Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
The original question is also in Google’s cache.
How odd.
I repeat my question:
“So does BBC Worldwide get privileged access to BBC content, or does it compete on a purely commercial basis against other commercial operators, paying market price for whatever content it gets?”
For example, in the article originally mentioned, we get this quote from the BBC:
“It would also allow Lonely Planet users to access BBC content – such as Michael Palin’s New Europe.”
Now, is BBC Worldwide going to pay a commercial rate for this content, or are they going to get access to it for free, as they are — despite what Susan says — a *part* of the BBC.
Bodo, Gareth, Notasheep, I’ve finished my main posting. Thank you for all your suggestions – Newssniffer was, of course, my first stop to get the original question – though it doesn’t seem to have noticed the BBC’s unexplained deletion of the top answer for some reason. P.S. Haven’t got your email yet Bodo. Did send it to biasedbbc@gmail.com or somewhere else?
Another witness to BBC bias on the Coffee House blog:
I was appalled at the hostile interview given to David Cameron by Andrew Marr on Sunday am on the BBC. Constantly interupting it was the height of new Labour bad manners and repeated again this moring on BBC breakfast by the female presenter with George Osborne. Such open BBC hostility and bias is unacceptable.
Apparently in the interview with Brown Marr didn’t question any of his spending plans but the press laughed at the prospect of any of it being affordable.
Cameron was questioned on everything so I am told.
A response to a complaint about this :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7018253.stm
Dear Mr. G,
Many thanks for your e-mail and for bringing this to my attention.
You are right, the word hysterical has no place in this news story, and
I have replaced it. I will also have a word with the author of the
piece.
Regards
Business Editor
BBC News Interactive
…’hysterical’ has now become ‘intense’.
You do have to wonder in what world a rise of 50% over 5 years could be described as modest.
Anyone see the latest episode of Climate Change on BBC 1 6pm News?
I had to laugh at the piece about the proposed plan to generate electricity from tidal power in the Severn Estury.
Apparently it would deliver as much electricity as 3 nuclear power stations. Except for one thing the Greenies oppose it.
However, unlike normal not a single mouthpiece from Friends of the Earth or Greenpeace was interviewed? Why not? Normally you can’t move for these people and their ugly mugs on the BBC?
Could it be that the BBC didn’t want to ask any uncomfortable questions of their leftie mates?
We had a couple of the locals on about Ducks and Trout.
As usual when tough questions need asking, the BBC go missing.
Don’t know if this has been mentioned before but some very interesting stuff comes up on Youtube if you search for “bbc bias”
If BBC worldwide is a separate legal entity, how much does it pay by way of licence fee for use of the BBC Intellectual Property ie name and goodwill (I’m using goodwill in the strict legal sense).
Cameron was questioned on everything so I am told.
fnu snu | Homepage | 01.10.07 – 5:54 pm
Oh yes – the BBC are picking over every potential snag in Osborne’s costing in a desperate attempt to kill off any political advantage of the tax cut – in league of course with the Treasury who are now desperate to blow it out the water. Government – BBC – what’s the difference? meanwhile nobody at the BBC at any point even mentioned the word ‘cost’ when Gordon outlined his giveaway plans. They were too busy rushing out the Brown ‘bounce’ in the opinion polls.
Regarding this BBC Article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7020848.stm
Squander Two observes:
That BBC article’s interestingly structured: it has responses to and criticism of what Warsi said before it tells you what she said. That’s not the usual way around for such pieces.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dumbjon/3612687355639116540/#147445
Taken from this House of Dumb post.
Result!
After complaining about the “hysterical” comment in the recent Stamp Duty/Inheritance Tax article I got this from the Business editor:
“Many thanks for your e-mail and for bringing this to my attention.
You are right, the word hysterical has no place in this news story, and I have replaced it. I will also have a word with the author of the piece.”
Beeboids have risen a couple of notches in my estimation – at least they are now admitting their bias. Next stop, eliminate it from the reporting in the first place then we can all shut up shop and go home.
I heard Alan Bolton on Sky say that Labour (Darling on CH4 for instance) were commenting on Tories policies while the conference is going on and that this goes against precedent. i.e. Labour shouldn’t be doing it.
