liaisons that it later transpired were also well known in the drinking holes of Westminster.
I’ll dig out the transcripts of Whiteman’s cross-examination if it’s important to you but I’ve got a lot on my plate right now. Let me know what you want me to do.
I’ll reply to your second post shortly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6105726.stm
Depleted uranium risk ‘ignored’
Wednesday, 1 November 2006, 11:55 GMT
====
Now this is a classic.
“But a senior UN scientist said research showing how depleted uranium could cause cancer was withheld.”
This implies that such research *was* deliberately not included in the report.
“The research was not included in the WHO report, and Dr Baverstock believes it was blocked.”
So one person who did the reaerch, thinks it was blocked. Therefore the BBC reports that this is so, because it agree with thier worldview.
“Mr Repacholi said the findings were not collaborated by other reports and it was not WHO policy to publish “speculative” data. He denied any pressure was brought to bear. ”
“But other senior scientists have pointed to worrying health statistics in Iraq, which show a rise in cancer and birth defects.”
Who are these scientists? Where is the data? Has this been published in a serious peer reviewed journal?
Anonymous speculation is not news, except when the BBC agree’s with it.
John Reith:
The reason I knew about Neil Hamilton’s £10,000 consultancy with Mobil Oil way back in May 1997, when I began my research, is because at that time, thanks to the media’s portrayal of the man, I didn’t trust his word on anything and so I treble checked every single thing he told me.
His consultancy was properly registered in the Register of Members’ Interests, and so, having read the Register of Members’ interests, I asked him about it. I also asked him about his other consultancies over the years with the Brewers’ Society; the National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators; National Nuclear Corporation, and others.
As for Hamilton not telling Downey about the Mobil money, in fact, Downey considered the Mobil issue and (knock me over with a feather) rejected it.
From the Downey Report Volume 1:
“Mobil Oil
“703. The allegation against Mr Hamilton relating to Mobil Oil was set out in the book Sleaze. It is that Mr Hamilton, either during or shortly after a one year consultancy with Mobil (worth, according to The Guardian, £10,000), tabled Parliamentary Questions in return for payment.
“704. Mr Hamilton stated that he had been appointed in 1989 as a consultant on taxation matters to Mobil Oil and that this interest had been registered (a fact confirmed by the Register for 1990). Mr Hamilton added: “I asked no Parliamentary Questions on behalf of the company; nor was I ever asked to do so”.
“705. The analysis of Mr Hamilton’s Parliamentary activity between late 1989 and 1991 does not indicate that he tabled any questions, or tabled or signed any Early Day Motions, or made any interventions in the House that could be construed as directly relevant to the interests of Mobil Oil.
“841. It was also alleged that in 1989 Mr Hamilton accepted a one year consultancy worth £10,000 from Mobil Oil (which he duly registered), in return for which he tabled Parliamentary questions. This allegation is not borne out by an analysis of Mr Hamilton’s Parliamentary activity during the relevant period and I do not therefore find it substantiated.
“VIII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(xi) The allegation that Mr Hamilton accepted a paid consultancy from Mobil Oil in return for asking Parliamentary questions is not substantiated.”
To my way of thinking, if Hamilton had done anything discreditable, then the Guardian’s crack squad of investigative journalists would have jolly well found out back then, given that Mobil had already been raised.
I repeat, the allegation, made for the first time on the eve of the trial in December 1999, that Hamilton had tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill for £10,000, was dependent wholly on the testimony of a man who had worked for Fayed for fourteen years – Peter Whiteman QC.
Myself, I think it’s very interesting that Peter Whiteman has never given any interviews, though his testimony was clearly absolutely pivotal. In fact, he has kept a decidedly low profile. How so? Could it be because he lied through his teeth?
Try doing a search of the BBC’s website for an image of the man and you won’t find one – in fact try searching the entire Internet. All very curious eh? Is it that the BBC wasn’t interested in this crucial witness or is it because the man himself refused interviews. And if it was the latter, why didn’t the BBC publicise the man’s shyness, given the importance of his testimony?
