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.
oops, not deliberate.
must refine my use of the bold function … sorry about that.
“How does he know? He has undertaken any empirical research? Would NHS workers be happy with the stresses of equity trading?”
How they put in the long hours needed to study and get top marks in school for such competative positions?
Can NHS workers generate trading profits in excess of 40 times their take home salery? Can a bishop?
It is a competative market, and if you don’t like working for the NHS or a hedge fund you are a free to work elsewhere or join a labor union.
Patrick 18.12.06 – 12:18 am:
Following John Reith’s post at 17.12.06 – 9:32 pm, you raise a very important question. You say:
“Doesn’t the fact that Tim Smith MP actually admitted he’d taken money for questions blow a ruddy great hole in Jonathan’s GuardianLies theory?”
John Reith misled you in the same way that The Guardian has been misleading the entire nation for over a decade. Please follow this post and its referenced links carefully.
John Reith:
You’re again acting as The Guardian’s conduit. In your post of 17.12.06 – 9:32 pm, you mention many things, including the notorious Chester Stern Mail on Sunday article of 23 March 1997, which I will deal with tomorrow. In this post I will deal with one issue only. In your aforementioned post you say:
“On October 20th 1994 the Guardian published a story that TWO MPs – Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith had taken money from Fayed. Tim Smith admitted his guilt and resigned at once. Hamilton denied it.”
Oh no The Guardian didn’t. You’re wrong. Very, very wrong. And the fact that you’re wrong about this, one of the most basic facts of the controversy which, according to the BBC, “helped bring down the last Conservative government” despite your proven ability as a researcher, merely demonstrates to the followers of this blog how the BBC deliberately helped The Guardian dupe the nation into believing a demonstrable pack of lies.
Please excuse the block capitals, but THE GUARDIAN DID NOT, REPEAT, DID NOT ACCUSE FAYED OF PAYING NEIL HAMILTON AND TIM SMITH.
To the contrary, after a long campaign to bring down the lobbyist Ian Greer, The Guardian ran its first ‘cash for questions story accusing Fayed’s lobbyist Ian Greer of paying Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton. Tim Smith resigned after admitting to receiving payments not from Greer, as alleged, but from Fayed himself • a secret arrangement which copious evidence shows The Guardian had known absolutely nothing about.
Here’s links to photocopies of the original two-page Guardian ‘cash for questions’ article of 20 October 1994 accusing Ian Greer of bribing Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton • an article which, note, characterises Fayed not as a briber of MPs but rather as an honour-bound whistleblower on his lobbyist’s supposed bribery of MPs. The ‘cash from Fayed’ allegations against Hamilton were, in fact, made for the first time six weeks later, after The Guardian found out about Smith’s secret payments from Fayed himself:
http://img326.imageshack.us/img326/8116/1507ho7.jpg
http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/8513/7615wz7.jpg
On my website I pull this article apart, piece by piece, as you know only too well, John Reith. To those interested in this story as a case study of how the BBC helped The Guardian brainwash a powerful pluralistic democracy into gulping down a whopping porkie, here’s the link to my analysis:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%202/page8.html
Now here’s an extract from, and a link to, Tim Smith’s letter to Sir Gordon Downey, in which Smith clarifies that he never received any money from Ian Greer, but in which he admits to receiving up to £18,000 from Fayed himself. This figure of £18,000 is actually three times larger than the £6,000 Fayed eventually admitted, thus demonstrating that Smith was undoubtedly telling the truth about Greer. Smith states:
“Between May 1987 and January 1989 I was paid fees by Mr Al-Fayed. These payments which were in cash were made to me personally by Mr Al-Fayed. I am afraid that I do not have a record of when these payments were made or how much they amounted to. The sum was, however, substantially larger than £6,000, probably about £18,000. Mr Ian Greer was not an agent for these payments. Indeed, he had absolutely nothing to do with them and was wholly unaware of them. Furthermore, I was not paid a fixed sum to ask specific questions.”
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp0172.htm
Finally, here are extracts from, and a link to, Downey’s findings. Though they are perverse with respect to his finding in favour of several other allegations against Hamilton (including the later ‘cash for questions’ allegations that depended entirely on the last-minute testimony of Fayed’s three employees), Downey nevertheless rejects all The Guardian’s original allegations that Ian Greer had bribed the two men. Downey states, with respect to Smith:
“There is no evidence to indicate that he received cash from Mr Al Fayed indirectly through Mr Greer.”
