(follow-up to this post and this post)
At Harry’s Place (and in the BBBC comments – apologies – Ritter was there first !) they’ve been taking a look at the BBC editorial guidelines.
The Terrorism Act 2000
We have a legal obligation under the Terrorism Act 2000 to disclose to the police, as soon as reasonably practicable, any information which we know or believe might be of material assistance in:
preventing the commission of an act of terrorism anywhere in the world.
securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person in the UK, for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
It is a criminal offence not to disclose such information, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Any situation where BBC staff may be in potential breach of the Terrorism Act must be referred to Controller Editorial Policy and Programme Legal Advice.
I’m not sure how that squares with this:
Nasreen Suleaman, a researcher on the programme, told the court that Mr Hamid, 50, contacted her after the July 2005 attack and told her of his association with the bombers. But she said that she felt no obligation to contact the police with this information. Ms Suleaman said that she informed senior BBC managers but was not told to contact the police.
This prima facie looks very bad for someone – but if Ms Suleaman reported to the “Controller Editorial Policy and Programme Legal Advice” I’d say she was in the clear as far as following the Beeb guidelines was concerned. Who did she report to ? And did the BBC tell the police ?
(From the HP comments – producer Phil Rees, who now works for Al-Jazeera, gave a C4 news interview claiming that the conviction of “Osama bin London” meant that it was now illegal to criticise British foreign policy. And the video of “Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic” appears to have vanished from the BBC site)
More on Phil Rees, who doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as a terrorist. You can see why the BBC commission so much stuff from him.
I’m surprised this hasn’t been picked up by this blog before. It was covered in Dec 2007 in a wide variety of newspapers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&in_page_id=1770
In particular:
Ms Suleaman said: ‘I got the sense that he was already talking to the police.’ She added: ‘I referred it to my immediate boss at the BBC. I wasn’t told that there was an obligation.
‘I obviously had to report back to my immediate manager at the BBC. In fact it was referred above her as well.
‘It was such a big story. At one stage the head of news at the BBC was involved. No one at any stage said there was an obligation.’
In response to Laban’s question Suleaman’s arse is covered. Mind you – didn’t help Fincham much.
Not the Beeb’s finest hour.
“If we do not want to describe America and Britain as terrorist nations, the only principled alternative is to purge the word from the lexicon of journalism.” Phil Res
Love those principles Phil.
Right, her arse is covered. Let’s target the one above her.
And remember, this all happened AFTER the 7th July attacks. This wasn’t pre 7/7, when the BBC could witter on about whether terrorism actually existed.
Someone should go to prison for this.
Anonymous:
I’m surprised this hasn’t been picked up by this blog before. It was covered in Dec 2007 in a wide variety of newspapers.
It has been. In December and yesterday on a thread below. The traitors at the BBC will be brought to book.
‘Right, her arse is covered.’
I wonder if it is. The law says she should have told the police, not her boss. I think she has merely made her superiors as guilty as she is.
It’s my money, via the licence fee, that funded that paintballing trip, and I’m utterly furious. I hope that Nasreem woman gets the sack. More likely to earn Brownie points from Al Beeb.
Yesterday The Times online had an article about the BBC’s role in this, but I couldn’t see anything in the paper today. Wonder why not.
Hazel, is thisd the article?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3001102.ece
The BBC funded a paintballing trip for men later accused of Islamic terrorism and failed to pass on information about the 21/7 bombers to police, a court was told yesterday.
Write to your MP. I have
Laban’s question was:
“I’d say she was in the clear as far as following the Beeb guidelines was concerned. Who did she report to ? And did the BBC tell the police ?”
She has referred up, and judging by that Mail court report, it’s gone up much higher. So, in the context of the Beeb guidelines, the buck has passed on.
What the Law make of it, is an entirely different matter.
Could they have done something earlier (seeing as the matter came up in court in early December) or did they need to wait for a conviction?
I agree with the first post, why wasn’t this picked up earlier?