Haven’t been watching the Beeb but have any of the Gvnt been on?
If so, why are the Beeb, Ch4 complicit in breaking this precedent, why give the cheats the airtime?
Did any Tory comment during the Labour conference?
Like ripping Brown’s promises to pieces as being ludicrously unfundable.
Hi Towcestarian,
Can you send me the full text of what was said, complete with the sender’s name and the time and date it was sent please?
The ‘hysterical’ story has been online for several days, and wull no longer feature on the BBC’s index page, so changing it now is a bit late.
As for ‘having a word with the author’ it rather lumps the blame on one person.
Thanks, Andrew.
Keep up the good work.
http://www.honestreporting.co.uk:80/articles/critiques/new/BBC_Feeds_Terror_Propaganda_to_Children.asp
While most, if not all, news outlets out there reported on the release of 57 Palestinian prisoners by Israel…
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=57+Palestinian+prisoners&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
…The BBC uses the term- detainees.
Here’s why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee
And that’s despite the fact that at least some of them (being generous here) were tried, convicted and served time in prison.
One example: “Among those released in the West Bank was 66-year-old Rakad Salim, who served five years of an eight-year sentence for distributing millions of dollars from the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians;_ylt=Aqh6vn6PmoIUDV153dYmXoBw24cA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm
Has anyone noticed that the quote from HYS used on this article is actually of someone missing the point entirely? But it’s anti-Tory, so that’s okay. It also goes against the consensus on that page…
Also, this is on the main politics page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7023081.stm
I don’t remember Tories getting front page articles slamming Labour conference pledges. As far as I am aware, that’s not actually the done thing…
There’s an odd story currently at the very top of the BBC’s news website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7023176.stm
“Brown ponders Basra troop levels
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is considering cutting the number of British troops in southern Iraq by 2,000, the BBC has learned.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said a final decision over the plan, which would reduce numbers in Basra from 5,000 to 3,000, had yet to be taken.
It could be part of a statement on Iraq expected when MPs return to the Commons next week, our correspondent said.”
It’s bafflingly vague and limp – there’s no real story at all. It’s just a trailer for a possible announcement of something that might not happen. A cynic might think that the government has spun up some spurious nonsense in order to spoil the Conservative Party conference; and that the BBC, dazzled by having some insider information, has spun out the government’s spin. The more I think about Nick Robinson, the more I think of a little clockwork toy bashing its head into the sideboard, and rebounding, and bashing its head again, with a silly little grin over its face, wagging its tail etc.
The second half is a comical series of “our correspondent said” and “our correspondent added” statements. Why not simply transcribe the briefing? Why not report it as “Government spokesman X took me aside and told me, in hushed tones, that I was a very distinguished reporter and that no-one else was to know this, but TEXT TEXT TEXT”? We aren’t children.
Susan B (BBC)
You inspired me to find a wee bit more about the BBC and it’s Worldwide department. Thanks.
Quite interested in UKTV, a subscription channel that shows BEEB repeats in the UK marketplace. Since BBCW owns this channel and returns profits to the BBC, is the BBC effectively getting to charge subscribers twice for licence fee produced content?
When de Menezes was killed the BBC sent one of their hacks to Brazil to interview the family and friends. I had the great misfortune to listen to him on the World Service. He came across like a rabble rouser, trying his best to whip up indignation and anger against the British police. It was one of the most extraordinary examples of bias that I have encountered from the BBC. Here was a “journalist”, from his accent most probably born and bred in Britain, doing his utmost to trash his fellow Brits – who had made a tragic mistake under extreme pressure shortly after the terror attacks on the tube.
If the BBC had any integrity whatsoever, it would take subversive hacks like that and offer them more suitable employment such as washing the floors. It would also apologise for letting them loose on an unsuspecting public.
dave t | Homepage | 30.09.07 – 6:49 pm | #
“Err no but the fact that when immigration is seen to be good or a LABOUR minister comments it hits the front page. When it appears to be bad news (ie more resources used on people who are not even part of what used to be our Empire ie Somalia!) or something that confirms what the Tories have been saying it gets buried pretty damm quick.”
