The BBC’s dislike of all things British is nowhere more evident than in its dislike of the British Army. Concepts such as patriotism and warrior bravery are perhaps a little too old fashioned in sophisticated metrosexual BBC circles. So a story like this is manna from heaven for Al Beeb and boy does it relish reporting the news that “the Ministry of Defence has agreed to pay almost £3m in damages to Iraqis who were tortured by UK troops in Basra in 2003, their solicitors say.” The use of the word “tortured” is under scrutiny since this is an allegation, not a proven fact. Indeed SIX of the seven soldiers who had this charge levelled against them were found INNOCENT and the a seventh soldier who was rightly punished admitted treating Iraqis inhumanely. Quite where the torture slur comes from I do not know, other than the BBC enthusiastically insert it into the first sentence. It’s not enough that our soldiers have to fight against Jihadi in Iraq, they also have to cope with the State Broadcaster taking every opportunity to stab them in the back.
BRITISH ARMY – PUBLIC ENEMY NO 1.
Bookmark the permalink.
Just looking at johnny funny can end up being construed as torture these days!
Im surprised you missed the story this morning on the general state of the military after the MOD released details of a survey its just completed.
And lets not forget the relesh some scum jumped on the anti-military band wagon when Compulsory service was being discussed on Al Beeb. Who ever the anti-military scum was, he was dead set against national service due to the large number of ex military service personal in prison because they cant adapt after leaving the army! No info on where the socialist scum got that info of course, and definately no questioning from Al Beeb!
Mailman
Hi David
You write:
“It’s not enough that our soldiers have to fight against Jihadi in Iraq, they also have to cope with the State Broadcaster taking every opportunity to stab them in the back.”
Guess the BBC is trying to make up for this and plans to broadcast a three hour tribute to fallen soldiers.
“BBC to broadcast three-hour tribute to fallen soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan
The BBC is to broadcast a three-hour tribute to serviceman and woman who have died serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
More on link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/digitallife/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/07/10/nbbc210.xml
Not sure what constitutes torture for you but this:
“Mr Mousa sustained 93 separate injuries, including fractured ribs and a broken nose. During the mediation session General Freddie Viggers also apologised to the families for “the appalling behaviour of British soldiers” which had left the Army “disgusted”, the law firm said in a statement.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4311297.ece
You mention
“Quite where the torture slur comes from I do not know, other than the BBC enthusiastically insert it into the first sentence.”
I know, glad the State Broadcaster is not the Times:
“MoD to pay £3 million in compensation to Iraqi torture victims”
They even put it in the headline.
But then those “pesky” Iraqis are a bit soft and die after 93 separate injuries, including fractured ribs and a broken nose. Perhaps they are to backward to negotiate door frames and steps. Who knows.
Not content with impugning Brit service personnel at every opportunity the BBC are running this:
Torture chamber music
David Gray has lambasted American interrogators for allegedly using his music to help extract information from internees in Iraq. Why might his music be chosen and what effect on prisoners is music meant to achieve?
This is not the first we’ve heard of familiar recordings being used in the “war on terror” – in 2003, Rick Hoffman, a veteran of US psy-ops – “psychological operations” – talked to the BBC about the use of tunes from Sesame Street and Barney The Dinosaur to break the will of Iraqi captives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7495175.stm
Just love the use of the word ‘lambasted’ and the beeb’s constant use of inverted commas around “war on terror”
And as for Barney The Dinosaur tunes, how in the world can:
“I love You and You love me, and we’re a happy family” be construed as “torture”.
On second thoughts……
gunnar: The use of the word ‘torture’ was NOT from the Government but the solicitors. There is no evidence of ‘torture’ in the MoD statement.
Did you miss the item on “Today” this morning about the help that’s being offered to homeless ex-servicemen! Not “bashing the army” at all.
Martin: so the word “torture” wasn’t in the government press release. Please make it clear when it’s OK to parrot government press releases (or “NuLab spin”) and when it isn’t…
The fake victims got £3million and I wonder how much the lawyers got on top of that?
A BBC tribute to the fallen? More like a gloatfest and lopsided anti British snipefest? The BBC paying real tribute to our armed Forces? Think again matey!
The Telegraph is responsible enough to use the BBC scare quotes.
BJ: ????? The BBC reported the lawyers statement. It should have been stated as such. Has ANY legal proceeding stated they were tortured?
Anyone care to join me in the lawsuit I’m bringing against BBC Radio 1 for its constant torture of me, and others, via evil “rap” music (sic).
This “torture” music is pumped out day and night in an effort to break the will of the British people, to brainwash them into accepting this degenerate” noise. Plus its accompanying “lifestyle” of misogyny, sexism, hate speech, and violence.
STOP THE BBC TORTURE NOW!
Beeboids, effin disgraceful marxist, leftist scumbags that deserve to burn in hell
Al Beeb wont be happy until the British Army is leftistised and we have units like the 1st Battalion Leeds and Bradford Own Martyrdom Grenadiers
I’m very suspicious of this:
BBC to broadcast “tribute” to fallen British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan
BBC2 Controller Roly Keating insisted the programme was not making a political case against the British presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and was instead intended to be “profoundly personal”.