I posted about it and about Nasreen Suleaman back in Dec last year.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2007/12/uk-bbc-took-217-muslim-terrorist.html
“BBC complicit in protecting jihadists?”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020115.php
Osma’s wife is being prosecuted for failing to tell police she had information relating to an act of terrorism:
Wife ‘knew about 21/7 bomb plot’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7267055.stm
“The wife of failed 21 July bomber Hussain Osman failed to report him to police despite knowing about his plans for “mass murder”, a court has heard.
Yeshi Girma also helped Osman flee to Brighton after the attempted attacks in London in 2005, the Old Bailey heard.
Ms Girma, 31, from Stockwell, south London, denies that she had information about terrorism and “without reasonable excuse” failed to disclose it.”
Phil Res, Nasreen Suleaman, other BBC employees next?
There goes al-beeb again, “Mass Murder.” Osman was frigging convicted for trying to repeat what happened on 7/7.
Al-Beeb = Accomplices to Mass Murder
“Nasrean Suleaman’s Misprison of Felony”
(by Hugh Fitzgerald).
(suggest ‘Google’:Misprison of Felony.)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/13239
marc:
I agree with the first post, why wasn’t this picked up earlier?
I posted about it and about Nasreen Suleaman back in Dec last year.
marc | Homepage | 27.02.08 – 4:40 pm | #
It was picked up. I am now waiting for David Gregory and John Reith in particular to add their comments as promised back in December on this linked thread.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3721989577720589941/
David Gregory: “…..I’m happy to join in the discussion on this when the case is over. But posting under my own name as a BBC journalist I think I really have to wait until the end of the case.”
Well it’s over so let’s hear it.
meggoman:
“Well it’s over so let’s hear it.”
David Gregory has retired from these forums. I think he finally realised the only people he could convince the BBC aren’t biased were sitting across the desk from him.
David Gregory: “…..I’m happy to join in the discussion on this when the case is over. But posting under my own name as a BBC journalist I think I really have to wait until the end of the case.”
Well it’s over so let’s hear it.
meggoman | 27.02.08 – 6:54 pm | #
Yes Meggo, I remember that too.
I also blogged about Ms Suleaman – and pointed out she shared a platform at some Multicult Fest with Cressida (Brazilian Whacks) Dicks of the Yard.
All together now – come on David G, let’s hear from you.
Apologies: re- 6:53 pm.
Legal reference should be:
“misprision of felony” ( suggest non-legal eagles ‘google’phrase).
meggoman and PFJ,
All the adult Beeboids have left the building. Both SJ and DG said something about being bored with the trolls and flame wars. I believe JR stuck his head in once last week.
Also, they are uncomfortable with the continued focus on the Islam problem. It smells too much like prejudice to them, even though it’s really sort of the reverse. Notice they all gave up long ago having anything to do with discussions of any “stock villains, ” such as Plett, Bowen, and Frei.
But it’s not like they have a valid defense for any of them.
I’m sure they’ll have a look soon enough to see if things have calmed down, and they’ll speak up again.
I’m thinking of putting together a Freedom of information request to the BBC about this.
These are the questions I want answers to.
1. On what date, after the 21st of July bomb attacks, was Ms Suleiman contacted by Mr Hamid?
2. How many conversations did Ms Suleiman subsequently have with Mr Hamid before the bombers were apprehended?
3. On what dates did Ms Suleiman notify her superiors of the phone conversation with Mr Hamid?
4. What are the names of all the individuals at the BBC that Ms Suleiman notified about this conversation with Mr Hamid?
5. On what dates were all these individuals notified about the conversation with Mr Hamid?
6. Did these, or any other individuals, employed by or operating on behalf of the BBC, speak to Mr Hamid between the dates of his first contact with Ms Suleiman and the arrest of the bombers by the police?
6. On what grounds did Ms Suleiman, and all of these individuals base their decision that the police did not need to be informed?
Can anyone think of anything else?
It is doubtful there will be any response from the Beeboids,this isn’t a career advancement issue. The word will have been sent out by the BBC Commissars to leave this alone.
Well we wont leave it alone. Hopefully Vance wil get his finger out and start a hate mail campaign.
