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.
Well, after an extensive trawl through the BBC website I managed to find something resembling a ‘UK troops in Afghanistan’ section.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5128276.stm
Now, if you look at the ‘Latest News’ part of that page, you will see that all the headlines over the previous month have been negative.
Royal marine dies in Afghanistan
‘Friendly fire’ death investigated
Afghan ‘civilian shooting’ probed
Marines ‘upset’ over pay blunder
UK troops had faulty ammunition
etc etc.
The only piece of journalism on that page with anything positive to say about the British soldiers was the more in-depth ‘Reporter’s Diary’ feature.
I couldn’t find any mention of the fact that over 1,000 Taliban (and that’s a conservative estimate) have been killed recently. It seems that our armed forces have actually been doing a very professional job in one of the most hostile and lawless regions in the world. But you wouldn’t think so if you relied on the BBC coverage.
John Reith:
I have a question for you regarding one of the worst examples of deliberate BBC bias and dishonesty I have documented over the last ten years. Because of its seriousness, I would appreciate an honest answer from you.
I assure you that I’m not “playing to the gallery” but I nevertheless welcome the gallery taking an interest in what follows.
The BBC documentary on the death of Princess Diana, broadcast on Sunday, was produced by a certain Tom Anstiss. Tom Anstiss was also the chief researcher on Adam Curtis’s BBC2 documentary “The Mayfair Set”, which dealt with the Harrods sale, broadcast on 8 August 1999.
Whilst researching “The Mayfair Set” a year earlier, Tom Anstiss journeyed up from London to meet me at my at my parents’ house in Cheshire, whereupon we spent the best part of a day going through the evidence showing that several of The Guardian’s senior staff had lied and submitted forged documents to Sir Gordon Downey’s parliamentary inquiry into the ‘Hamilton cash for questions’ affair (which, of course, revolved around the Harrods sale).
After our discussion Tom Anstiss promised me that he would interview me on camera for the forthcoming programme, which, he assured me, would “blow wide open” the ‘cash for questions’ affair. Following our meeting Tom Anstiss then met up with two of my supporters: the former Observer journalist Lorana Sullivan and the Labour peeress Baroness Turner of Camden.
Back in January 1998, during a House of Lords debate on press standards, Lady Turner had lambasted The Guardian and praised our research. You can read Lady Turner’s speech here:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980114/text/80114-04.htm
The Press Gazette reported Lady Turner’s speech, with a news report entitled: “Journalist claims Hamilton is innocent”:
http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/742/4520lm3.jpg
After his meeting with Lady Turner, Tom Anstiss wrote her a letter of thanks, in which he confirmed his intention to film her for the programme, which he said would redress the imbalanced reporting of the ‘cash for questions’ affair. He wrote:
‘Dear Baroness Turner,
I am writing to thank you for all the time you gave up to see me on 10th September 1998. I thoroughly enjoyed our meeting and found it very helpful for the background to my research into The Cash for Questions affairs. It does seem quite strongly that there has been a miscarriage of justice and many people have had their lives significantly hurt and affected by the whole affair. I read your speech on press complaints which I thought contained very strong and compelling arguments as to the general changes that need to be put in place or at least addressed in some form. Your comments on the Cash for Questions affair being ‘largely a media stunt’ and your questioning of the role and ethics of The Guardian I think are also very pertinent. As I suggested to you I would be very interested in doing a more formal interview with you on this whole subject area. It would greatly help us redress the imbalance of reporting that has occurred over the Cash for questions’ affair and the work of Ian Greer Associates. I hope that is still agreeable with you and you are still willing to help us further.’
You can read Tom Anstiss’s actual letter, written on BBC-HEADED NOTEPAPER, here:
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5576/19980924tomanstissladytzr8.jpg
Continues. . .
. . .Continued from previous post
The following month Tom Anstiss then attended the party at Iain Dale’s bookshop “Politicos” following the launch of my book earlier that day in the House of Commons.
However, two months later in December Tom Anstiss left the BBC to work for Granada TV. But despite his assurances, when “The Mayfair Set” was eventually transmitted it did not “redress the imbalance of reporting” about the ‘cash for questions’ affair at all. To the contrary, it followed The Guardian’s line faithfully • as can be ascertained by the description given to it by this TV and film website:
“BBC – The Mayfair Set:
Four-part series that looks at the rise of business and the decline of political power. Adam Curtis reveals massive corruption of the British government by corporations and the global markets.”
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_drugsmoney.htm
I imagined that Tom Anstiss had acted in good faith throughout his dealings with Lorana Sullivan, Lady Turner, and myself, and I mused that the programme’s producer, Adam Curtis, must have ridden roughshod over his research once he was out of the way. My views didn’t change after watching Adam Curtis’s recent documentary “The Power of Nightmares”, which sought to make the case that Al Qaeda didn’t exist but was a invention of NeoCons in George W. Bush’s administration • a documentary which Melanie Philips characterised as “The Power of Propaganda”:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=669
However I now have serious doubts about Tom Anstiss, and believe that he could have been acting in bad faith without any intention of “redressing the imbalance of reporting” as he promised. Accordingly John I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter and your advice on what I ought to do. You see, during the recent Diana documentary, which, as I say, Tom Anstiss produced •
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1852/19980924tomanstissconsppa3.jpg
• there was a reference to the ‘cash for questions’ affair, which again sought to convey the unarguable impression that The Guardian’s reporting was not in dispute. The voice over stated:
“In July 1997, just six weeks before her death, Princess Diana went on holiday to the South of France with an unlikely host • Mohamed Al Fayed. The Egyptian multi-millionaire owner of Harrods was a controversial figure, who had been refused a British passport. Al Fayed’s revenge was to REVEAL that he’d been secretly paying Conservative MP Neil Hamilton to ask questions about his case in Parliament. It was evidence of sleaze that helped bring down the last Conservative government.“
The word “reveal” implies that the matter was factually true, beyond reasonable doubt, and undisputed. Apart from my own dealings with Anstiss, Neil Hamilton has pleaded his innocence to these charges constantly for the last decade, as the BBC well knows:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+innocent+OR+innocence+%22neil+hamilton+%22+-sex+-Martin+-Bell+-salt+site:bbc.co.uk&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&filter=0
Unlike the crash itself, the selection of the word “reveal” cannot have been an accident either, for only a few minutes later the production team demonstrated their awareness of the proper word to use when the voice over said, with respect to whether Dodi and Diana were engaged or not:
“But eight months later, Mohamed Al-Fayed CLAIMED the couple told him on the day they died the ring held a very special significance.”