Market Participant – I quite agree we need to know the sources and who these scientists are. There is not a day goes by when the BBc quote anonymous sources. How can the “facts” be checked. One of the scientists could be a biology lecturer at some redbrick university who has never left the country but votes Liberal democrat. Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it (but not me)
Here is an interesting complaint to the BBCs Editorial Complaints Unit that was upheld I wonder why?
“Bill Maynard, Radio Leicester, 14 May 2006
Complaint
A listener complaint that Bill Maynard’s “rant” (aregular feature of the programme) had contained one-sided political views.
Ruling
Bill Maynard’s comments were strongly criticalof the Deputy Prime Minister and the present Government, and, in the absence of any balancing element, were not in keeping with the requirements of due impartiality.
Further action
The “rant” feature has been dropped, and editorial processes have been put in place to ensure that potentially contentious issues are identified and explored before transmission. All Radio Leicester producers have been reminded of the relevant BBC editorial guidelines. ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/text/ecu_julsep2006.html
Since when does the BBc give two sides to contentious issues.
Saw the newsnight report on Burma. I don’t know if they were exaggerating but they made it sound almost as bad as cuba.
What’s the scores, George Daws?
JBH 5 – 0 JR (latest score)
BTW JR, I’m still hoping for your opinion on this one that I posted earlier:
Why is it that the BBC cannot even report the actual words used by Blair in his speech in the lead story on the Stern Report (after all, that’s the only one most people will read). It’s not as if they haven’t got the space.
As reported by canada.com:
Introducing the report, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said unabated climate change would cost the world between 5 and 20 per cent of global gross domestic product each year………
“It is not in doubt that, if the science is right, the consequences for our planet are literally disastrous,” he said.
No mention by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation of the lower amount of 5% cost nor the highly important phrase “if the science is right”.
Can you think of any particular reason why the Beeb should choose not to include these very important words? They wouldn’t be trying to exaggerate the problem now, would they?
Anybody remember this BBC “Have your say” (HYS)
“Should female mutilation be banned? “
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=2024&&edition=1&ttl=20061102031713
To all you liberal tofu eating, latte drinking freedom fighters who felt fit to berate me when I picked up on how the hell the BBC could even ask the above barbaric question. Read the following and feel glad about how your stance on freedom of expressions saw daddy wield a pair of scissors on his little girl.
Father jailed for US mutilation
A US court has sentenced a man to 10 years in jail for genital mutilation of his two-year-old daughter, in what is said to be first such case in the US.
Khalid Adem, an Ethiopian immigrant, was found guilty of aggravated battery and cruelty to children by the court in the state of Georgia.
Prosecutors said he used scissors to remove his daughter’s clitoris in 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6108516.stm
I wonder how that BBC stalwart Germaine Greer feels about the above as well seeing she had this to say about it a few years ago;
Germaine Greer (excerpt from p. 102 of “The Whole Woman” New York: A.A. Knopf, 1999)
“Looked at in its full context the criminalization of FGM can be seen to be what African nationalists since Jomo Kenyatta have been calling it, an attack on cultural identity.
BBC World Service programme What It Means To Be An American
Good to see British taxpayers funding this message to the world……………I must listen to VOA to find out about Britain I suppose
And VOA will be fairer towards the UK than the BBC is towards the USA!
@pounce.
As usual the BBC underreports
“Judge Richard Winegarden sentenced Adem to 15 years for each count. Both will be served concurrently, with the first 10 years in prison and the last five years on probation.
Adem was also sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine for the aggravated battery count and $32 a month for a probation and supervision fee.”
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=21092&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2
“Winegarden said the maximum penalty of 40 years for both counts, which the state recommended, was too harsh and was not warranted considering the facts of the case.
Winegarden specifically eluded to a piece of testimony that stated Adem prayed before cutting his daughter.
“This is not a crime that fits into any well-defined category,” Winegarden said of the case, which is believed to be the first of its kind in the U.S. “There’s no indication that the defendant committed the crime out of greed or anger. … I don’t think this is going to happen again.””