Downey states, with respect to Hamilton:
“There is no evidence to indicate that Mr Hamilton received cash from Mr Al Fayed indirectly through Mr Greer.”
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030i/sp0143.htm
To recapitulate for those whose heads are spinning:
After a long campaign to bring down London’s top lobbyist Ian Greer and damage John Major’s government in the process, on 20 October 1994 The Guardian finally ran a story accusing Greer of paying Tory MPs Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton ‘cash for questions’. The Guardian hung the story on the word of one of Greer’s clients, Mohamed Fayed, who had just hit the roof over John Major’s refusal to intervene in Fayed’s stymied citizenship application. Six weeks later The Guardian found out that Fayed had in fact been paying Smith himself. And so, with his own bribery of Smith now out in the open, Fayed then claimed that he had paid Hamilton too • an entirely new allegation which The Guardian, aided by The BBC, succeeded in duping the nation into believing had been the original story all along.
To those who have taken an interest in this, please remember this post and if necessary bookmark it and refer back to it. Don’t allow John Reith to confuse the issue with falsehoods and deception.
Now then John Reith, will you apologise to the disciples of this blog for your misleading and false statement reproduced at the head of this post?
she’s seeing the AhmaDinnerJacket regime first hand.
ghost of john trenchard | 18.12.06 – 12:59 am
I think of it as the MadMood I’monaJihad regime.
Re: ‘excessive’ salaries.
In public entities this is (belatedly) looking like being dealt with through institutional shareholders making a scene. Nobody in the City would make the straight free market argument with a straight face that high salary earners in industry are universally wonderfully talented and deserving – in many places the executive ‘market’ is heavily distorted by cliques, favours and outright Boardroom laziness and incompetence – but if shareholders (i.e. anyone with a pension) can’t be arsed scrutinising it properly that’s their problem.
In partnerships and private companies its nobody else’s business.
The paradox is that the same people who moan about high wages are ususally those also whingeing on about McJobs and highstreet colonising chain stores. Decent stuff produced by quality craftsmen costs money. If everybody earned a government stipulated £25k pa it would be goodbye fulfilling jobs in Rolls Royce, Jimmy Choo, Rolex and Le Gavroche and hello universal Primark and Burger King.
If Tim Smith admitted to taking cash from Al Fayed surely this in itself compromised the morals of the last Conservative government. The fact that Hamilton, who for all his oafish clowning was a pretty minor figure may or may not have taken bribes also is pretty irrelevent. In any case for all those whose political blinkers deny them the opportunity to see things through the eyes of the nation – the last Conservative government weren’t very good. That’s why they were annhilated in 1997.
So irrespective of what the Beeb or others might say the Hamilton affair “helped bring down the last Conservative government” in much the same way that Theo Walcott helped England to the World Cup quarter final. If it is a miscarriage of justice that’s unfortunate, but we’re hardly talking the Birmingham Six here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6188275.stm
“We can intervene to make life fairer so that people who don’t have the opportunities of making such astronomical sums, and don’t want to make such sums just decent ones, get a fairer crack of the whip.”
i shudder when i hear statements like that – make life “fairer”.
the bishop should have a chat with anyone from the former East Germany.
seems as if 60 years of post war communism in Eastern Europe simply hasnt registered in the bishop’s befuddled brain.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt 18.12.06 – 8:51 am,
Interesting clarification. I hadn’t quite wrapped my mind around that aspect of the story.
Now here’s a point or two – which no doubt you’ve considered at length, but I’m just thinking out loud here:
*Tim Smith admits to taking bribes personally from Fayed.
*Having admitted his guilt, it’s highly unlikely that he would lie about the detail of the bribes.
*Fayed is a proven shady character, well-versed in the proverbial shady deal.
*Why then would Fayed involve three other people in bribes to Hamilton? Surely that would just unnecessarily increase the risk of detection?
*If someone wrote a novel featuring a character who paid bribes through three other people, it would not be believable:
Hey Jack!
Yeah Rick?
Listen, it’s your turn to take the bribe money to Charlie.
Uh, I thought Sue was doing it this week.
No, she’s in two weeks, after Joe. Oh, and Jack….
Yeah?