These facts, I submit, constitute unarguable proof of biased reporting of the grossest kind.
TO RECAPITULATE:
1. In January 1998, speaking from the Floor of the House of Lords, Lady Turner, now its Deputy Speaker, refuted The Guardian’s ‘cash for questions’ allegations and championed our research disproving them.
2. In September 1998 Tom Anstiss promised me, and he then promised Lady Turner, that the documentary for which he was the chief researcher would redress the imbalanced reporting of the ‘cash for questions’ affair.
3. But despite the above, in August 1999 this documentary and again in December 2006 another documentary that Tom Anstiss produced, both promulgated The Guardian’s line faithfully without there being any acknowledgement that an alternative side to the story existed.
In my view John Reith there could not be a more stark and indisputable example of gross, dishonest journalism and I welcome your own thoughts and advice.
You can learn more about my dealings with Tom Anstiss here:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Pegs%20that%20stood%20up/page2.html
Fabio
Pete_London: Bossi supporters employ that disgusting and racist statement.
Sorry, what was that you said earlier about the Dutch? Let’s recap: I regard the Dutch as less than human – 14.12.06 12.09pm
Shall we just listen to your words one more time?: I regard the Dutch as less than human …
It’s verboten to repeat a commonly used expression which is in no way racist, yet you shamelessly claim that the Dutch are sub-human? Excuse me while I blow a big, fat raspberry in your direction you prissy, terroni princess.
Lee Moore
PS • who could possibly have Shirley Williams as a political hero ?
Well, she’s responsible for much of the destruction of what was a decent education system, in favour of the comprehensive shambles we have now. In terms of leftie achievements, I’d put that above anything done by the Welsh windbag Neil Kinnock, loser of all losers.
Lee Moore | 14.12.06 – 6:20 pm
I dont think even neil or glenys would vote for neil kinnock.
Pete, perhaps he was apeing Michael Caine’s character from the last Austin Powers filum.
“There are only two things I hate in this world; Bigotry against those of other races and ethnicity, and the Dutch.”
On the subject of the BBC news poll
creating a serious danger that the lefty vote could be split allowing Mrs T to win. Shurely shome mishtake, Ed.
…
Lee Moore | 14.12.06 – 6:20 pm |
Seems you’re right. Thatcher is neck-and-neck with Tony Benn. An unsurprising outcome.
I suspect Thatcher will peep through by a nose, or possibly a handbag, though I would be equally unsurprised if Benn won. The rest seem to be lightweights compared to those two.
John Reith | 14.12.06 – 11:25 am
Israel’s Secret Weapon wasn’t reprehensible. Nor was it a propaganda film.
Try a little exercise: Replace Israel’s Secret Weapon with, for example, Iran’s Quest for the Bomb. Now have a look at the opening few paragraphs of the transcript and imagine the BBC describing Iran in a similar fashion – something that, of course, would never happen, even though Iran represents a real threat to the region as opposed to the imagined Israeli threat.
That might help you understand the meaning of reprehensible and propaganda.
Apart from one Sunday Times journo – every interviewee was an Israeli or an American, so far as I recall.
And the point you are making with that statement is what, exactly?
Anyway, here’s the script. Spot any factual errors?
No, but so what? the propaganda is in the heroic depiction of Vanunu juxtaposed against the depiction of Israel as the villain – the effect of the latter bolstered by the sinister music. (Yes, I did see the film.)
Right at the end, in a laughable scene meant to dramatically depict the professional, courageous investigative journalist at work, the camera homes in on Frenkiel at her keyboard.
Only problem is, she’s pecking away at it with two fingers.
John Reith:
While you’re preparing your response to my previous post above, I would also appreciate your thoughts on another related issue.
On the BBC’s 10 O’clock News just now, Mohamed Fayed accused Prince Philip and the head of MI6 of conspiring to murder his son and Princess Diana.
According to the book written by The Guardian’s barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC (who ought to know), prior to the fortuitous last-minute ‘discovery’ of 3 of Fayed’s closest and longest-serving employees on 27 September 1996 (i.e. just 3 days before Neil Hamilton’s libel action against The Guardian was due to start and nearly 2 years after the publication of the offending article over which he was suing), The Guardian’s case depended on Fayed’s word alone. You can read Geoffrey Robertson’s admission here:
http://img287.imageshack.us/img287/2484/02hthejusticegamep36937cd7.jpg
Bearing this in mind, and bearing in mind the recent BBC documentary on the death of Diana, the voice-over of which stated that the ‘cash for questions affair’ “helped bring down the last Conservative government”, do you not agree that our national broadcaster the BBC ought to have thoroughly tested the evidence of these 3 crucial Fayed employees, namely Alison Bozek, Iris Bond and Philip Bromfield?
Of course you would, especially so claiming as you do to be a Conservative voter.
That being the case, do you not think it odd that the BBC has never interviewed these 3 absolutely crucial Fayed staff? Indeed, the BBC has never even published their photographs.