Not so long ago archduke commented on the difference between the way the UK and Canada treat their service personnel. Canada has about a third of the number that the UK has in Afghanistan, but the number killed is almost the same.
Last Friday we went to the Calgary Stampede Parade. When the servicemen and women marched past everyone got to their feet and applauded.
Every other car here has a ‘Support Our Troops’ sticker and the local media and TV stations are very proud of them.
In stark contrast UK service personnel shun the BBC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/08/Iraqandthemedia.bbc
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/010346.php
Radio 5 this morning was a disgrace with the presenter, some know nothing, been nowhere female callers that if soldiers don’t like it then don’t join.
Words failed me.
Hi Martin,
“gunnar: The use of the word ‘torture’ was NOT from the Government but the solicitors. There is no evidence of ‘torture’ in the MoD statement.
Martin | 10.07.08 – 6:29 pm | # ”
I have never made such an assertion.
Hi Jack,
I know, BBC1 is bad. Perhaps you try Heart or Kiss. At least you have some commercial breaks to give you a break 😉
“I have never made such an assertion.”
“Not sure what constitutes torture for you but this:
“Mr Mousa sustained 93 separate injuries, including fractured ribs and a broken nose. During the mediation session General Freddie Viggers also apologised to the families for “the appalling behaviour of British soldiers” which had left the Army “disgusted”, the law firm said in a statement.”
Of course not.
gunnar | 10.07.08 – 5:56 pm |
Guess the BBC is trying to make up for this and plans to broadcast a three hour tribute to fallen soldiers.
“BBC to broadcast three-hour tribute to fallen soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan
The BBC is to broadcast a three-hour tribute to serviceman and woman who have died serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
I second TPO’s suspicions about this. If it’s anything like every single other segment or feature produced about the sacrifice soldiers make on our behalf, it will be something along the lines of: “Look at the carnage! Nothing is worth wasting lives like this! One death is too many! It’s not worth it!”
They might even take a page from the US Leftoid playbook and add the meme: “They’re not even really volunteers. They all come from poor backgrounds and the military is often the only employment option, the only way to pay for an education, etc.” In other words, not only are they victims of war, but they are victims of society and nasty government policies as well. We’ve seen it and seen it.
Ever since the successful use of this tactic during the Vietnam era, all Leftoid media types are convinced that if they show the public enough of their own lads coming home in boxes and body bags, or with horrible wounds and tragic post-combat stories, then the public will demand an immediate end to all military action anywhere. It’s not even that unreasonable to think such a thing.
It’s the simplest trick in the world to disguise an anti-war statement as a feature that is not political, but, as BBC2 Controller Keating said, is “instead ‘profoundly personal'”. They don’t even have to ask the “Is it worth it?” question out loud. Just show an endless parade of photos of smiling young men, discuss the hopes and dreams that died with them, then follow up with the suffering of the families of the fallen servicemen. It practically writes itself.
If there is absolutely no mention of any justification for the war responsible for these casualties (and how could there be in a “profoundly personal” documentary which is not political), then it’s just awful tragedy in a vacuum. In that case, any idiot can do the math on their own. It’s a natural reaction, and so easy to take advantage of.
This is a political tactic. The only question is just how obvious the BBC will make it.
Part of the answer may be found in what the BBC seems to be describing as their “most ambitious single documentary ever.” Why is this so ambitious? What’s such a big earth-shattering deal about doing a story on soldiers who died in war? There is nothing at all remarkable about this, so what’s the big deal?
Is it ambitious because it’s three hours long, and in prime time? Or is it because the BBC intends to force an end to all British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? It’s hard to think of a more ambitious goal than to force a change in government policy by manipulating the emotions of the voting public. What else could be worth the fuss?
The BBC’s inquisition of the Britsh army continued tonight, with the BBC’s ‘Newnight’ acting as a self-appointed war crimes tribunal, with presenter Ms Maitlis acting as inquisitor in chief. It’s what we do.
Compare, on same site, how Saudi Arabia treats returning Islamic jihaists from Iraq, and BBC’s acquiescent interviews on it last night. The BBC has one standard of judgement for Saudi Arabia, another, far more critical for its own country.
(Available on i-Player.)
Yep, well this thread sums up the BBC’s approach tom soldiers perfectly. They’re either victims, or the Waffen SS.
I don’t know why they don’t just try and save some money by combining the two, then they could have a three hour tribute to our murderous troops.
Hi Peter,
The quote you are citing is from the Times:
“Mr Mousa sustained 93 separate injuries, including fractured ribs and a broken nose. During the mediation session General Freddie Viggers also apologised to the families for “the appalling behaviour of British soldiers” which had left the Army “disgusted”, the law firm said in a statement.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ tol…icle4311297.ece
not me.
@ David P,
Let’s wait till autumn.
Gunnar,you use it to make a point you own it.