DON’T TELL ANYONE ABOUT THIS!!
*Yet Hamilton lost his libel case.
It looks to me like the old story of the individual trying to maintain his integrity while the forces of a particular political movement marshall themselves against him.
Now then John Reith, will you apologise to the disciples of this blog for your misleading and false statement reproduced at the head of this post?
Earth will spin out of orbit before John Reith admits being wrong.
news flash: man arrested, 37 years old, from felixstowe, in relation to the ipswich murders.
Again,Cockney and others.It’s my recollection that ‘sleaze’ was the overwhelming theme of that election.John Major was even followed about by ‘The Tory Sleaze C#ck’ – ‘are you going to slap it down,John?’
Together with my own recollection of the de-branding of the Conservatives by the use of the non-mutually reinforcing ‘Tory party’ in news reports when measured against the mutually reinforcing ‘Labour’–‘New (improved) Labour’ and the influx of Leftward leaning journalists into the BBC prior to the election as set out in the Wilson report I think there’s a case to answer.
http://www.bbcbiasonemansopinion.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately JBH’s case is the only one properly documented so that’s why I’m interested in it.(Apart from feeling sorry for Hamilton if it’s true).
Good news, archduke.
Cockney | 18.12.06 – 9:38 am
The fact that Hamilton, who for all his oafish clowning was a pretty minor figure may or may not have taken bribes also is pretty irrelevent.
My emphasis added.
Of course, this “oafish clowning” only took place after he had been financially ruined. Up to that point he had been a QC and Minister in the Government.
If you are going to intervene in these exchanges you should get the timelines clear.
Bryan:
You make a good point – Hamilton had made this very same point in his submission to Downey’s inquiry. See questions 523-525:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp0154.htm
A curious absence of any references to human rights abuses pervades this report. Note also the use of “Cuban leader” and “veteran leader” in preference to “dictator.”
Yes, al-Beeb aren’t as keen to label Castro a dictator as they were with Pinochet.
In fact, searching the Beeb for references of “Castro” and “dictator” turns up a load of false positives where the old git is written about in stories that mention the “dictator Fulgencio Batista”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/…000/ 3413749.stm
Other hits include “dictator” in quotation marks.
54 hits:
Batista dictator site:.news.bbc.co.uk
http://www.google.co.uk/search?h…nG=Search&meta=
325 hits (many caused by the Batista references above):
Castro dictator site:.news.bbc.co.uk
http://www.google.co.uk/search?h…nG=Search&meta=
Anonymous | 18.12.06 – 12:15 am | #
And to compare the above with Pinochet we get the following…
1140 hits
site:.news.bbc.co.uk pinochet dictator
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3A.news.bbc.co.uk+pinochet+dictator&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
The Beeb overloading the eggs into that basket again…
Judge John Deed, Tuesday 9th January,
War Crimes: The legal drama series returns with a two-part episode. The judge visits The Hague to preside over a war crimes trial involving a British soldier accused of murdering Iraqi civilians. However, he finds himself in mortal danger when a previous case involving a BNP councillor brings him to the attention of Muslim extremists who send a woman to kill him. When she meets Deed, she discovers that he is not what she expected but remains determined to go through with her task.
Yawn…
The BBC and half a story;
Nagasaki bombing labelled a crime
One of Japan’s most senior politicians has said the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki in 1945 was impermissible from a humanitarian point of view. Shoichi Nakagawa, the policy chief of the governing party, said that the use of atomic weapons was a crime
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6189489.stm
I see the BBC continues on its path of painting a picture for the youth of today about how the US dropped a couple of nukes on Japan with the widest of paint brushes. The BBC is more than happy to call the ending of the Second World War a human rights violation. Yet it doesn’t mention “The Rape of Nanking” , Pearl Harbour, The treatment of POWs by the Japanese, In fact the BBC doesn’t try to give any balance to the story at all. But when the Taliban, Saddam or even Mugbwe are mentioned in a BBC report they are given the benefit of the doubt and both sides of the argument are presented. But the US dropping a FAT MAN on Nagasaki and it’s a one-sided human rights crime. But then the BBC really does hate the US.
The BBC and half a story.