If you find this hard to believe, conduct an image search of the BBC’s vast website for “Alison Bozek”:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?as_q=&hl=en&output=images&svnum=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Alison+Bozek&as_oq=&as_eq=&imgsz=&as_filetype=&imgc=&as_sitesearch=bbc.co.uk&safe=images
Conduct an image search of the BBC’s vast website for “Iris Bond”:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=+%22Iris+Bond%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
Conduct an image search of the BBC’s vast website for Philip Bromfield:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=+%22Philip+Bromfield%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
And conduct an image search of the BBC’s vast website for Fayed’s U.S. lawyer Douglas Marvin, who emerged from nowhere in January 1997 claiming that he had discovered the 3 aforementioned Fayed employees’ involvement in paying Hamilton cash in envelopes:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=+%22Philip+Bromfield%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
Now compare the BBC’s treatment of those four utterly crucial Fayed staff (on whose testimony, remember, according to its barrister The Guardian’s case rests), with the BBC’s treatment of, say, Ted Francis and Angela Peppiatt, whose testimony helped put Jeffrey Archer in gaol.
First, Ted Francis:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=+%22Ted+Francis%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
Next, Angela Peppiatt:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=+%22Angela+Peppiatt%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
Curious, no? Tell me John, can you think of a cogent reason why the BBC has published 15 photographs of Ted Francis and four of Angela Peppiatt and none of Alison Bozek, Iris Bond, Philip Bromfield and Douglas Marvin?
Alan@Aberdeen, Gordon-Bennett, Bryan, GCooper, BillyQuiz, Pounce, Natalie, Schoolboy-Error, Cockney, Pete_London, dave t, ghost of john trenchard, DumbJohn, and everyone else I’ve missed, are you all following this?
Pete_London:
First, you it is “terrone”, not “terroni”. You claim to be able to understand Italy, yet you make an elementary mistake like that. Second, the Dutch murder their old and sick. It is called euthanasia, and they are proud of it. I regard murderers as less than human, and a whole nation that conspires in mass murder deserves that name. If you want to defend these creatures, then you have to find some argument for killing the old and the sick. I hope you will, because that will place you altogether where I no longer have to bother with you. Racism is motiveless prejudice. My attitude to the Netherlands is postjudice – taken after having examined their atrocious history (the history of the Dutch colonial empire is by a long way the ugliest of any European colonial history), immoralistic present, and dim future. I am perfectly prepared to defend it in the face of any Dutchman you care to mention. You, on the other hand, simply throw motiveless insults around like a screaming queen – and certainly not like the strong he-man you pretend to be.
I just tried to access the Little Green Footballs website – http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ and it’s being blocked by some Islamofascist outfit, which is very, very disturbing.
Will they stop at nothing to destroy free speech?
If anyone can translate the Arabic, do post it here.
Cheers –
I can access LGF fine from here.
Thanks – it turned out to be a problem with Internet Explorer, as I can access LGF OK with Mozilla.
And it wasn’t _exactly_ Islamofacism (though not far off it)… I was somehow being directed to an official Saudi web-blocking service – obviously there are certain truths and facts the Saudis cannot trust their citizens with.
Cheers.
Kulibar Tree,
I’ve got no problem with the description of the Saudis as Islamofascists. Palestinian parents who produce a suicide bomber who kills Israeli civilians have the happy prospect of having wagon loads of Saudi money arriving at their doorstep.
I could think of other terms to describe the Saudis unsuitable for the chaste pages of this blog.
I look forward to the day when one of the BBC’s intrepid journalists does a documentary on the subject titled The Saudis’ Secret Weapon – how Saudi Arabia promotes Palestinian terror.
It could develop into a whole series, moving on from the Saudis to explore sponsors of Palestinian terror such as Syria, Iran and Iraq under Hussein.
Come on, BBC. There’s a wealth of info out there just begging to be unearthed. It’s a journalist’s dream. Get cracking.
“Such bravery….. when you pop up, slag off posters and then crawl back under Reith’s desk….silly boy.”
No, no, I insist. The real bravery is being done by the hard work of the keyboard commandos fighting islamic terrorism and BBC bias from the comfort of their own homes and offices, here on the B-BBC comment pages.
My point, nDeG and dave t, is that, as per usual, the reality doesn’t match the supposed “bias” or omission.
Having made the accusation about this specific case as a means to show a wider point, it’s wrong. So NDeG makes another, suitably vague, one instead.
The BBC covers British soldiers in Afghanistan amply, not least through the almost daily reporting of Alistair Leithead, but also through the coverage of deaths, and the overt recognition of the danger faced and sacrifice made by troops within those reports. Below a typical example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5121552.stm
Your demand presupposes news from Afghanistan is positive. It isn’t, as comments from Mike Jackson and Richard Dannatt have shown, but the BBC nonetheless covers positive stories when they come up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5354208.stm
dave t: your conspiracy theories are amusing, if a little confusing. Despite incentivising staff to cover the Blair honours scandal the BBC are now burying that news with a story of military heroism that they aren’t covering because they’re biased against showing military heroism.
Been a quiet newsday as far as Have Your Say is concerned, apparently. We are invited to Have Our Say on Diana conspiracy theories, IVF father figures, and vigilence in Suffolk.
Still, I don’t imagine the BBC would have noticed if a Conservative PM had been interviewed by police about selling peerages, or if a Conservative government had intervened to stop a fraud office enquiry on the grounds of “national security”.
Personally, I would like my say. What’s more, I’d like to see Blair and his fellow corruptocrats up there under the TV lights, sweating out their apologies to an outraged nation. Dream on.
kulibar tree:
Thanks – it turned out to be a problem with Internet Explorer, as I can access LGF OK with Mozilla.
There’s the explanation then, and the remedy 😉
Saudi censorship buit-in to Internet Explorer: another good reason to avoid Microsoft products.
Cuckoo; I comprehend your problem but realistically the hearing majority are *not* going to learn sign language and interpreters can’t always be on hand.
Here in the states we have ‘deaf advocates’ who fight lip-reading, language training and any other effort to integrate the deaf into the mainstream on the grounds of protecting ‘Deaf Culture’. I hope you don’t have that in England.