—
Note, that this man got off very easy relative to the maximum sentance of 80 consequtive.
The judge Winegarden noted the lack of interaction between the nominal severity of the crime and traditional western aggravating factors (greed, cruelty, etc).
For this man, cutting up his daughter is the ordinary course of business. That is not something that western justice is used to contemplating.
AFAIK, there is no parole in Georgia, so split sentances like this are normal. He will be in prison (with hardened felons) for at least ten years.
Pounce
Germaine Greer may be a BBC stalwart (isn’t Melanie Philips too?), and the quote you give above has more than a whiff of “contrition chic”- sacred writ in such agencies as UNESCO, and accepted as ethically just in the world of scholarship. Sure, similar sentiments abound from her about the Australian aborigines, however, I don’t believe for one moment that Germaine would really defend FGM. I’m convinced that quote you give above has been described by her elsewhere a thousand times as expletive “ing FGM”, and expletive “ing Muslim men”, etc. Germaine rarely uses expletives on the BBC, anybody who has spoken to her away from a microphone will testify to that. Shrew, tamed?
So you know. Unless the Father is kept in protective custody (isolation) it is very doubtful he will survive prison. US convicts deal with people who hurt little girls and boys very brutally. They don’t have a very good rate of survival in prison.
Billyquiz
Sorry, I don’t want to get into climate change arguments. Not my issue really. I am a complete agnostic. After BSE and Gulf War Syndrome I am slow to trust scientific opinion even when there’s a supposed consensus. Actually, especially when there’s a supposed consensus.
As for the reporting: I saw Blair on the telly and the range was made clear. Also they ran his qualifier ‘if the science is right’ or somesuch.
Newsnight I thought did full justice to the Stern paper – the sceptic side represented by Nigel Lawson, who got his points across con brio. Paxo himself supplied the ‘whats the point if India and China don’t play…..’ line.
After all the hot air from both sides, I am still, as I say, a ‘don’t know’ on this one.
O/T
This has resurfaced in the Evening Standard last night.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/northernirelandassembly/story/0,9061,974587,00.html
‘Loyalists planned to kill Livingstone’
jr
Youv’e been so busy trying to score (and failing I have to add) against JBH that you’ve not been able to respond to my last query to you about the conduct of former higher echelon BBC employee, Liz Forgan.
Care to make a stab at it.
Won’t be able to respond for some time, I’m taking my 22 month old to mums & toddlers singing group.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 01.11.06 – 11:25 pm
Thank you for your reply.
There are still some rather suspicious circumstances that pose a radical challenge to your interpretation of events.
First, if Whiteman’s testimony was perjury got up in collusion with Fayed, then how do you explain the manner in which Whiteman was called to give evidence?
As I understand it, this was what happened:
DJ Freeman had subpoenaed Butler’s notes of the ‘hanging meeting’ with Hezza and the Chief Whip. They arrived at Freemans one afternoon about 10 days or so before the trial. Someone then read them and spotted the reference to a private ‘tip-off’ about Mobil that had been put in the Whips’ black book. {I am assuming this tip off came from Whiteman…..though it just might have been from Deakin or Blumenthal???}
Anyway, having spotted the reference, Freemans approached Mobil requesting full particulars. These in turn arrived on the next Friday – i.e. the last normal working day before the trial. Blumenthal and Whiteman were then approached to give evidence. Clearly this was a stroke of good luck for Carman. Whiteman hadn’t volunteered. Fayed hadn’t steered his lawyers in Whiteman’s direction. If there hadn’t been a passing reference in the Cabinet Secretary’s minute, no-one would ever have known. No-one knew what was in Butler’s notes – it was a confidential Cabinet Office document – so no-one could have relied on it coming out.
