The BBC were wrong footed on Today when they asked Lord Woolf to comment on the running of ‘Inquiries’.
His first comment was about the ‘Hutton Inquiry’ and the treatment of Lord Hutton…..he said that during the Inquiry Lord Hutton had been praised by all for his running of the Inquiry…however when his judgement was released suddenly that view changed and he was treated totally unfairly….and of course the BBC was at the forefront of that criticism.
Evan Davis had a little panic and changed the subject saying that perhaps the final judgement wasn’t important…. the release of evidence into the public domain was the important thing.
That would be convenient for the BBC….ignore the final conclusions of Hutton and carry on regardless.
In fact that has been what they have pretty well done since that Inquiry….the BBC have rewritten history ever since and now blatantly say that Hutton was ‘of course’ wrong and the BBC was right.
No, the BBC was wrong, ‘Today’s’ misleading report altered the public mood and perception of the Iraq War and you could reasonably make the claim that the BBC’s lies about the 45 minute claim cost British soldier’s lives…the government was put on the backfoot and was thereafter hesitant about committing the necessary resources in manpower, weapons and money to win the war outright and quickly.
Could the Today programme really change the public’s perceptions and views so effectively?
Look at what Baroness Deech, an ex BBC governor, has to say about its ‘power’:
‘One may wonder what all the fuss was about an interview on one radio programme early in the morning, but when I tell you that that programme is listened to by 7m adults each weekday morning, (more than 10% of the population and probably 25% of all adults) and prides itself on shaping the agenda for political discussion that day, you may comprehend it.’
As to the BBC rewriting history….that quote came from Baroness Deech’s speech at Gresham College last year….in which she tried to vindicate the BBC and rubbish Hutton……the BBC has a very long reach and a long memory…and it has the ability, the continuous platform. to air its own side of the story whilst ‘opponents’ of course do not.
Funnily enough Evan Davis was pretty keen to talk about Leveson often praising it as an example of a pretty outstanding Inquiry beneficial to all mankind.
Wonder why?
Hutton showed that the homely; For an inquiry, decide on the outcome and then select a judge that will deliver that outcome, was absolutely true. Therefore the bBC would not like the criticism of Hutton as it showed Bliar to in effect be a dictator by deception.
I know the outcome of the Levenson enquiry and have assumed it more or less from the start. It’s the same as the report on Hillsborough – the outcome was a certainty. Also the enquiry on Steven Lawrence – although the term “instituionally racist” was a novelty.
‘Institutional racism’ began life on the outreaches of Marxist looneydom, they slowly but surely, bit by bit, it wended its way through to the heart of public discourse through the mind control techniques of PC, till MacPherson was sufficiently goosed by the Guardian just prior to the inquiry with reports that he was a racist, and sufficiently goosed by the ‘Brixton possee’ in the inquiry, whose intimidatory conduct he let pass unchallenged, till he institutionalised institutional lunacy.
It was the same with Lord Taylor’s enquiry in the Hillsborough tragedy. He suppressed all evidence of the drunkeness of the late-arriving Liverpool fans. The police had amassed a huge amount of evidence, including witness statements, that hard drinking Liverpool fans drained local pubs of beer and lager, drinking until the very last moment and then arrived en-mass at the gates of the ground.
Taylor wouldn’t allow any of that evidence to be heard.
From that moment I knew what the outcome of the enquiry would be.
All enquiries since have been rigged in a similar way
Yes Andy, that Hillsborough report was what I was referring to above, and I agree what you say about not trusting the fairness of any enquiry since. Including those that looked into the release of the Birmingham Six and other supposed miscarriages of justice.
The trouble is it has made me so cynical I wouldn’t trust the results of an enquiry now even if it was fair.
You would think that even an ex-BBC governor would be aware that the Rajar number of 7 million for Toady refers to the weekly not daily number of listeners. Though the droid presenters themselves – Moyles/ Evans/ Gameshow etc all give the same lie.
On the rather more substantive point – Hutton was rightly praised all the way through the inquiry because he aggressively sought the truth. And he was rightly vilified when he produced his report because it was a whitewash.
Cf his utterly risible conclusion that ‘…the desire of the Prime Minister … may have subconsciously influenced Mr Scarlett and the other members of the JIC’.
Gotta lurve that ‘subconsciously’. Remember that one next time you are up in court.
Whitewash? Hardly…..
‘Among his fellow inspectors Dr Kelly was considered the consummate inspector.
‘They admired him tremendously for his very effective interviewing technique; his encyclopedic knowledge; and his determination to out the truth about the former Soviet and Iraqi biological weapons programmes.
‘Put another way, David’s colleagues were somewhat in awe of his skills as an inspector’.
David Kelly said:
‘I had no doubt about the veracity of it (the Dossier) was absolute.’…’It is an accurate document, I think it is a fair reflection of the intelligence that was available and it’s presented in a very sober and factual way….it is well written.’
“I was personally sympathetic to the war because I recognised from a decade’s work the menace of Iraq’s ability to further develop its non-conventional weapons programmes…..We were 100% certain that Saddam had a biological weapons programme.”
Hutton said:
ii) The 45 minutes claim was based on a report which was received by the SIS from a source which that Service regarded as reliable. Therefore, whether or not at some time in the future the report on which the 45 minutes claim was based is shown to be unreliable, the allegation reported by Mr Gilligan on 29 May 2003 that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong before the Government decided to put it in the dossier, was an allegation which was unfounded.
(iii) The allegation was also unfounded that the reason why the 45 minutes claim was not in the original draft of the dossier was because it only came from one source and the intelligence agencies did not really believe it was necessarily true. The reason why the 45 minutes claim did not appear in draft assessments or draft dossiers until 5 September 2002 was because the intelligence report on which it was based was not received by the SIS until 29 August 2002 and the JIC assessment staff did not have time to insert it in a draft until the draft of the assessment of 5 September 2002.