Yup, I agree. My worry is that when interpreter services *are* available, it will be the deaf people who end up getting overlooked – I would not like to see that happen.
As far as ‘Deaf Culture’ goes, we have the same arguments over here. It’s a can of worms, and I try to steer well clear of it.
Thanks for taking the time to reply – I appreciate it.
Reith
metathesis
From curd to crud, amid the thunder of non-sequiturs…
You really are losing it, Reith.
I am not now and never have been referring to Pounce, and haven’t a clue about his skin color. Nor can I see why it should be relevant in any way — except, perhaps, as an indirect measure of your desperation to wriggle free from your own petard. The words are all your own.
Sorry, buddy, but we already know what you are. Only question is, What are your limits?
Pathologies are clearly involved.
Bi-polar?
Hydra-headed composite?
Or just a jerk who does if for money?
Maybe we’re about to find out.
Sorry I should have put this in this general thread, please feel free to remove it from the other thread Natalie…
“Christian Video Game Draws Anger”
Al beeb are at it again!
Exactly whose anger are they drawing other than al beeb’s, “an alliance of liberals”, no mention of how many this might be.
Let me also add that I will be gobsmacked if walmart do withdraw it this is just a publicity stunt by some no hoper tiny groups.
Otherwise Walmart would be taken to court as they do not stop the huge gamut of violent and in some cases satanic games that already exist and are available – no mention of these drawing anger either.
Its even reported as encouraging genocide – an entirely laughable suggestion.
Later in the same article they even mention a quest for bush (kill democratically elected western leaders) no mention of that drawing anger, it is merely “raising concern”.
As usual its just al-beeb trotting out its anti (evangelical) Christian agenda, it ALWAYS seeks to ridicule evangelical Christians, it doubly finds America distatsteful, so this article hits all of its buttons.
THE DEATH OF DIANA • THE BBC’S ABDICATION OF ITS DUTY
The conspiracy theories that forced Michael Burgess, coroner of the Queen’s Household, to ask Lord Stevens to investigate, were set in motion principally by a Granada TV/Fulcrum Productions documentary broadcast on ITV1 on 3 June 1998, entitled “Diana: The Secrets Behind The Crash”. This film sought to make the case that the British security services had murdered Diana and Dodi through the use of a hand-held flash stun device, which a motorcycle pillion rider had supposedly shone in driver Henri Paul’s eyes.
The entire programme hinged on the testimony of a certain François Levistre, who claimed he had been driving his Ford Ka hatchback AHEAD of the Mercedes when it entered the Pont D’ Alama underpass. He claimed to have seen, through his rear view mirror, a motorcycle overtake the Mercedes, whereupon he said he saw a bright flash followed by the crash.
In fact Levistre did not volunteer this account, but merely agreed with a suggestion from the presenter, ITN’s Nick Owen, that the bright flash produced by a stun device was like the one he saw in his mirror. Nick Owen made the suggestion and Levistre agreed to it. Read Tom Utley’s highlighted Daily Telegraph review of this disgraceful documentary here:
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6362/hlfc6.jpg
However the year before, in the days immediately following the crash, Levistre (at that time calling himself François Levi), had emerged to corroborate the then prevailing view that the Paparazzi were to blame for the accident, by claiming to have seen a camera flash in his rear view mirror. Read Levistre’s highlighted original account blaming the Paparazzi here:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8541/hllg7.jpg
Absurdly, on 3 August 1998 • i.e. exactly two months after the Granada-Fulcrum documentary • The Sunday People ran a front page splash in which Levistre and his wife now both claimed to have been driving BEHIND the Mercedes, and that Levistre himself might have actually caused the crash through his erratic driving which caused Henri Paul to swerve and lose control. In this new story, there is no suggestion whatsoever of any flash, whether from a camera or stun device. You can read the highlighted Sunday People story here:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/465/hlhl2.jpg
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7822/hltu7.jpg
So much for Granada TV. So much for the Daily Mirror too. Laughably, despite the Sunday People story and despite the People actually being owned by the Mirror, another five years later in August 2003 the Mirror again cited Levistre and his wife seeing the “flash before the crash”. See the highlighted Mirror’s story here:
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/9289/hlyl6.jpg
In recent years Richard Desmond’s Daily Fayed, sorry, Express, has continued promulgating this disproved “flash before the crash” several times, such as here:
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/1636/hlxr6.jpg
And here:
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/4316/hlqr2.jpg
And here:
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/8933/hlyp7.jpg
And here:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8843/hljt5.jpg
And here:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9769/hlcy3.jpg
So, from all this it is clear that Lord Steven was provoked into conducting his £3 million inquiry by a coroner who himself had felt the need to do so in order to dispel misinformation emanating from a lying crackpot whose demonstrably false account had been promulgated by unethical journalists working among Britain’s powerful media organisations. Yet, in its Conspiracy Files documentary last Sunday, the BBC completely avoided any scrutiny of the role played by Britain’s media. Instead it focused on the crackpots whose crackpot stories the media promulgated. Sounds familiar, anyone?
What chance the BBC ever exposing Granada’s, the Sunday People’s, the Mirror’s, and the Express’s crummy journalism? None, when the BBC’s own journalism is in such dire need of surgery.
Further to my post above, for ideal reading of the articles on Image Shack to which I’ve linked, when the image appears right click and then save to a folder.
There’s a truly excellent freeware image viewer called Irfanview, which is available from Tucows website, which allows images to be sized all sorts of ways for convenient viewing:
http://www.tucows.com/preview/194967
Jonathan Boyd Hunt 14.12.06 – 8:01 pm & related posts
On the face of it there certainly does seem to be a mis-match between the tone of Tom Anstiss’s letters and the fact that nothing similar featured in the broadcast programmes.