Then there’s a plausibility issue. You say that because Whiteman had represented Fayed as a tax barrister many times over the years, his word cannot be trusted. But the Bar isn’t like that. Sure he earned a fat fee from representing Harrods. But he was one of the top 2 or 3 tax barristers in the country. If he lost Fayed’s work, he wouldn’t be un-employed: under the cab-rank principle his clerk would simply pass him the next brief in the queue. He also represented Mobil. He could most likely have had his pick of top corporations had he wanted.
You keep saying Hamilton registered his interest properly. But Hamilton had a meeting with Mobil to discuss the Finance Bill in May. He put down his amendment in June. Nothing appeared in the register until November.
You didn’t answer my question: what’s worse….asking parliamentary questions for cash or putting down amendments to Bills for cash?
As an ex-pat, I have to rely on BBC World and the web. I rarely get to see the former as my girlfriend and I usually watch the national news and programs in Norway, so most of my UK news intake is via the web and I assume that I am not alone.
That’s why my question was aimed solely at the lead web page concerning the Stern report.
Why would the story be trimmed down in such a manner when space isn’t really an issue?
I can only conclude that it was either total stupidity or an attempt to influence the reader.
TPO | 02.11.06 – 9:02 am
Sorry TPO….I can’t find your Liz F question. Would you mind asking it again once you’ve done row….row….rowing your boat gently down the stream?
Menezes officer shot man in Kent
Do I hear Hollywood murmuring & getting interested…a British Dirty Harry? Or will it be Welsh BBC Mastermind converting to Islam?
‘Hutton defends his report against whitewash claim’ – interesting to see how the BBC cover this one….
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2433856,00.html
Yes Oscar, it’s interesting how Hutton keeps harping on about how limited his terms of reference were.
The inference I draw is that if his terms of reference had been somewhat broader, he’d have been free to say a good deal more about the Downing Street Lie (…or should that be Spin…?) Machine.
…perhaps someting along the lines of “…..able to hit bases in Cyprus within 45 minutes, my judicial arse!’
I hate to intrude into this lengthy and potentially off-topic discussion between JBH and JR, but there is a point of fact that needs establishing.
Downey cleared Hamilton of the Mobil accusation, right? What I don’t understand is why JR says Hamilton tabled an amendment, and JBH says he didn’t. This should be a clear matter of historical fact, checkable with the House authorities?
Father jailed for US mutilation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6108516.stm
Isn’t that a strange headline? Shouldn’t it be
Father jailed for mutilating daughter
??
D Burbage | 02.11.06 – 10:56 am |
“Downey cleared Hamilton of the Mobil accusation, right? ”
Downey cleared Hamilton of a specific accusation alleged in a book entitled Sleaze and written by an investigative journalist. The allegation in the book was that Hamilton had asked Parliamentary Questions on behalf of Mobil for money. The book also implied Hamilton had signed Early Day Motions on behalf of Mobil.
Downey did a Hansard search and found no PQs or EDMs by Hamilton that referred to the oil industry or were likely to have been put down on behalf of Mobil. So Downey did not uphold the complaint.
However, Downey did not think to check whether Hamilton may have put down any amendments to the Finance Bill.
Hamilton HAD done this – and had done it in collaboration with Mobil. And was paid £10,000 for his trouble (the payment being invoiced for ‘consultancy’ services.
At the libel trial a senior Mobil Executive testified that he was amazed to get an invoice….was shocked that Hamilton was asking for money and said that he had always assumed that Hamilton had put down the amendment (on double-taxation rules) because he believed in it politically.
He went on to say that when Hamilton sent Mobil an unexpected Bill, his inital though was to tell him to go take a running jump….but then thought perhaops the best thing to do about the embarrassing episode was to just give him the money. He says he then drew up a partially retrospective contract for consultancy (written in the September, but back-dated to May) in order to give audit cover for the payment.
Crucially, Hamilton did not tell Downey about this.
Once when asked why not he said he forgot. On another occasion he said he didn’t trust Downey.
J B-H who admits he knew….never told Downey either.
….sorry that anon on Downey was me.
Hey look, BBC spots more liberal friendly – ‘easy going’ muslims….