So you are accusing the BBC of burying this then? Like I said, pretty unfair as many stories about the bad points of immigration featuring prominently in BBC news coverage.
If you weren’t then why was POLITICS highlighted in this way?
“…but the fact that…”
You seem to use the term very loosly.
What % of BBC immigration stories highlighting the negative parts of immigration are not featured on the front page of the BBC news homepage or on BBC TV news in this way? What hard measures are we using here? Where is this reliably catalogued?
“When 2 employees of BBC Worldwide embezzled millions of pounds of income from the Teletubbies BBC News failed to report the story. Why would it do that if they weren’t connected?”
Voice of Reason | 01.10.07 – 3:05 pm | #
I did a little Google search and I cannot find any articles that were written by a major UK news outlet other than the Media Guardian.
Assuming that I haven’t missed something, can I also assume that the Independent, Sun, Times, Telegraph… are connected with BBC Worldwide?
(Just questioning your logic, not saying that BBC and BBCWW are not connected because they quite obviously are)
Bryan:
“It was one of the most extraordinary examples of bias that I have encountered from the BBC.”
Just an observation here, but on this blog, bias seems to mean any example of a “left wing” article being produced by the BBC (obviously a very subjective definition).
What I do seem to see lacking is the appreciation of bias as a statistical concept. For example, when a BBC employee mentioned that “hysterical” had no place in that article, the cry was “at least they admit their own bias”. One word is not bias!
I’ll ask everyone associated with the blog: could you ever envisage any of the ‘bias’ catalogued on this website forming part of a peer-reviewed article entitled “Is the BBC biased?” or “In what way is the BBC biased?”.
As you can probably guess, I would say no.
So just to conlude this, from regularly reading this blog, I can see that this provides an occasionally excellent editorial service for BBC news (the “hysterical” example being one) and discussions about whether BBCWW should buy anything are very interesting. However, as any sort of study or discussion into actual bias, I cannot say that it really works.
[/dillusion that anyone actually cares what I think]
[The Moderator: Because of the impartiality requirement, BBC bias is often expressed in a subtle way. Despite that, though, I would say that a peer-reviewed statistical study could be done that would show BBC bias. Here’s an easy example to start with: catalogue the number of left-wing comments made by comedians who appear on BBC comedy shows with the number of right-wing comments. What do *you* think the results of that would be?]
The commercial operation is semi-independent of the licence-fee funded part of the BBC. Last year it made £111 million operating profit on sales of £810 million. It is responsible for the BBC’s international activities, plus some paid-for products including Radio Times and half of UK TV in Britain.
Brilliant! We pay the licence fee so that the BBC can play at being Real Global Capitalists with our cash whilst pushing a Socialist agenda in the home market.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2570467.ece
BBC Promotes Shari’a Law in Britain.
Shari’a comes to the United Kingdom, with the blessings of the British Broadcasting Corporation:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27324_BBC_Promotes_Sharia_Law_in_Britain&only
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1650000/newsid_1656100/1656136.stm
Another article for children about Afghanistan:
During the time that the Taleban controlled Afghanistan, they allowed an organisation called al Qaeda to have training camps there.
What sort of ‘organisation’ could they have been I wonder? Jam-making? A knitting group? Any ideas?
[The Moderator: Shug, I’ve deleted this because I just don’t think the claim that the BBC made Brown-visits-Iraq a Breaking News story in order to deflect attention from the Conservative conference holds up (the papers are running with it as well).]
For the record, the Teletubbies fraud case, involving BBC Worldwide executive Jeff Taylor, was widely reported in newspapers when Taylor was jailed in 2004. For the record also, the case was reported by the BBC – for example here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/3451521.stm
By this time, Mr Taylor was firmly being described as an ex-BBC employee – he was sacked after the fraud came to light.
“fnu snu:
I heard Alan Bolton on Sky say that Labour (Darling on CH4 for instance) were commenting on Tories policies while the conference is going on and that this goes against precedent. i.e. Labour shouldn’t be doing it.
Haven’t been watching the Beeb but have any of the Gvnt been on?”