Two possibilities occur to me that might explain this:
1. Anstiss at this time was a researcher, with no real authority in terms of shaping the series. Adam Curtis was the producer. Curtis is very much the auteur kind of programme-maker, even doing the narration himself usually. He was in charge. Perhaps he disagreed with Anstiss and over-ruled him? If so, as the boss, that was his right.
2. More likely – I’d say – is that an editorial decision was taken to avoid the CFQ controversy as much as possible in the series (The Mayfair Set was, after all, about the buccaneering capitalists who hung out at the Clermont Club – Jimmy Goldsmith, Tiny Rowland etc. and not really much to do with your story really).
Moreover, the Mayfair Set went out in August 1999. So it would have been made while the Hamilton/Fayed libel case was pending. If a jury trial was due that November – then the BBC’s lawyers might well have advised Curtis not to get into matters sub judice. How many minutes were allocated to the Fayed/Guardian allegations in the broadcast piece?
The only real way you can get to the bottom of why they didn’t follow Anstiss’s earlier line is to write to Anstiss and Curtis in civil terms and ask them.
You ask:
“do you not agree that our national broadcaster the BBC ought to have thoroughly tested the evidence of these 3 crucial Fayed employees, namely Alison Bozek, Iris Bond and Philip Bromfield”
No, it was for the Court to test their evidence, not the BBC. The Court did. The jury found against Hamilton. You, of all people, ought to favour due process over ‘trial by media’.
Had the outcome in December 1999 relied solely on Fayed’s testimiony – then sure, Fayed’s behaviour since (accusing Prince Phillip of ordering the murders of Diana and Dodi, for instance) might be a good reason to re-visit all the other accusations Fayed has made against people in public life – including Neil Hamilton.
What I think stops people doing this is that the 1999 case was lost by Hamilton for a whole bunch of other reasons (Mobil, Bozek and Bond being three).
Bozek was an impressive witness – she’s a respectable professional woman – a solicitor. She stood up to tough cross-examination by Desmond Browne QC. Carman did a clever re-examination – effectively rebutting the Hamilton team’s points.
Iris Bond came over as a Tory woman of a certain age. She’d been a member of the Monday Club. She didn’t look the sort to be involved in a conspiracy with Guardian leftists to bring down a Tory government.
If you want the BBC to take seriously your claim that Bozek, Bond and Peter Whiteman QC are corrupt perjurers, you’re going to need better evidence than you’ve got on your website. Without that – the fact that the jury believed them and not Hamilton – establishes a kind of ‘default position’ editorially that sanctions remarks like the one you noted in the voiceover of the Conspiracy prog last week.
As for the lack of images –
The BBC News website was only one year old when these people were (ever so briefly – 2 days??) in the public eye. The thing was run on a shoestring by former Ceefax people. Pics weren’t a big priority. What’s more – these people were publicity shy – they didn’t give interviews and insisted on their privacy. There’s no law that compels anyone to talk to the BBC – or allow the BBC to film them.
I know this answer won’t satisfy you – but I’m not playing games with you – it’s what I really think.
>> can you think of a cogent reason why the BBC has published 15 photographs of Ted Francis and four of Angela Peppiatt and none of Alison Bozek, Iris Bond, Philip Bromfield and Douglas Marvin?
Whilst it is a useful tool Google insn’t an all-seeing-eye. Searching Google Images isn’t necessarily an accurate record of what has been published, when, and by whom. All you can show is what is *currently* retreived from Google’s index when you perform *that* search and your query reaches the *specific* datacentre serving you at that time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle-east/6182831.stm
This is an admiring article on the ending of the corruption investigation into a British defence contract with the Saudis.
‘Admiring’ is I think the only way to describe the article.:)
Could you imagine the slant if the the Americans had terminated a corruption investigation? 🙂
What an interesting exercise – assiduously documenting hypothetical BBC bias.
Compare and contrast…
Hamas and Fatah trade fire in power struggle
“Since Hamas – which refuses to recognise Israel and is considered a terrorist group by the US and European Union – took power in March, the international community has halted direct financial support for the Palestinian government.
This has financially crippled the administration and further increased tensions as around 160,000 government employees have been left without salaries.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1972993,00.html
Violence follows Hamas accusation
“Hamas, a militant Islamic group, won elections in January, but has faced a Western aid boycott after refusing to renounce violence and recognise Israel.
The Palestinian Authority has been unable to pay full salaries to its 165,000 workers.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6183409.stm
It’s all YOUR fault again…!
Martin Belam 15.12.06 – 12:58 pm:
John Reith | 15.12.06 – 11:56 am:
This post refers to these two previous posts in which there are several links to readable JPEG images of actual documents:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116595993263478419/#321760
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116595993263478419/#321770
Martin Belam I appreciate your point and I accept it in part, but I think the six searches of the BBC’s website for images of the four key Fayed witnesses in the Hamilton case and the two key witnesses in the Archer case are very revealing indeed.
John Reith and Martin Belam, you can take it from me that the BBC has never published a single photograph nor interviewed any of the three key Fayed employees who claim to have processed bribes for Neil Hamilton, nor for that matter the mysterious U.S. lawyer who supposedly ‘discovered’ their involvement two years after the publication of the article over which Hamilton was suing The Guardian.
The BBC’s failure to take an interest in these four people is despite the following facts:
1) According to The Guardian’s own barrister, prior to their timely emergence, just three days before Hamilton’s first libel action was due to start on 30 September 1996, nearly two years after the publication on 20 October 1994 of the article over which Hamilton was suing, the paper’s defence rested on Fayed’s word alone.
2) According to last Sunday’s BBC documentary on the death of Princess Diana, the ‘Hamilton cash for questions’ affair “helped bring down the last Conservative government”.
3) From 1) and 2) above it follows that the controversy that helped bring down John Major’s government in 1997 rests entirely on these three key Fayed staff Alison Bozek, Iris Bond, Philip Bromfield, plus Fayed’s U.S. lawyer who supposedly discovered them at the last minute, Douglas Marvin.