Cockney wrote;
“The paradox is that the same people who moan about high wages are ususally those also whingeing on about McJobs and highstreet colonising chain stores. Decent stuff produced by quality craftsmen costs money. If everybody earned a government stipulated £25k pa it would be goodbye fulfilling jobs in Rolls Royce, Jimmy Choo, Rolex and Le Gavroche and hello universal Primark and Burger King.”
Maybe we should ask the BBC workers to take a pay cut. Lets see limit everybody to a wage of 25K and put the rest to improving the output at the BBC. Just think of all the warmth that would generate at the BBC?
Might stop Reithy baby going out for wine etc at our expense!
Ref the Japanese note how there is always little or no mention of the REASONS the US finally decided to drop the bombs – the thought of millions of US war dead as they invaded the Japanese homeland. In fact the only reason they fought on after Bomb 1 was because the Emperor wouldn’t surrender and being a God etc the Japanese obeyed. HE should have been charged and hung after the war along with his Generals etc. So the Beeb would have preferred there to have been even more US casualties instead? Says it all about the amoral attitudes prevelant at the BBC!
Jonathan Boyd Hunt 18.12.06 – 8:51 am
You are nit-picking.
The Guardian’s 20th October article actually said:
Neil Hamilton, now minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, responsible for business probity, and Tim Smith, junior Northern Ireland minister, were both named yesterday as recipients of payments passed to Ian Greer Associates by Mohamed Al-Fayed, the owner of Harrods
I paraphrased this as:
On October 20th 1994 the Guardian published a story that TWO MPs – Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith had taken money from Fayed.
The Guardian identified Fayed as the source of the funds • i.e. the one doing the bribing. So ‘taken money from Fayed’ was a fair summary. Whether or not the money was paid through middleman Ian Greer, paid directly in brown envelopes, sent via the Royal Mail or biked round by courier is immaterial.
You are just dispensing chaff.
Also, you somewhat selectively quote from the Downey Report to suggest that Sir Gordon cleared Ian Greer of all wrongdoing and that the Guardian’s claim that he acted as a cash-conduit for Fayed was wholly false.
In fact, Downey found that Greer had been doing this in relation to at least one of a number of other Conservative MPs whom he investigated.
Here’s what Downey said about Greer’s relationship with Sir Andrew Bowden MP:
The election donation of £5,319 from Mr Greer was intended as a reward for lobbying and Sir Andrew probably knew it came originally from Mr Al Fayed.
And here’s what he said about Sir Michael Grylls:
(i) Sir Michael received payments from Mr Greer (though not in cash) which were neither introduction commissions nor fees associated with the Unitary Tax Campaign.
(ii) It is not possible to conclude that these payments originated from Mr Al Fayed, although Sir Michael actively participated in the Greer lobbying operation.
(iii) Sir Michael deliberately misled the Select Committee on Members’ Interests in 1990 by seriously understating the number of commission payments he had received; and by omitting to inform them of other fees received from Mr Greer.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030i/sp0143.htm
So Greer WAS paying out money to MPs after all. And some of it, on behalf of Fayed. Funny how you seek to give the opposite impression.
The BBC and its continuing pro Islamic message
Non-Muslims snap up Islamic accounts
Emma Dellaway, 25, from south London, likes to know that the money sitting in her current account is not doing harm. “I don’t have much money, as I am just starting out on my career, but what I do have should not be used unethically,” she says. “I hate to think of arms going to some African country funded, however indirectly, from my account.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6168800.stm
Yup the BBC spreads the message that Sharia is not just for Ramadan.
Emma Dellaway, 25, from south London, likes to know that the money sitting in her current account is not doing harm
……………so she invests it with an Islamic bank.
Classic!
John Reith:
You’re attempts at bluff, bluster, and obfuscation won’t wash.
I never sought, nor do I ever seek, to convey the wrong impression to anyone on this blog (or generally in life to anyone). Your suggestion is an unjustified smear.
Ian Greer never denied donating money to several MPs’ general election fighting funds (none of which included Hamilton and Smith). In fact, Greer stated explicitly making such donations in his June 1995 witness statement for his libel action against The Guardian.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp01108.htm
Two recipients were Labour MPs, one of whom was Chris Smith, the other Doug Hoyle. It’s really odd, but I’ve never heard the BBC imply that there was anything wrong with them when Chris Smith was the Culture Secretary in charge of the BBC, and Doug Hoyle the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
As for Downey’s judgements about other MPs, they don’t concern the allegations that Greer paid Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith to table parliamentary questions. That was the charge that The Guardian levelled against Greer, Smith and Hamilton. That was the charge Greer, Smith and Hamilton denied. That was the charge Downey rejected.