Nigeria gets new Islamic leader
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6109118.stm
“A new Sultan of Sokoto, the spiritual leader of Nigeria’s 70m Muslims, has been announced.”
and the sub heading?….
“Easy-going
Col Abubakar is to greet the crowds after earlier going to thank Sokoto State Governor Attahiru Bafarawa for naming him as the 20th sultan”
He is described as being relaxed and easy-going.”
Well, one mans ‘easy going’ is another’s barbaric evil death cult, but we know what the BBC thinks…..
I see some serious problems with the BBC.
With their Middle East and Turkish editions seriously pandering to the Arabic public, they seem to have allowed a sense of balance to bolt out the door.
On the Good News Front:
BBC Finally Corrects Qana Fatality count.
On the bad Side 3 months later with no accurate details still released on Lebanese Fatalities in the Israel Hezbollah war, the BBC still uses the by line:
“More than 1,100 people – mostly civilians – were killed in Lebanon during the fighting. More than 150 Israelis – mainly soldiers – were killed.”
Ref: Hezbollah-Israeli talks ‘begin’
How can a Newspaper continue with this when there are no statistics to support it, and on the contrary there are statistics that support the opposite.
It’s riduclous to see the BBC pander to their Arabic readership and not state that More than 1,100 people died, the composition of Soldiers to civilians has not been determined.
IDF estimates for Hezbollah Militant Deaths put the fatality rate at over 50% of the total fatalities.
The BBC used to be a world class News outlet now they’re not even third rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict
This survey of casualties seems pretty well researched.
The BBC’s ‘”More than 1,100 people – mostly civilians – were killed in Lebanon during the fighting. More than 150 Israelis – mainly soldiers – were killed.”
seems broadly consistent with this.
I misread this headline & nearly fell off my chair.
BCC calls for tax cuts in all areas of business
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-2433158,00.html
John Reith:
For someone who previously exhibited laughably basic knowledge of the Hamilton CFQ affair, you’ve suddenly acquired a mass of detailed information. Where is it coming from, John? By jingo, The Guardian must really have got the collywobbles. I wonder why.
(Are you taking note, fellow B-BBCers?)
Clearly John, the entire Guardian-BBC axis has been mobilised to help you for they appreciate the Hamilton affair for what it is: the definitive case study that exposes the Guardian’s and the BBC’s inherent unlawfulness.
In the case of the Guardian: a criminal conspiracy that perverted the parliamentary inquiry into one of this country’s biggest and most damaging political controversies.
In the case of the BBC: nine years’ deliberate institutionalised illegal suppression of important facts relating to the controversy proving The Guardian’s said perversion of the inquiry.
But to deal with your point, the supposed series of events that led to the “chance last-minute discovery” of the Mobil issue that you describe is about as convincing as the series of events of September 1996, that led to the Guardian lawyers’ “chance last-minute discovery” of three Fayed employees, who claimed to have processed “cash in envelopes” to Hamilton and the lobbyist Ian Greer.
If you check with The Guardian’s crack squad of researchers John, they’ll confirm that these three Fayed staff emerged on the 27 September 1996 • i.e. a full two years after the Guardian’s original CFQ article accusing Hamilton and Greer, just three days before their libel actions against the paper were due to start.
According to The Guardian’s Counsel Geoffrey Robertson QC, it was actually the “chance last-minute discovery” of the three Fayed employees that saved the Guardian’s bacon, for until that fortuitous event the Guardian’s entire case had rested on Fayed’s word alone.
So then, how did the famously impartial fact-seeking truth-telling BBC report this amazingly dramatic last minute emergence of the three key witnesses, on whose word alone the entire controversy would prove to depend? That is, the most important development in the entire long-running world-famous saga?
Er, the BBC didn’t. Yes, that’s right, it didn’t. No, honest, it really, really didn’t. Just like the Guardian, in the BBC’s published chronology of the affair, these three employees don’t feature at all. Check for yourself.