Can anyone think of anything else?
Stuck-Record | 27.02.08 – 7:58 pm
Could ask for all internal BBC documentation (e-mails, meeting minutes etc) relating to the conversations.
Perfect analysis and obvious conclusions of why the BBC should not be paid for by the British licence payers.
Who is it they are actually answerable too?.
Al qaeda?.
“Who is it they are actually answerable too?”
European Union/Eurabia
As a low-grade Beeboid, I was expecting a welter of very embarrassing headlines in the papers the day after this trial concluded. I’m not sure why we haven’t been done bang to rights, to be honest (although I don’t think it’s bias, I think it’s incompetence).
Incompetence? Maybe. But funny how the “incompetence” ALWAYS relates to Islam, terrorism, global warming, imigration, EC matters etc etc etc. Are we perhaps detecting a pattern of “incompetence” here?
BBC dictionary definition of Incompetence.
Standard excuse, copping out technique. Effective means of avoiding responsibility and passing the buck.
No one in the MSM wants to run with this ball.It has almost completely disappeared from the radar.
Why would this be? The Telegraph for example and the Mail have no love of the BBC and are not usually slow to pick up on something like this.
What if someone higher up in the BBC DID alert the police after Ms.Suleiman notified them.For various reasons,the last thing they would want would be to let the jihadis know about it.
It goes against the grain I know,but it is possible that the correct headline here might be:”BBC executive does right thing,shock.”
Stranger things have happened.
Don’t expect Ms Suleaman to get the sack any time soon. She hasn’t worked at the beeb for ages. Last heard of working for Channel 4’s Dispatches.Stuck Record’s questions are the right ones, but can’t be got through freedom of information rules – just like the Balen report.
Did the Beeb know of the rooftop protest yesterday beforehand?
bob:
Incompetence? Maybe. But funny how the “incompetence” ALWAYS relates to Islam, terrorism, global warming, imigration, EC matters etc etc etc. Are we perhaps detecting a pattern of “incompetence” here?
Nail on the head, bob.
Nail on the head.
Let’s look back at the last few months of islamophile, terrorist-tickling, eco-euro “incompetence”, shall we?
1. Crowngate: The Queen traduced by a dodgy documentary maker. Islamists to a man.
2. Blue Peter’s made-up phone-in compo. Don’t tell me the Greens weren’t behind it.
3. The Blue Peter cat. An immigrant, I’ve no doubt.
4. Wall-to-wall rugby. Something Islamic. No sane person likes rugby.
5. Radio 6’s fiddled competitions. The shadow of terrorism can’t be far behind it.
6. Noddiegate. Alan Yentob, were you secretly plotting the downfall of Western civilisation while you were being filmed pretending to do your interviews (even though it turns out you were not guilty)?
7. The faked crying baby soundtrack on BBC News. Disguising a call to prayer, and no mistake.
Case proved. Bring out the tumbrils.
Biased BBC: 2 + 2 = 3.14127
dave fordwych: I think it more likely that it’s because journalists are generally not that keen of any law that challenges their ability to keep sources confidential. Of course, this doesn’t really seem to have been the concern in this case with the Beeb, but it might explain why others aren’t keen to put the boot in.
Hillhunt:
Why are you avoiding the other thread relating to Don’t Panic I’m Islamic’ you coward.
Hillhunt:
D’you know, I’d forgotten the infinite variety of the Beeb’s “incompetence” until you reminded me. Thanks!
Quite enjoyed the wall-to-wall rugby actually. It’s the daytime shows in peak that get on my nerves – cook yourself a makeover and such like.
Anonymous:
Hillhunt:
Why are you avoiding the other thread relating to Don’t Panic I’m Islamic’ you coward.
Anonymous | 28.02.08 – 11:20 am | #
Correction the other ‘points’ not the other thread
Anonymous:
Why are you avoiding the other thread relating to Don’t Panic I’m Islamic’ you coward.
Good point.