Certainlythe BBC have been adding a “The government thinks this proposal is unworkable/uncosted/…” message to the end of every reported Conservative proposal, I don’t recall them doing similar last week for Gordon’s proposals.
Just an observation here, but on this blog, bias seems to mean any example of a “left wing” article being produced by the BBC (obviously a very subjective definition).
MisterMinit | 02.10.07 – 1:55 am
Actually, I seldom think in terms of “left-wing” when observing and highlighting BBC bias. Put another way, I don’t think, ah, here’s yet another example of BBC left-wing bias, but rather concentrate on the specific instance of bias itself. We know the BBC is thoroughly permeated with university miseducated left-wing types and it’s enough to mention that fact occasionally rather than harp on it. The de Menezes report on the World Service went far beyond a simple question of left as opposed to right-wing views. Here was a supposedly impartial “journalist” for a supposedly impartial publicly-funded news service rolling up his sleeves and laying into the British police responsible for the de Menedez tragedy while apparently blissfully unaware that he was doing so from a country in which the police force is far less restrained than in Britain. There was no attempt at any balance in his report. He was simply pushing his one-sided agenda and acting as publicist for the outraged family and friends of de Menedez. This is journalism?
You might find comfort in your attempt to categorise my reaction to the bias, and thereby imply that people on this blog are guilty of knee-jerk reactions to the left-wing, but I reiterate that it was an extreme example of BBC bias. If that particular BBC hack has a problem with the role of the police in countering Islamic terror to the extent that he becomes outraged when the police make a tragic mistake in the course of that particular duty, he has no business inflicting his extreme views on the public while gorging at the public trough. No doubt he could find employment at a rag like the “Independent” or the Guardian.
Until such time as the BBC purges itself of hacks who use the corporation to propagandise and propagate their narrow agenda, it will be worthy of the contempt in which it is held in the blogosphere and beyond.
Did anyone have the misfortune to hear the farming news on Radio 4 this morning? A typical piece of BBC anti middle class, anti-country side smeer against the farming community. Holding up Gang masters (of all people) as the good guys and farmers as evil as gang masters are unable to get sufficient rises out of the farmers to in their words “cover the minimum wage increase”. As with anyone, if they have their pricing strategy wrong, it is not the customers fault. If the market cannot take the increase, you accept a lower margin. The BBC cannot recognise this, and rather then let economics get in the way, they would sooner use this non-story to smeer farmers as evil and mean. In BBC mindset, the only farming that is good, is organic. And even then it cannot be tollerated if made on a mass scale as heaven forbid, it could be made for profit. As such, in BBC world, the only ideal farming is done in Africa etc via organic means and with a ethical pricing. Everyone else is evil. What a disgrace. They can shove their ethnic fair trade, champagne socialist ideals up their ethical behinds.
gharqad tree | 29.09.07 – 11:29 am,
Yes, it is refreshing to see the BBC take the highly unusual step of reporting positively on Israel:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7016176.stm
However, I note, as pounce did on the last open thread
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5517117504222731736/#371002
that the BBC cannot quite bring itself to give an open and honest account of the contrast between Israel’s treatment of Muslims from a hostile country with the treatment meted out to them by their fellow-Muslims, the Egyptians.
Have a look at this slick, typical BBC trick. (My emphasis in bold):
Alone and separated from his family, Adam trekked from one village to another, eluding rebels, sleeping rough and spending time in jail, before escaping to Egypt.
One night, in Sinai, he says, he saw the twinkling lights of Israel and simply walked across the border. He was arrested, jailed again, then sent to live on a kibbutz.
The impression gained here is that Egypt is somehow a benevolent transit-point for those Sudanese wishing to enter Israel when in fact the Egyptians have treated them with extraordinary brutality, shoving them into camps and gunning them down when they demonstrate against the conditions therein and beating and killing them when they try to escape to Israel. Note that the first indication in the report of anything negative happening to the refugee once outside Sudan is that he was arrested and jailed in Israel. No mention, of course, that Israel is obliged to take such initial precautionary action since Sudan is an enemy country. (The BBC might also like to note that Sudan was for some time Osama bin Laden territory.)