First, The fact-seeking corruption-exposing Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hamilton/article/0,,195590,00.html
Second, its mouthpiece, the famously impartial fact-seeking truth-telling BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/196466.stm
Remember B-BBCers, the key date to look for is 27 September 1996. This is the date that the three Fayed employees emerged out of nowhere claiming to have processed bribes to Hamilton and Greer.
I don’t know what you think John, but in my mind to have a chronology of the CFQ affair with no mention of the amazing last minute discovery of Fayed’s three staff would be a bit like having a chronology of the Titanic disaster with no mention of the fucking iceberg.
Like Pounce says, The BBC and Half the Story.
As for Hamilton’s late registration of his Mobil consultancy, yes, he ought indeed to have registered it within three weeks, prior to the summer recess, as you say. But things were more relaxed in those days. And, at least, he did register it when Parliament returned from the summer recess in time for the Register’s publication in November • which is more than can be said for the late Jim Callahan, who never registered a £12,500 consultancy with the (criminally-run) Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which, if it hadn’t been for the fact that the BCCI accounts were opened to scrutiny following its collapse, no one would have even heard about.
So, are you suggesting John Reith (and your roped-in motley squad of bigoted researchers) that Jim Callahan, an undoubtedly honourable man, was knowingly guilty of a grave offence? Or are you prepared to accept his explanation at the time, that he was guilty of a mere oversight? And if you’re prepared to give Jim Callaghan the benefit of the doubt, as The Guardian did following the Mail on Sunday’s headline splash about the matter on 6 November 1994, then why not Neil Hamilton over his late registration? Like I said, at least he did register it when Parliament returned from recess, unlike Sunny Jim.
Come on John, do tell. On this basis, was Hamilton’s late registration a grave offence or not?
.
Moroccan Wins Holocaust Cartoon Contest in Iran
Iran” “Actually, we will continue until the destruction of Israel,”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226798,00.html
and then
“We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization… we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike”
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-havent-we-seen-this.html
Might actually be an interesting Question Time this week:
Charles Clarke MP
Lord Heseltine
Menzies Campbell MP
Mariella Frostrup
Amanda Platell
Anonymous:
.
Moroccan Wins Holocaust Cartoon Contest in Iran
Iran” “Actually, we will continue until the destruction of Israel,”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/ 0,2…,226798,00.html
and then
“We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization… we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike”
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot…-seen- this.html
Anonymous | 02.11.06 – 12:16 pm | #
——————————————————————————–
Don’t expect the BBC to be reporting the above re Iran soon. The BBC are too busy reporting this
Khatami labels US policy ‘a joke’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6108798.stm
The BBC heavily censors what we see re happenings in Iran. I will remind them of that next time they take a swipe at FOX and others…..
John Reith:
Re: your latest interminable ramble about the Mobil issue. The facts remain:
1.Hamilton registered the consultancy.
2.By the time of the Nov-Dec 1999 libel trial The Guardian had had five years in which to find out all it could.
3. Mobil executives Deakin & Blumenthal’s understanding of what transpired depended on Peter Whiteman’s account, and Whiteman was in a pickle for engaging Hamilton as Mobil had a policy on non-engagement of MPs and he had no authority to have done so in any event.
4. Peter Whiteman had been Fayed’s personal tax adviser for fourteen years prior to the new “Hamilton demanded £10,000” allegation on the eve of the trial.
5. Peter Whiteman’s account was contradicted by IGA director Andrew Smith.
John Reith
This boat that TPO is rowing, would it be painted grey, gun on the focsle, with an Icelandic flag. I’m still waiting the answer from about 3 weeks or so ago.
An Editor writes…..
Perception and reality
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/11/perception_and_reality.html#commentsanchor
“The World Tonight asked why it is that given all the extra investment the government has put into the health service – with new GP surgeries and new hospitals being built, new technology being introduced into those surgeries and hospitals – why the latest opinion polls suggest a majority of the population think the NHS has got worse over the last ten years.
Are people just badly informed or is there a more nuanced explanation?”