Through your disingenuousness you are merely increasing the awareness on this blog that the BBC’s reporting of the whole affair was biased and misleading and remains so to this day.
Had the BBC reported, when The Guardian’s story broke, that Tim Smith had resigned for failing to register payments from Fayed, but that he denied taking money from Greer as The Guardian alleged, it would immediately have strengthened the credibility of Hamilton’s and Greer’s claims of innocence against The Guardian’s story too. This is no doubt the precise reason why the BBC, disgracefully, did not clarify Smith’s position, but allowed the impression to develop that Smith had resigned because The Guardian’s story was true with respect to him.
Our national broadcaster the BBC sought to create confusion on a major political story right from the very beginning – just like you are, now, right before shrewd observers throughout the UK and beyond.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 18.12.06 – 8:51 am |
“On 20 October 1994 The Guardian newspaper published a front page report alleging that Mr. Al Fayed had paid Mr. Hamilton and another Member of Parliament thousands of pounds ”
Lord Brown-Wilkinson – delivering judgment on behalf of the Lords of Appeal in Hamilton vs Al-Fayed.
http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/WebCases/hol/reports/00/28.htm
On the BBC have your say site just drop this quote to annoy the moderator
“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”, Andrew Marr, the Daily Mail, Oct 21st, 2006.
I wonder how many find this offensive
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6188161.stm
compared to the whopping FOUR that found this offensive
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6189163.stm
I’m sure it won’t be long before Clarkson’s contract with al-Beeb is terminated. I’m sure the same won’t happen to Jeremy Hardy, Mark Steel, Matt Lucas or other ‘favoured’ ones.
I wonder how many find this offensive
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter…ent/ 6188161.stm
compared to the whopping FOUR that found this offensive
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter…ent/ 6189163.stm
I’m sure it won’t be long before Clarkson’s contract with al-Beeb is terminated. I’m sure the same won’t happen to Jeremy Hardy, Mark Steel, Matt Lucas or other ‘favoured’ ones.
Just about sums the bbc up, pathetic
Jimbob wrote;
“I wonder how many find this offensive”
Each to their own. I say. But I find it hard to swallow that the BBC found JC offensive but was more than happy to promote this as a fact of life;
“Muslim head says gays ‘harmful’
Sir Iqbal Sacranie said everyone’s views should be heard
A British Muslim leader has told the BBC he believes homosexuality is “not acceptable” and denounced new same-sex civil partnerships as “harmful”.
Head of the Muslim Council of Britain Sir Iqbal Sacranie said introducing the partnerships did “not augur well” for building the foundations of society.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4579146.stm
But then the BBC runs scared at the sight of the MCB.
david chase | 18.12.06 – 1:56 pm:
I’m not quite sure what point you’re making, but your extract from the judgement to which you provided a link fell short, which created a false impression. I shall assume it wasn’t intentional otherwise you wouldn’t have provided the link.
The extract went on to clarify that the payments were originally alleged to have been channelled through IGA – that is, Ian Greer Associates:
“On 20 October 1994 The Guardian newspaper published a front page report alleging that Mr. Al Fayed had paid Mr. Hamilton and another Member of Parliament thousands of pounds through I.G.A. in return for them asking questions in Parliament … Mr. Hamilton issued libel proceedings against The Guardian as did Mr. Greer and I.G.A. The other Member of Parliament implicated by The Guardian admitted receiving fees from Mr. Al Fayed and resigned from the Government.”
This account also confirms that Ian Greer had issued libel proceedings too – an important fact that the BBC’s reports at the time did not mention.
Pounce, each to their own. I agree.
I was going to say ‘I don’t like this sort of thing shoved down my throat’ but thought some may take it the wrong way (even that sounds a bit “ginger beer”).
Anyway, at least they put marriage in quotes.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 18.12.06 – 3:18 pm
“an important fact that the BBC’s reports at the time did not mention.”
Can you provide links to the BBC reports that didn’t mention this?