And of course, no BBC report on refugees would be complete without a snide dig at Israel by mention of Palestinian “refugees”:
The Israeli state refuses to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their former homes within the country’s pre-1967 borders, arguing such a move would threaten Israel’s survival as a Jewish state.
After all, this is the BBC we’re talking about.
No, of course not Susan. At least, not in the way described. You’ll soon learn that facts are not exactly sacred at Biased-BBC.
There was a case some years back involving a bloke called Taylor. In this case there was one BBC employee involved (not two). He was tried, convicted and jailed not in the UK, but in China.
There was no embezzlement of millions of pounds of income from the Teletubbies. In fact, there was no embezzlement at all. Taylor was convicted of taking a bribe (of c £188,000 ) from a supplier.
Needless to say, the Teletubbies were not involved.
So, wrong number of perps, wrong crime, wrong sums involved – and all in a foreign jurisdiction to boot (not something VoR chose to mention). Can we safely accept, therefore, VoR’s parting shot about the BBC refusing to report the affair?
Of course not. There are at least 3 stories about it on the BBC News website. Follow the link below to find them.
Meanwhile, Bryan thinks he can remember a bloke saying biased things on World Service from Brazil, sometime in the summer of 2005………. No chance of a name or a rough transcript of the words complained of, I suppose?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/3…/uk/ 3451521.stm
For clarification…my last comment should have had this at the top:
When 2 employees of BBC Worldwide embezzled millions of pounds of income from the Teletubbies, BBC News failed to report the story. ……….Voice of Reason | 01.10.07 – 3:05 pm
Have you any links for this? Did it ever happen?
Susan B (BBC) | 01.10.07 – 3:15 pm
The Times is running a story on the Lonely Planet acquisition.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2570467.ece
It seems that the deal is attracting the attention of the Parliamentary Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.
“The deal also courted controversy, with one influential MP asking whether the BBC should own a company with little connection to the broadcaster.
John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, asked: “Why should the BBC effectively nationalise a publisher? Where do its commercial activities stop?”
Despite the rather shrill denials from Susan at the BBC, it seems that it is not just B-BBC readers who think there is something deeply murky about this issue. I predict it will not die an early death as an issue.
If the BBC is now getting into the world of mergers and acquisitions, how will this square with its historically hostile and economically illiterate coverage of such events in the City? Imagine if the next deal involved…perish the thought….the evil of our times…private equity?
Listening to Radio 4 this morning it’s interesting how Cameron is now being derided for having too many policies (and people will never understand them all) where as last week he had no policies (so nobody could ever vote for him!)
John Reith: “You’ll soon learn that facts are not exactly sacred at Biased-BBC”
And you’ll soon learn that JR is always happy to associate Biased BBC, the blog, with any and every third-party comment left here that he disagrees with or can pick holes in.
Biased BBC is no more related to your complaint JR than you are to anything that ever gets mentioned on the BBC’s [Don’t] Have Your Say threads.
Ah, Reith is back, picking off the weakest member of the pack as usual.
Andrew 02.10.07 – 11:40 am
Ah, silly me, I forgot that the blogspot operation and the haloscan division are ‘seperate entities’. Sorry.
Meanwhile, I am happy to be able to tell all concerned commenters here that the BBC does indeed have to charge a fair transfer price for any rights etc passed onto BBC Worldwide for onward exploitation.
The BBC is not merely subject to UK and EU competition law, but to extra regulation that forms part of its charter.
This is aimed at ensuring that any BBC commercial activity serves a legitimate public purpose and does not distort the market.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/commercial_guides/
So pithy Spencer – and so true!
Meanwhile, Bryan thinks he can remember a bloke saying biased things on World Service from Brazil, sometime in the summer of 2005………. No chance of a name or a rough transcript of the words complained of, I suppose?
John Reith | 02.10.07 – 11:01 am
Thanks for the laugh, John Reith. While complaining of my lack of a link (when you know very well that I supply one whenever I possibly can) you yourself proceed to give us a broken link. You were also recently asked on numerous occasions to tell us how you managed to “find” radio clips way back in the past – BBC clips that were not available as links to the general public.