Hmmm. That explanation being (perish the thought) the public sector cannot spend our money efficently no matter how much we taxpayers give them???
“This is a potent mix with pretty disturbing implications – it appears people are more prepared to believe things they hear about a crucial public service than to believe politicians or their own direct experience. We also need to look to the role of media in this – is our coverage of the health service giving an accurate picture overall? After all, news is what is unusual and so the ‘bad stories’ about the NHS such as job cuts, hospital closures, or outbreaks of MRSA tend to get more coverage than the building of a new hospital on time and to budget.
I think as journalists we tend to assume our listeners, viewers and readers make allowances for the fact that what makes news is not the norm but the exception. Are we right to do so?
Interesting that this editor is ‘concerned’ about NHS-bashing by the media. I haven’t seen the same concern extend to negative stories about Iraq, or the supermarkets, or business in general. Perhaps this editor feels that, as a worker in the public sector, these negative stories about public sector spending might have a negative impact on the BBC?
Maybe Spooks was right. Look at all these alleged Christian/Jewish terrorists in our midst……..err….oh
Man faces terror charges in court
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6107884.stm
and
Paris airport bars Muslim staff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6108574.stm
and
Terror charges in full
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5272264.stm
‘Might actually be an interesting Question Time this week’
We know Dimblebore will do a Martin and jump in if Labour or the Lib Dims come off badly.
Some particularly offensive and unprofessional goings on during the World at One today.
The topic was ASBOs and at the top of the programme brian hanrahan started things off by referring to David Cameron’s point about hoodies as “hug a hoodie”. In his own unprofessional way he was just being reflexively derogatory about a non-leftie.
During his interview with Cameron, hanrahan fought Cameron every inch of the way with frequent interruptions and a great deal of overtalking. Again, hanrahan was being reflexively offensive to somebody who had the temerity to be a non-leftie.
The Cameron interview was followed by one with tony mcnulty, the zanulab minister. What a contrast. hanrahan meekly stood by without interruption or overtalking while his pal mcnulty excreted a series of disobliging, personal remarks about Cameron with little or no reference to the topic of ASBOs. This time in his unprofessional way hanrahan was being reflexively supportive to a leftie.
What are the odds on it being sir brian hanrahan after the bliar retirement honours are handed out to the loyal cronies?
“John Reith:
For someone who previously exhibited laughably basic knowledge of the Hamilton CFQ affair, you’ve suddenly acquired a mass of detailed information. Where is it coming from, John? By jingo, The Guardian must really have got the collywobbles. I wonder why. (JBH 02.11.06 – 12:15 pm)
John Reith,
How many people, if any, have you working on this Hamilton/Fayed thing now on your behalf? Has that number increased recently? By how many? How much is their time costing licence payers?
Just come off the comments board at Iraq the Model after telling Omar in Baghdad about the BBC’s use of other Iraqi bloggers to slag off his criticisms of the recent Lancet (655,000 and rising) report.
(For those who are interested…
Iraqi tales from the blogs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/6078278.stm
Whilst there, I found this ultra-sober piece of Iraqi analysis (hat-tip Dave in Comments)
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/post_6.html
USS Neverdock’s pin up boy Justin Webb is still spinning the “America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers” line.
But in rural America he (Bush) looks at home, and somehow less goofy, less jarring.
In the car park after the Georgia event the locals drifted off to do whatever Georgians do at night (pray I guess), knowing that the Republicans have a fight on their hands but still confident that it can be turned round.
They have not given up and many really do believe in miracles…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6108398.stm
Speaking of miracles, the BBC are salivating at the prespect of a good kicking for the Republicans at next week’s poll. They may be proved right, but Ann Coulter (yeah, I know) does some number crunching to show that the defeat may not be as historic as the BBC would imply.
This means that for Democrats simply to match the historical average gain for the party out of the White House during the first and second midterm, they would have to pick up 67 seats in the House and 11 seats in the Senate. They’re about 30 Mark Foleys short of having that happen.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2006/11/01/jihad_is_fun!_vote_democrat!