What was absolutely scandalous about the reporting of this story – beyond any bounds of journalistic ‘ethics’ – was that the BBC1 Ten O’Clock News used a ‘dramatic reconstruction’ of the torture scenes to illustrate what had happened. This utterly sick-making sequence was an inexcusable blurring of reality the like of which I have never seen in 35 years of journalism. Apart from the fact that the ‘torture’ has not been proved on the scale shown in the ‘reconstruction’ (if at all), the use of such material showed beyond doubt the anti-armed forces, treasonous bent of today’s BBC ‘journalists’. They don’t deserved to be called that name: they have become hackneyed, vicious, anti-British purveyors of lies.
As usual David P cuts straight to the heart of the matter!
Anyone(and that means you Gunnar)who thinks that the BBC will not use/abuse our troops to to push its socialist/leftist antiwar/antiwest/anti Amreican prejudice is either living in cloud cuckoo land OR is complicit! The BBC collective despise our troops as they despise the patriotism that drives them or the values that our troops share.
Robin makes an extremely important point. The use of a ‘reconstruction’ (in other words, a fictionalised version of an event) was inexcusable.
It was certainly not journalism.
Taken together with its incontinent propagandising about AGW, this week has seen the BBC plumbing new and wretched depths.
The BBC’s attitude to the military always brings to mind Kipling’s old poem “Tommy Atkins”:-
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
http://faxmentis.org/html/kipling.html
It’ll change when bombs start going off in North London again though – for a while at least.
Robin | 11.07.08 – 7:30 am |
Yes, excellent point. This item should be sent round the world as an example of the BBC going to great lengths to fabricate a story, and do actively propagandize for one side.
David Vance and everyone here, this is something to be sent to Drudge, Instapundit, the Spectator, and anyone else you can think of.
Anyone got a measure of how much time the BBC devoted to this incident as opposed to the 7/7 atrocity, or the shabby way the government has treated British troops?
The prospect of a BBC tribute to our armed forces sounds like a sick April Fool’s stunt. The BBC have consistently denigrated the work of the Forces, and do nothing but carp and destroy the worthy values that they demonstrate. Regardless of the “legality” of the conflicts that they take part in, they are servants of the nation doing a tough job to protect the asses of creeps like Mark Thompson and his lefty chums, and should be applauded. To now see the BBC claiming to be on their side is completely hypocritical, and frankly pretty crass. Remember this is the same corporation that carried out that show trial on Newsnight which proved undeniably the BBC’s institutional Marxism. And now they plan to doubtless show a montage of portraits with the subliminal message of “innocent victims of the new Vietnam”. Let’s hope someone with any guts gets this one canned.
Headline news
Man awarded damages after torture by BBC agents.
A man in xxxx was awarded £taxpayers money after the BBC admitted being party to harrasment. Mr Innocent, who doesn`t own a TV said the BBC was guilty of nontellytaxpayerphobia after letters were sent to the mans address accusing him of being a criminal.The letters are designed to make the Post Office think he is evading taxation. They demanded entrance into the man`s home and threatened him with public humiliation if he didn`t cooperate.
Later heavies were sent round with listening devices, also with a view to show the neighbours that there was an undesirable person in their communty.
Unlike the Army over the Iraqi detainees, the BBC was unrepentant. “We think Mr Innocent is probably a racist climate change denier who wont pay for a TV licence because he`s too mean to help pay for our brilliant service ” said a champagne drinking spokesperson of indeterminate sex.
Original Robin | 11.07.08 – 5:59 pm |
Great stuff! I especially love the “… said a champagne drinking spokesperson of indeterminate sex.”
The beebs hatred of our country(as was) and our military will never change whilst the beeb exists…it does not need reforming it needs to go.
Your accusation of bias in this case relates entirely to 2 points as far as I can see. That it was reported with glee and that it was described as torture.
1. You don’t substantiate how it was reported with ‘relish’. Obviously you are not suggesting this shouldn’t have been reported at all are you? or that it got too much coverage? That then makes the entire ‘MSM’ biased too.
As for the torture point, Gunnar has already addressed this. Try looking at it objectively, here are some more choice quotes:
Mr Mousa’s post-mortem examination showed he had suffered asphyxiation and had some 93 injuries to his body.
The MoD added: “this does not excuse that, during 2003 and 2004, a very small minority there committed acts of abuse and we condemn their actions. It is right that compensation has been agreed through mediation.”
The lead solicitor Sapna Malik said “There are also very serious questions about why techniques which were banned by the Heath government back in 1972 came to be being used out in Iraq, such as hooding, stressing, and sleep deprivation.”
In a written statement, Mr Browne said the government would admit “substantive breaches” of parts of the European Convention on Human Rights which protect the right to life and prohibit torture.
A soldier, who asked to have his identity protected, told Panorama: “What I saw in that cell wasn’t interrogation. It wasn’t detention. It was torture as far as I am concerned. It was brutal. It was barbaric.’
One other point for Jack Bauer. There is an easy way to STOP THE BBC TORTURE NOW!!: TURN THE RADIO OFF!