4) Right from the outset Neil Hamilton has said consistently that they were all lying through their teeth.
And yet, despite all the above, our truth-seeking national broadcaster, the BBC, has never interviewed them nor published their pictures once. Not once.
Why not John? You say that the BBC’s website was in its infancy when they were controversial. But these people first had public roles in the Downey Inquiry of 1997, and the BBC’s website was well and truly up and running then. They also had key roles in Neil Hamilton’s second libel action of November-December 1999. Check out these four searches:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Alison+Bozek%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Iris+Bond%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Philip+Bromfield%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Douglas+Marvin%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&meta=
Surely these people have an amazing story to tell how they saved The Guardians’ bacon and helped Tony Blair’s 1997 general election landslide, don’t they? Why isn’t the BBC interested in what they have to say? Or is it that they’re shy? And if they are shy, how so, and why hasn’t the BBC reported their shyness? Could it not be because they’re lying, and the BBC knows they’re lying just like Hamilton and I do?
Surely John Reith, the BBC’s journalists ought to be aware that Fayed coerced his staff to give false witness to the D.T.I. inspectors during their inquiries of 1987-88? Surely you and they ought to be aware that Fayed coerced his staff into entering Tiny Rowland’s safe deposit box at Harrods? Surely you and they ought to be aware that Fayed tried to coerce his bodyguard Kes Wingfield to give false testimony about the events during the last days and hours of Diana’s life; and that you and they ought to be further aware that Fayed did indeed succeed in coercing several key staff into giving false accounts of those events on various TV programmes, as the investigative reporter Martyn Gregory discovered for himself?
Continued…
…Continued from previous post
Indeed, the BBC’s institutional failure to interest itself in testing the veracity of the government-ousting testimony of Fayed’s four crucial witnesses happens to be against the BBC’s own rules. You are aware of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, which state:
“We strive to be accurate and establish the truth of what has happened. … We will weigh all relevant facts and information to get at the truth.”
“We seek to report stories of significance. We will be vigorous in driving to the heart of the story and well informed when explaining it. Our specialist expertise will bring authority and analysis to the complex world in which we live.”
Read the relevant page of the actual BBC rulebook here:
http://img280.imageshack.us/img280/4935/200504bbceditorialguiderr1.jpg
Compare those pledges with your comments above in your post, John. You state my question and then you answer it. I reproduce your answer in bold text. This is what you said:
“You ask:
“do you not agree that our national broadcaster the BBC ought to have thoroughly tested the evidence of these 3 crucial Fayed employees, namely Alison Bozek, Iris Bond and Philip Bromfield”
No, it was for the Court to test their evidence, not the BBC. The Court did. The jury found against Hamilton. You, of all people, ought to favour due process over ‘trial by media.’
Not much “striving to establish the truth of what has happened there, is there John? Nor, for that matter, is there much “vigorousness in driving to the heart of the story” either. Do you not agree that your answer falls foul of the BBC’s revered rules?
Are you completely unaware too of the prejudicial effect on trials of negative media coverage? Neil Hamilton had had five long years of it by the time his trial against Fayed came to court, without a single minute of BBC airtime devoted to a proper examination of the case against him. Indeed, as the liberal human rights lawyer Helena Kennedy told the Press Gazette of 21 January 2005:
“I do sometimes think that comment is confused with reporting and I also feel strongly that the press jeopardises a number of trials“
You can read the full article here:
http://img280.imageshack.us/img280/8987/351qd5.jpg
You wouldn’t disagree with that would you? So why your great faith in the Hamilton jury when the trial was undoubtedly prejudiced by the media coverage over the previous five years, and when we both know that Fayed has a bent for coercing false witness?
Your supposed utter faith in the jury system • at least in Hamilton’s case • also implies that you discount completely any possibility that the jury could have been swung by witnesses who gave false testimony. You vouch for the supposed integrity of Alison Bozek, because she trained as a solicitor, and Iris Bond, because she was a right-wing Tory, despite their longstanding employment with a man noted for his generosity to his loyal staff and despite their admitted involvement processing large cash payments to several other Fayed staff • which, of course, defrauds the Inland Revenue. That Alison Bozek was a solicitor means nothing. Are you honestly saying that there is no such thing as a bent solicitor?
Why oh why John, does the BBC defend to the hilt the right to investigate anything and at the same time you’re now defending to the hilt the BBC’s steadfast failure to examine and air a side of an enormous political controversy unearthed by a fellow journalist?
John Reith:
As for your suggestion that I write to Tom Anstiss, I think instead I’ll write to the editor of the Conspiracy Files, Mike Rudin. I’ll let you know h
That last post was from me.
DifferentAnon | 15.12.06 – 9:28 am
Firstly, although this story has now appeared (buried in the Edinburgh section) –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6181053.stm
– there is still no reference on the BBC website to the fact that over 80 people have been honoured for their service in Afghanistan. Even the Guardian is reporting this one. (As are 33 other publications according to Google.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6281664,00.html
It seems that only DEAD soldiers get any credit on the BBC.
Secondly, I found no evidence of Alistair Leithead’s ‘”almost daily” reporting. There was the 9-day ‘Reporter’s Diary’, dated November 1st – 10th, that I had acknowledged previously. And there was a story entitled ‘On the road with the Taliban hunters’ from December 1st. This one featured such gems as:
“On the first day the patrol was approaching a tree line in Garmsir – a place pretty much under the control of the Taleban apart from the deserted houses and market stalls of the town centre where the rag-tag Afghan National Police are holed-up smoking drugs and exchanging fire.”
So, according to the BBC, the Afghan Police are badly disciplined and “rag-tag”. I wonder what that makes the Taliban??? No mention of the fact that the local police risk their lives (and the lives of their families) by fighting religious nutters every day.