David Chase
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=GEUA%2CGEUA%3A2005-37%2CGEUA%3Aen&q=Neil+Hamilton+libel+al-Fayed+bbc.co.uk&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB
This is the Google result for Neil Hamilton al-Fayed libel for the BBC website. 214 Matches.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=GEUA%2CGEUA%3A2005-37%2CGEUA%3Aen&q=IGA+libel+al-Fayed+bbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB
Substitute Neil Hamilton for IGA:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=GEUA%2CGEUA%3A2005-37%2CGEUA%3Aen&q=IGA+libel+al-Fayed+bbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB
No matches.
Subsitute these for Ian Greer:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=GEUA%2CGEUA%3A2005-37%2CGEUA%3Aen&q=Ian+Greer+libel+al-Fayed+bbc.co.uk&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB
3 matches, one of which is not from the BBC, one of which uses the BBC’s infamous “quotation marks” to say:
Hamilton “took £30,000 bribe”
…the case was about “corruption in politics”
Neil Hamilton’s “uncontrolled greed”
….
Mini-headlines included:
“Lied to the Guardian”
“Corrupt”
This was an article detailing the prosecution’s case, but the BBC had clearly made its mind up here. It’s use of quotation marks was cherry-picked to portray Hamilton in the worst possible light.
The other article – in fact none of the articles – has a solitary word about Ian Greer’s legal action.
Hope that answers your question. As I’m sure you’ll agree, it’s difficult to find documentary evidence of something that isn’t there.
JBH hope you don’t mind my answering on your behalf. Work’s quiet!
The other article – in fact none of the articles – has a solitary word about Ian Greer’s legal action.
should read:
The other article … has not a solitary word about Ian Greer’s legal action.
Not likely to appear on the Beeb anytime soon…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16240565/site/newsweek/
(But, apparently, a message from our old mucker al-Zawahiri is winging its way west as we speak… )
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.369727343&par=0
Heron:
Thanks for that. Really excellent.
It’s all intriguing isn’t it? I mean, one minute Ian Greer is the alleged briber, at the heart of the affair, exposed by Fayed’s sense of public duty…..
http://img326.imageshack.us/img326/8116/1507ho7.jpg
http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/8513/7615wz7.jpg
….and the next minute Ian Greer gets shuffled to one side and Fayed the briber takes his place.
This is exactly the sort of stuff that George Orwell wrote about in Nineteen Eighty-Four. That such a thing could happen in a free society, concerning as it does such a high profile story involving government ministers, is hardly believable, and proof positive of the BBC’s corruption and power. It now makes perfect sense that Orwell modelled the “Ministry of Truth” on his experience working there.
Heron | 18.12.06 – 4:07 pm
Thanks for proving my point, Heron.
The Greer libel-action against the Guardian was in 1996 – a year before BBC News Online was launched.
That’s why you can’t find the coverage of it.
David Chase
No JBH won’t be able to find BBC News Website stories from 1994 – for the obvious reason.
Though, of course, he should believe he could – since he has several times wrongly claimed that the BBC News website was launched in 1994.
And in the face of numerous articles from independent media asserting it was launched in Noevember 1997, has never retracted.
Heron:
The following is the script from the BBC Radio 4 6.00 news on the very day that the story broke, 20 October 1994. The five links below the extract are to JPEG images of the actual five page script. Read them and ask yourself, if you were listening to this bulletin on that day, would you infer that Tim Smith had actually denied The Guardian’s story?
October 20 1994 Radio 4 6.00pm news
The government has spent the day fighting off fresh allegations that it has become tainted by sleaze after more than 15 years in power. The latest controversy centres on claims that two ministers were paid by a firm of political lobbyists to table parliamentary questions while backbenchers. It’s alleged that the payments were made on behalf of the House of Fraser company. One of the men, the junior Northern Ireland minister, Tim Smith, has resigned. The other the corporate affairs minister Neil Hamilton, has strongly denied the claims and says he is to stay in his job. Our political correspondent Lance Price has been following developments at Westminster.
Lance Price:
John Major briefed the cabinet about the allegations this morning. For most ministers that was the first they knew that the Cabinet Secretary had been investigating the claims for the past three weeks. Both of the junior ministers named had been questioned and, as it became clear later, Tim Smith had admitted taking money from the owner of Harrods, Mohamed Al-Fayed. He had not declared the payments at the time, and so felt it was right for him to resign. The Prime Minister wrote to Mr Smith today, saying his actions were clearly wrong, and that his resignation was, therefore, unavoidable. But Neil Hamilton was following a different course. As John Major told the Commons at Question Time:
John Major:
My Honourable Friend, the Member for Tatton, has written to me explicitly refuting the allegations that he was paid any money either to ask questions or to undertake any activity whatsoever on behalf of Mr Al-Fayed.