I’m with fordwych. It seems dumb and against the spirit of the law, but I strongly suspect that someone at the BBC will have done the right thing. There is no way that the senior legal people would leave the corporation open to prosecution under the act. It would be routine for journalists investigating terrorist-related cases to be warned that they may be obliged to pass on information to the police, so it’s unlikely that they’d differ in this case.
It would not be in anyone’s interests for the BBC or the police to acknowledge such an exchange of information, not least because journalists in general do have good reason not to be seen to be police snouts, as Hugh points out above.
The silence of the Sun, Mail & Telegraph is pretty telling. Dog routinely eats dog – think of the press’s outraged reaction to Death On The Rock – which leads me to suspect that they’ve been briefed that it’s a non-issue.
How do we disseminate this information to the public in such a way as to arouse enough anger that people publicly burn their TV licences and lynch Mark Thompson?
Dr R:
How do we disseminate this information to the public in such a way as to arouse enough anger that people publicly burn their TV licences and lynch Mark Thompson?
An excellent question and one that people frequently ask me.
Some suggestions:
1. Ignore the fact that people use their tellies for all sorts of interesting and entertaining stuff and don’t share your narrow-minded obsession with the BBC’s non-existent Islamic conspiracies.
2. Use the word Islam a lot without being specific. Always scares the punters.
3. Tell lies. Ends/means.
4. Lose all sense of your own morality and/or sense of proportion.
5. Get in touch with your inner psycopath.
Biased BBC: A lynching! Yeeeeee-Haw!
Your comments suggest that people at the Beeb would have done the “right thing” only under instruction from lawyers Hillhunt. What an interesting moral universe you inhabit. Some people would try to do the right thing regardless of what such and such an act said…oops, I guess that suggests there is some kind of absolute moral standard though. Silly me.
tel:
Your comments suggest that people at the Beeb would have done the “right thing” only under instruction from lawyers Hillhunt. What an interesting moral universe you inhabit.
I can see why you read it that way, but I meant right in the absolute sense. The reference to lawyers was to suggest that in any event the corporate mindset would be to act on well-founded advice.
“people use their tellies for all sorts of interesting and entertaining stuff”
Indeed they do, but increasingly rarely does it involve watching the BBC. They still get sent to prison if they don’t pay their telly poll-tax, though.
Phil:
Indeed they do, but increasingly rarely does it involve watching the BBC.
Y-e-e-s. There’s an inevtiable migration of audience in the digital age, but the US experience with multi-channel, which has been going on much longer, suggests that the original players have to screw up badly to lose their overall audience loyalty.
In the last year, the main BBC audience held up far better than 4 and 5, and ITV’s fragile renaissance was from a very low ebb in the years before.
Hillhunt: thank you for clarifying the previous post. Re Phil’s post, I have no doubt that the Beeb enjoys strong viewing numbers. That’s fine. That also implies that that the Beeb would do just fine as a commercial entity, operating without a tax payer subsidy, unless of course you argue that the only reason the beeb performs well and produces a quality product is because of this levy – but I find that hard to believe. E.g. we have a lively, quality print media in this country and I suspect most people would be averse to the notion of a tax funded newpaper. If you’re so confident in the quality of the beeb’s output (and unlike many on this site I believe there is some decent stuff)then why the fear of competing in the free market?
tel:
If you’re so confident in the quality of the beeb’s output (and unlike many on this site I believe there is some decent stuff)then why the fear of competing in the free market?
I volunteered an answer on a previous visit to these pages a while ago. Here’s an edited version:
1. Almost nobody in the commercial broadcasting sector would want the BBC privatised. The BBC would suck so much advertising/sponsorship/subscription revenue out of the market, several others woud go under. What would that do for choice?
2. The competition for revenue would force naked populism to replace width and quality – just look at the blandness of American mainstream TV. Many valued services would disappear as the advertisers demanded they emphasise the key buying markets, of which the 16-34 year-olds are by far the most desirable. Yoof TV anyone?
3. It would potentially leave the BBC open to pressure from advertisers, threatening the BBC’s unique championing of consumer issues. When did ITV, Channel 4 or Sky last broadcast a consumer series willing to take on big business on behalf of the ordinary viewer?