Later we get:
“The hearts and minds the mission is supposed to be winning are being chased away.
Taleban fighters may be dying, but every one of these little battles destroys the homes and buildings of people who have been promised more, not less, from the British presence and the Nato mission.”
Maybe this would have been a suitable time to mention that the Taliban are hiding in the homes of these people and using them as human shields? But no. The BBC doesn’t want to expose one of the favourite tactics of Islamic ‘militants’.
Finally, that one positive story about NATO forces was buried deep in the ‘Europe’ section and wasn’t linked to from any other pages dealing with the fighting in Afghanistan. Why is that?
I don’t presuppose that everything happening in Afghanistan is positive. My point is that the good and positive news are either not being covered or are buried away so that the casual follower of world affairs would never hear about them. Meanwhile, the negative stuff is always covered extensively, one could even say “disproportionately” 😉
JBH, why not just write to Anstiss (a producer on conspiracy files anyway) then you’ll have an answer?? Conspiracy files is looking at huge events – Princess f***ing Di, 9/11, Oklahoma, the Kelly/war affair. It’s hardly going to start poking around the the Hamilton fiasco. Why overstretch yourself and bang your head on a wall again.
‘Ahmadinejad’s Western Allies’
“Daniel Johnson in the ‘New York Sun’, comments on the rapid advance of Ahmadinejadization at the BBC”.
Read it all at:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
(15 Dec.).
Nom de guerre…
Sean Langan has got two upcoming reports on the situation in Afghanistan.
Granted, they’re being shown on the Dispatches slot on Channel Four which is hardly a firm supporter of ‘our boys’. But Sean himself is as independent (and gutsy) as they come. Check them out.
Monday 8 January 2007
DISPATCHES: FIGHTING THE TALIBAN
An exclusive first-hand account of one of the longest battles fought by British soldiers in Afghanistan. Fighting the Taliban reveals how the war on terror is really being fought on the ground and the formidable scale of the task facing British troops in Afghanistan. Sean Langan witnesses the bloody battle to retake the strategically critical town of Garmser in Helmand province. Overstretched and outnumbered, are the British troops fighting an unwinnable war? On Thursday Langan meets the Taliban fighters the troops are facing.
Thursday 11 January 2007
DISPATCHES: MEETING THE TALIBAN
After filming British troops in Helmand Province for Dispatches: Meeting the Taliban , Sean Langan meets the Taliban fighters who intend to defeat them and the Islamic fighters who are waging the wider war: global jihad. In a show of strength and in defiance of nearby British forces, the Taliban gather in large numbers in the open to explain to Langan how Helmand is under their control. Travelling deep into the mountains, on the border with Pakistan, Langan meets the Islamic fighters who are part of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.
No doubt al Beeb approves the words accompanying the right-hand side of this cartoon, relating to
Ahmadinejad: ‘Diplomatic offensive.
Conditional talks. There’s no substitute for appeasement.’
http://www.coxandforkum.com
(cartoon posted 7 Dec.).
JBH, you might even begin to conclude that the BBC were privately pleased that the Conservative government fell in 1997 and Neil Hamilton got what he got, which is why they don’t feel the need to investigate further. Or maybe even that they have some warm regard for the Grauniad’s broad motives which influences their objectivity and judgement.
Even Acolyte Reith appears to defend the BBC and Grauniad rather than feel the need to take an objective view (or follow BBC guidelines about a rather big story).
If there was a conspiracy, I would think it would make a jolly good Panorama….. after all, the BBC are fond of making Panorama programmes about Neil Hamilton, aren’t they!
DiffAnon
So explain please why the story about the bravery of OUR troops has disappeared already? The full list was issued in most papers yesterday and today yet I find nothing on the Beeb about my former Adjutant’s DSO (the TOP award for leadership in battle) for example or the two US personnel awarded Queen’s Commendations for Bravery in the Air and a US Marine pilot awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross?
Ashamed of OUR troops and their allies are we?
And just because the Beeb are gibbering about 2Lt Wales Mark 2 passing out today doesn’t excuse their BLATANT disrespect for OUR troops.
Twit.
DiffAnon
“The real bravery is being done by the hard work of the keyboard commandos fighting Islamic terrorism and BBC bias from the comfort of their own homes and offices, here on the B-BBC comment pages.”
Hmm…23 years defending this country against Islamic and Irish terrorism rather than sitting in a nice office and becoming 80 percent disabled as a result. I don’t need to prove anything to the likes of you. I and my comrades have made a difference – you done anything of note apart from showing your obvious lack of moral fibre?
So where ARE the positive stories from Iraq then? Oh look the FIRST woman to win a Military Cross and only aged 18 at the time! How come your beloved Beeb are not crawling all over this story?
Yep, you’re still a twit.
RB:
You say that I ought not waste my time writing to the editor of the BBC’s The Conspiracy Files (Mike Rudin) on the basis that this series covers “huge events”. You say, of this documentary series:
“It’s hardly going to start poking around the Hamilton fiasco.”
Eh? You imply that the Hamilton affair, whether a fiasco or not, is a trifling matter. As I’ve said, according to last Sunday’s Conspiracy Files about the death of Princess Diana, the Hamilton affair “helped bring down the last Conservative government.”
Just how big does a story have to be, RB? NeoCons blowing up the twin towers? Mi5 and Mossad knifing Dr Kelly? Martians landing in Pimlico? How about a raft of corrupt journalists at The Guardian whose criminal conspiracy helped bring down the democratic government of one of the world’s most powerful democracies? I concede, there aren’t any explosions, murders, car chases, or NeoCons in it, but I think that’s a positively gigantic story.
If it is shown that the affair that helped bring down the last Conservative government , to quote the BBC, was in fact without foundation and supported by a sprawling conspiracy involving perjury and forgery, as I claim, that would be an enormous story. And, unlike the other conspiracy THEORIES you mention, which are supported largely by supposition, conjecture, and wild speculation, the conspiracy I’m talking about is supported by A MOUNTAIN OF ROCK SOLID INDISPUTABLE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE.