Page 1: http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8830/1994102018hrs05mradio4peq9.jpg
Page 2: http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/9772/1994102018hrs05mradio4pky6.jpg
Page 3: http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1707/1994102018hrs05mradio4pmk4.jpg
Page 4: http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1293/1994102018hrs05mradio4pya2.jpg
Page 5: http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7706/1994102018hrs05mradio4pqh6.jpg
Page 6: http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3200/1994102018hrs05mradio4poh2.jpg
Which way the wind blows at the BBC;
How safe is it to make Hajj?
Will you be going to Mecca this year?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5052&&&edition=1&ttl=20061218170430
I wonder when the BBC starts showing ‘Strictly Suicide bomber’ as mainstream viewing.
John Reith:
Now you’ve taken to bare faced lying even in the face of evidence that you’re lying. But before I deal with that, you say, to explain away how the BBC has airbrushed Ian Greer out of the picture:
“The Greer libel-action against the Guardian was in 1996 – a year before BBC News Online was launched.
That’s why you can’t find the coverage of it.”
But stories as big as cash for questions get referred to years later all the time. Take this one from 1963:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=%22profumo+scandal%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&meta=
Now your lies:
Your original claim was that the BBC’s website, not news website, was launched in November 1997.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116595993263478419/#321840
I remembered that the BBC had its website up and running earlier than that, and subsequently provided proof that it was founded in 1994.
Then you assured me that no news reports were posted on the website until November 1997 as you stated originally. You were so bolshie about it I believed you and let the matter rest. You stated:
“J B-H – I do have my facts right. We were discussing news stories on the BBC site, so the relevant date is November 1977 – which is when the BBC News website (as it’s now called) or BBC News Online (as it was then called) was launched. …
If you had actually bothered to read the wiki page you linked, then you would have known that the 94 site was originally a kind of club for early adopters that turned into a corporate website with some education pages.”
Then I strayed across a whole raft of NEWS REPORTS from early 1997, including 13 – I stand corrected – 12 referring to Downey’s report into the ‘cash for questions’ affair. I even provided links to them.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/116595993263478419/#322295
JX | 17.12.06 – 9:09 pm even provided a link to an index of hundreds of news reports, of which approximately one hundred were from May 21-31 1997.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/indmay3.shtml
I never claimed that the BBC’s special news website was launched any earlier than you say. I said, as it happens quite correctly, that the BBC had its website up and running during early 1997 and that it was posting news bulletins on it. It was. It did. You falsely seek to convey that it didn’t and hadn’t and that I was referring to the news website when in fact I never mentioned it.
For heaven’s sake cut out the deception – you’re making yourself out to be a berk and a rather nasty one at that.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt
I have been reading the document on your website that you recommended for newcomers to this story, ‘The Concise True Story of the Cash for Questions Affair’.
The opening words are:
“The British ‘cash for questions’ affair began on 20 October 1994, when The Guardian newspaper published a front-page article alleging that London’s leading lobbyist, Ian Greer, had given corrupt payments to Neil Hamilton and another government minister, Tim Smith..”
But the Sunday Times had already run a story about ‘cash for questions’ on 10th July 1994 in which they caught out two Tory MPs ( Graham Riddick and David Tredinnick) in a sting operation.
Why do you say the Guardian started the whole thing to bring down the Government if the Sunday Times really started it? It looks to me as if the Guardian were just following up on the Sunday Times Insight Team’s major scoop.
J B-H
Thanks for posting that transcript of Lance Price’s radio news report – I’d never seen it before.
Very interesting, isn’t it?
It’s dated 20th October 1994 – the day the Guardian published its allegations.
Yet Price reports:
For most ministers that was the first they knew that the Cabinet Secretary had been investigating the claims for the past three weeks.
So the Cabinet Secretary had been investigating for three weeks BEFORE the Guardian published.
So much for your theory that the Guardian dreamed up the whole thing to bring down the Government.
The Government, it would appear, were well ahead of the Guardian.