So here’s what I suggest you do: find the link yourself (it was shortly after the de Menedez killing) and then we can discuss the issue further. It shouldn’t be too difficult for someone with your connections in the corporation.
Failing that, I suggest you apologise to me for the implication that I, as a mere member of the public, should have been able to provide a link to a World Service clip from way back.
Meanwhile, I will try to find my original post on the issue. But no time now for same.
You are slipping, John Reith. You are usually far better at concealing your duplicitous dealings here.
jr
“This is aimed at ensuring that any BBC commercial activity serves a legitimate public purpose and does not distort the market.”
And the legitimate public purpose of buying Lonely Planet is what exactly ?
What next?
JR: “Ah, silly me, I forgot that the blogspot operation and the haloscan division are ‘seperate entities’. Sorry.”
Good JR, but not nearly as pithy as Spencer. One is the Biased BBC blog, the other is comments from third-parties discussing the Biased BBC blog, including your good self. Do you see the difference now?
Are you well? Or just under pressure? It’s not like you, normally such a stickler about spelling and suchlike, to misspell ‘separate’.
Bryan
I didn’t ask you for a link. I asked for the name of the reporter. And maybe a clearer idea of what you found objectionable in what he said.
(btw: The BBC Sound Archive catalogue is available to the general public.)
Was that a hectoring James Naughtie I heard this morning? Could he have been interviewing David Cameron?
I say: Hector away Smug one, but just remember to do the same with your pin up as well.
Quelle coincidence! Gordon Brown visits Basra and announces a reduction in troop numbers during the Conservatives’ party conference. It’s headline news.
No suggestion that Brown’s visit and announcement are politically motivated ‘spoilers’ designed to undermine the Tories or anything unseemly like that. No mention either that this ‘good news’ was scheduled to be announced next week. Oh no.
Actually, there is nothing in the BBC news to suggest this might be case at all. No suggestion either that Brown might possibly be have played some part in the Iraq mess – after all, he only funded it with tax-payers’ money. And how many times did he visit the troops before he became prime-minister-in-waiting’?
No, it’s good news all the way!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7023366.stm
By coincidence, the shadow defence secretary has launched a scathing attack on Brown’s treatment of the armed forces. But don’t worry, kidz: it’s buried in the politics section of the BBC website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7023735.stm
Amazing: it’s like a brand new government, isn’t it? Tony Blair leaves office and suddenly we have a brand new, charismatic leader whom everyone loves, and Iraq is no longer the issue.
It’s magick!
>This is aimed at ensuring that any BBC commercial activity serves a legitimate public purpose and does not distort the market.
How on Earth can buying a major travel guide company not distort the market?
So all Susan B’s various comments on BBC-W buying LP amounted to in the end was the claim that it was legal. Yes, well we all knew that. That was never at issue, Susan. The actual issue was that BBC-W is indirectly subsidized by the BBC (through its trading on the BBC’s reputation, being as it is a part of the BBC), which means that we are indirectly subsidizing BBC-W’s activities in the commercial book market.
Did anyone catch
Inside a Shari’ah Court: This World
last night at 9pm on BBC2?
[Remainder of comment deleted. Matthew, please reserve critical comments for shows you’ve watched. The Moderator]
No suggestion that Brown’s visit and announcement are politically motivated ‘spoilers’ designed to undermine the Tories or anything unseemly like that. No mention either that this ‘good news’ was scheduled to be announced next week. Oh no.
Actually, there is nothing in the BBC news to suggest this might be case at all.
Well wonders will never cease. WATO did their best to cover the idea this just might – erm – be a bit of a cyncial stunt by our great PM (not that he ever indulges in such base activities). They ran an excellent clip from Liam Fox that tears Brown’s conference speech to shreds “126 words. One for every two service men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope you remember that when you are having your photo opportunities in Iraq today.”
Mark Urban went on to give a good analysis. Kearney then gave William Hague a chance to comment. Actually Brown has stuffed himself with this latest cunning stunt, and maybe even the BBC have had to recognise it. Either that or they’re reading this site.