4. Look what has happened as competition has bitten hard at ITV and others. More me-too reality shows, greedy quizzes, tabloid journalism and much, much less regional programming.
5. When did we last see a major UK media company run by an enlightened, hands-off owner? Maxwell and the Mirror? Conrad Black? Richard Desmond? Carlton TV? The Barclay Brothers? You really prefer people like these to the BBC?
6. Take Murdoch: The coarsening of tabloid culture, cheque-book journalism, sleazeballs like Clive Goodman and Mahzer Mahmood, kow-towing to China, overdue influence on politicians, tax avoidance and the corrupting of professional sport. Fancy him in charge of the Beeb? Really?
7. The overwhelming majority of people use the BBC regularly, value it and use it as a model to judge its rivals. Parliament knows that and does not demur when renewing the licence. The sums involved are trivial, and yes, they impact worse on the poor…as do most purchase taxes, because living costs make up a higher proportion of poor people’s income than others’. If a tipping point arises and people stop valuing the BBC and are prepared to pay through the nose (look at Sky’s subscription costs) for the same services – because advertising-dominated services will increasingly aim for yoof and other specific audiences – then the world will change.
But I suspect that won’t be for a while….
Hillhunt
1)Why not let the market decide whether that turns out to be the case. If it does, happy days for the beeb.
2)Doubtful; there are many quality niche channels in the US and elsewhere catering to less “populist” interests (not sure I view populism with the same suspicion and disdain as you do by the way. And be careful- it’s the populous that pays your wages, you have a moral and commercial obligation to give them what they want).
3)I don’t need the beeb to “champion” my cause against big buisness; if I don’t like big buisness I vote with my feet and wallet. Hint: pause to think why big buisnesses are big- it’s possibly because people like their products and services…
4)the beeb churns out its fair share of crap…
5)if I don’t, I don’t tune in or buy their product. I value my feedom of choice above your wish to judge what does or does not constitute quality on my behalf.
6)Not sure the beeb has clothed itself in glory over the past 12 months…cats, drugs, gay rape, paint ball outings with angry people of no particular religious affiliation
7)Let those who share these sentiments pay a subscription.
Your comments are indicative of a classic anti-liberal (in the true sense of the word, before the left turned it on its head) elitist mindset. Why are tv and radio different from any other sphere of the economy? Why can’t people decide what they want to spend their money on? Why do we need the beeb to intermediate on our behalf?
I’m sure the trolls are spacking out with joy now that they can blame this on incompentance, but consider this:
Duncan Penny, for the prosecution, asked Ms Suleaman if she had told Mr Hamid to go to the police or contacted the police herself. Mr Penny asked: “Here was a man who told you that he knew those individuals who, as I understand it, were still at large for what on the face of it was the attempted bombings of the transport network a fortnight after it happened, and he was telling you he had some knowledge of them? There was a worldwide manhunt going on, wasn’t there?”
Why would there be an issue about Mr Hamid going to the police otherwise? If the suspects weren’t ACTUALLY terrorists and ACTUALLY on the run, it would be just a normal case of BBC giving licence payers money to people committed to the destruction of the United Kingdom: i.e. a normal working day (Omar Bakri Mohammed, Inyat Bungawala, MAB, MCB etc.
The BBC is damned out of her mouth, it amounts to a confession. Ignorance is no defence.
I made a video about this.
HH
“The overwhelming majority of people use the BBC regularly, value it……….. ”
Unfortunately.
Did you write that some time ago or haven’t you noticed that the output has degenerated into a blur of populist viewing figure fodder.
“…..and use it as a model to judge its rivals”
What once might have been true -is now the opposite. Your favourite aunt now seems to be using commercial telly as the role model.
There are still some good bits, I’m sure. If you say so.
But I am pleased to see you making a positive contribution Hilly for a change, no sneering today. Now how about a short eulogy on the innocuous nature of the benign religion of peace, with coda: the BBC’s surprisingly detached representation of such a gentle phenomenon.
Peace be upon you