” pounce | 18.12.06 – 5:13 pm |”
ah. thanks for reminding me pounce. i was wondering what happened to the 2006 edition of the Mecca stampede.
what the betting for this year? 200? 300? 500?
Having been prompted by a Commons debate on 28 June ’93 in which Ian Greer was lambasted, The Guardian investigated Ian Greer Associates over the following weeks. The inquiries came to nought. The Guardian then ran a feature about Greer in October 1993 with all sorts of hints about his relationships with leading Tories. This provoked Jonathan Calvert, author of the Sunday Times July 10 ’94 CFQ article, into conducting a sting on Greer in January ’94. Greer passed the sting so no story. Calvert then got the idea of a direct sting of MPs and set about that. Meanwhile, provoked by the same Guardian article of October ’93, in March Central TV’s Cook Report conducted its own sting on Greer with the Guardian’s help. Greer passed that too so no prog. When Calvert’s Sunday Times story came out in July the fever and frustration rose ever higher. Then, when Fayed hit the roof over his passport in September-October The Guardian took advantage and ran its story claiming the man had approached the paper with information about Greer’s bribes to MPs. See:
http://www.guardianlies.com/TBOADS/page10.html
David Chase:
Sorry David that last post was for your attention.
John Reith:
Anyone confused by John Reith who seeks enlightenment:
Check out:
http://www.guardianlies.com/TBOADS/page14.html
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 18.12.06 – 6:24 pm
I take it that your typically very long-winded reply to David Chase is your way of admitting that the statement on your website:
The British ‘cash for questions’ affair began on 20 October 1994
is demonstrably untrue.
Perhaps you could clear something else up for us?
In the Guardian’s report on the collapse of the Hamilton/Greer libel action, the Guardian says this:
The settlement, on the eve of what was labelled the libel trial of the century, came after a dramatic weekend of legal developments. Those began when the Government disclosed crucial documents to the Guardian. The papers led to Mr Greer and Mr Hamilton falling out, and a conflict of interest developing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hamilton/article/0,,195606,00.html
Your account of the circumstances of Greer and Hamilton falling out makes no mention of the disclosure by the Government of key papers. Or, at least, none that I’ve spotted.
What were these key documents supplied by the government to the Guardian?
If you did mention them – where did you do so?
If you didn’t mention them, why not?
Using the Beeb’s figures for the final death toll of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of 135,000 + 50,000 = 185,000…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6652262.shtml?sectionId=7&articleId=6652262
Let’s compare that with the death toll of the conventional assaults on Iwo Jima and Okinawa:
Okinawa = 150,000 (Japanese civilian, plus US military deaths)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa
Iwo Jima ~27,000 dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima
Now if this was the death toll on these two specks on the map, what would the results of a final conventional assault on the Japanese mainland have been? Well in excess of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but don’t expect the Beeb to be in any hurry and point that out as it might cause anger at the US to dissipate – can’t have that can we John Reith?
Oh, and Nakagawa-San’s comments as reported here…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6189489.stm
…Concerning the North Korean threat should have been given more prominence, not left to the final sentence. The headline for a news service should have reflected that ongoing concern, not on something that happened 61 years ago.
JR making digging his hole ever deeper with smears, half-truths and downright lies.
JBH making his case with eloquence and hard documentary evidence.
Never guess which one works for the BBC.
One too many makings in the making of that post (must press preview)
Is there any chance this blog’s editors cd start a separate thread for conspiracy enthusiasts?
John Reith:
John this is now starting to go into all sorts of obscure areas – and it’s getting well off the subject of BBC bias.
Even though it was not strictly about bias I answered David Chase’s question honestly and fully because it was an important one. You, in contrast, come out with porkies one minute and then start dancing on pin heads the next.
The Guardian’s account of how and why Greer and Hamilton were forced to settle their actions against the Guardian on 30 Sept. ’96 is false. For the true story read the statement by former IGA director Andrew Smith here:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp01154.htm
– or read my concise account here:
http://www.guardianlies.com/TBOADS/page26.html
For those who are interested, this particular document also explains why the Guardian approached Fayed at the last minute before the trial and asked him to coerce some ‘witnesses’ to bolster the paper’s defence – which Fayed duly did as the BBC’s political staff know only too well. (It is precisely because the BBC’s political staff know that Bond, Bozek and Bromfield were coerced that they’ve never sought to interview them.)