For these reasons I ought to receive a positive response to my suggestion that the programme staff should examine our research again, just as Tom Anstiss did back in the summer of 1998. I’ll let you know how I go on.
D Burbage:
Very astute observations. Can you imagine the BBC being compelled to report in detail the evidence showing that the Guardian perverted the
D Burbage:
There’s something wrong with the system. That last post was from me. It should have said:
Very astute observations. Can you imagine the BBC being compelled to report in detail the evidence showing that the Guardian perverted the parliamentary inquiry into the political controversy that helped Tony Blair into power?
J B-H
You say that the BBC’s website was in its infancy when they were controversial. But these people first had public roles in the Downey Inquiry of 1997, and the BBC’s website was well and truly up and running then.
The BBC’s website was launched in November 1997.
A little thing I know, but you really ought to be more careful if you are an investigative journalist trying to persuade sceptical editors that you’ve unearthed a major conspiracy.
The default position of most media organizations is that when the jury decides, then that’s that. Case closed.
They don’t go round pestering the witnesses who have a right to get on with their lives in peace.
UNLESS there’s hard evidence they gave perjured testimony.
You claim (at least) four witnesses lied.
If you could PROVE it against …say…..2 of them, you’d be rolling.
So, why don’t you?
As dave t points out, 15.12.06 – 6:04 pm, Different Anon had this to say:
“The real bravery is being done by the hard work of the keyboard commandos fighting Islamic terrorism and BBC bias from the comfort of their own homes and offices, here on the B-BBC comment pages.”
He/she feels free to mouth off like that while knowing little or nothing about the lives of the commenters to this blog.
So thanks for that post, dave t. If that doesn’t put him/her in his/her place, nothing will.
John Reith:
Get your facts right John. The BBC launched its website in April 1994, not November 1997 as you say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc.co.uk
As for your stubborn refusal to show any interest in my work, I think it’s a really poor show on your part John. Really poor. Of all the people I have come to know on this blog, I really thought that you were a person for whom the BBC’s rules were gospel. Anyway, here they are again in bold type, unedited, as you clearly didn’t absorb them last time round.
You can see the actual page here:
http://img280.imageshack.us/img280/4935/200504bbceditorialguiderr1.jpg
Truth and Accuracy:
We strive to be accurate and establish the truth of what has happened. Accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than a question of getting the facts right. We will weigh all relevant facts and information to get at the truth.
Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion:
We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by exploring the range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in our approach to a subject.
Serving the Public Interest:
We seek to report stories of significance. We will be vigorous in driving to the heart of the story and well informed when explaining it. Our specialist expertise will bring authority and analysis to the complex world in which we live.
BBC to teach Saudis by radio
BBC Learning English, a division of BBC World Service, is to broadcast English language lessons in Saudi Arabia. As part of a new deal brokered with Radio Riyadh, specially made bilingual programmes will be heard across the country via local FM radio stations. The twice-weekly programmes will be aimed at young people and will teach listening and comprehension. They will also aim to explain the British lifestyle and culture without offending the country’s religious conservatives. Saudi Arabia’s minister of information, Iyad al Madani, is credited with playing a crucial role in setting up the collaboration.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/tefl/story/0,,1972865,00.html
So presumably the BBC will not be teaching the Saudi youth about freedom and how much it is valued in Britain. It might upset their friends the “religious conservatives” in Riyadh.
More taxpayers’ money being put to spectacularly good use by the BBC and the Foreign Office.
Alan:
Excellent article by D. Johnson, thanks (strangely, it hasn’t appeared on the BBC website’s ‘editor’s blog’…). How JR & his infantile sidekick might wish they had the chance to weigh in with some mild diversionary swipes at Johnson’s thesis – but, fortunately, the truth is out there, and it’s getting through…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6182845.stm
As my fellow soldier pounce would say..BBC and a quarter of a story!
“Germans hearts and minds in Afghanistan” so the Beeb try desperately to make this article sing the praises of the Germans. ONE 18 year old student is quoted to claim that the Germans are better than the Brits and Yanks despite the fact that:
(a) the Germans aren’t fighting down South where the real war is and haven’t been in Afghanistan as long as the rest of the coalition forces and
(b) not a peep about the German troops who were sitting in bars all the time having parties, stacking skulls for fun and posing for pictures with them, or putting Afrika Korps badges on their vehicles. Now had any of those involved Brits or Yanks the Beeb would have mentioned it and kept on mentioning it for days unlike the award of medals to 18 year old girls or posthumous VCs etc! Reminds me of the article by DiffAnon’s “hero” Ali Leithead who wrote a long article that was rather positive and then added a final line that totally undermined everything previous!
BBC – we tell only the parts of the story we like….Germans good Brits bad. Welcome back Lord Haw-Haw….
“Iraq aid agency ‘attacked’ by US”
Shouldn’t this read
“Iraq aid agency aledges attacks by US”
The BBc I’m sure are aware that putting ‘attacked’ in those stupid quotes mean nothing. It will be read as “Iraq aid agency attacked by US”.
Note it is taken as read that the US are attacking the Red Crecsent. You could argue that the BBc report the views of both sides. But all you get is a paragraph at the end of the piece where a US military spokesman is quoted as saying
“Coalition forces strive to ensure they are respectful when they conduct interaction with the local population,”
The damage is done – and the US is tried and convicted with only the word of one person.
If this is true then it should be reported, but can’t the BBC wait to see if it is first?
Jon: Why should they change the habits of a lifetime? Time and again they, like many in the US and EU media, are happy to try and condemn the US yet strangely enough ALWAYS demand additional legal safeguards etc for the terrorist/ militants/ whatever they call them nowadays. Yet they always give the terrorist etc the benefit of the doubt….