Sounds pretty fair and reasonable to me.
Yep, that’s the BBC double-dipping again.
Apparently, we need a publicly-funded state broadcaster because we can’t trust the private sector alone with the awesome power to shape our nation’s culture and national narrative, but when the BBC gets caught lying like a rug anyone, hey, that’s showbaiz and who points the lies is an anally-retentive squaresville obsessive.
See anything involving the Euro for a further example.
I do wish the BBC..
a) Wouldn’t lie all the time.
b) Be allowed to get away with it.
It’s not clever, and it’s not fair.
OK, that reality ideal out of the way…
‘That would be convenient for the BBC….ignore the final conclusions of [anything that doesn’t suit] and carry on regardless.
Or, as the BBC calls it ‘reporting’.
Distinct lack of cherry vultures in a clear blue sky of late, and the air seems fresher.
Some of their mates collide with any tall tales and cherished institutions in self-immolation lately, such that they feel the bunker is a better place to top up the tan for a while?
I’ve been noticing that a lot lately, except for that Norwegian-based Troll (appropriate location for one of those of course) who was ineptly backed up by Dezzie. Even Jim Dandy, who was generally (although not always) a voice of reasoned argument suddenly came and went. I don’t miss them, although they could be (unintentionally) amusing from time to time.
I find it’s always better to have someone who doesn’t agree with me challange my opinions rather than just be surrounded by those who agree.
More importantly, as I am always in the right, I get to feel superior again and again, thus confirming my own opinion of little old me. 😉
“better to have someone who doesn’t agree with me challange my opinions rather than just be surrounded by those who agree”
I’m afraid I must disagree with that.
‘I’m afraid I must disagree with that.’
Woah.. that is at Shrodinger’s cat-flap levels of mind-bending:)
That’s not an argument. It’s contradiction!
From when the BBC were not quite so bad.
No, the BBC was just as bad then, and in fact the waste of the license fee was worse than it is now. Not to mention the carelessness and cavalier attitude which made the BBC erase tapes of historic concert broadcasts and popular tv shows so they could re-use the tapes. Under the guise of saving money and space, of course, while at the same time hiring people to do nothing for their first few months, the champagne culture, etc.
Only the extreme Left-wing bias hadn’t completely taken over the News division yet, and they didn’t have so many radio stations to populate with Left-wing hosts.
Maybe “institutionally amusing” as well!
Dezzie is busy searching other blogs for quotes from john in Cheshire isn’t he?
The Left don’t have to care about your opinions (which is handy if you are a narcissist) all they need to focus on is subverting institutions.
As a rule Leftists (and the more Left you go the truer it gets) hate free debate with a passion, because they always lose. On Question Time watch how often the Left interrupt other speaker’s before they have finished their point.
Free speech is a threat to their narcissism. They prefer the sermon. Which is why they give you no choice about funding the BBC.
Freedom is poisonous air to socialists – your thoughts must be supplied to you courtesy of a central broadcaster.
As a rule of thumb the BBC answer to every political question is Vote Labour. Any other thought makes you an enemy of the people (“people” being a synonym of “Leftist elite” – in reality of course they hate Sun readers [the working class] and Daily Mail readers [middle class] with a passion) which is why they are so opposed to a free press.
Repeat after me. Vote ______ at the next election. Vote ______. Try not to think about what they did when they were last in power. Just vote ______. Do not have incorrect thoughts.
Not only do they not like debate because the facts get in the way of a good ideology, but they also more often than not resort to playing the man rather than the ball. Witness this any number of times you like in the great ‘Climate Change’ (or is it ‘Climate Weirding’ now?) ‘debate’. The only exception to this rule was when they played Johnny Ball, who of course was actually the man, if you see what I mean…
Well, I listened very closely to the evidence that was produced to Lord Hutton and then stood back in amazement when his conclusions completely (just about) ignored everything that had been said.
I am interested in the comments about Hillsborough though. It confirms what I have long suspected but apparently no one is allowed to voice, even though as I understand it Liverpool were still banned from Europe at the time because of Heysel and some fans were being tried for manslaughter from that.
I speak from experience as someone who attended the Taylor Enquiry and saw much of the suppressed evidence.
There boxes full of statements and photographs that confirmed that many Liverpool fans who arrived late at the ground were drunk. I recall reading statements from many local pub landlords who stated that the Liverpool fans had drunk their pubs dry, many people living near or around the ground who spoke of fans queuing in their front gardens urinating and vomiting in them and then being threatened with violence for remonstrating with them; and photographic evidence of thousands of empty beer cans littering the streets and the piles of black bags spilling over with said cans. I even saw video evidence from a camera at the ground of late arriving fans swarming in to the stand actually BEATING back those near the front trying to escape the crush. I wonder if this evidence has been given to the bereaved families in the recent release of the evidence.
Taylor wouldn’t allow any of this evidence introduced in evidence, AND witnesses were told NOT to refer to the fans’ drunkeness in their testimonies to the inquiry.
It certainly shook my,somewhat naive, confidence in the fairness of government/establishment enquiries and, like other contributors to this thread, have thought they’ve had fixed and pre-determined outcomes ever since.
No,hold on a second, the whole dossier issue was later shown to have been created as a piece of spin by Downing Street. There was in fact no basis of fact in it at all. Gilligan was right all along and had been hung out to dry by the BBC.
Furthermore there was no WMD.
You lot are so blinded by the BBC hatred that you fail to see the elephant that has been rampaging around the room for years and actually led to the downfall of T. Bliar.
I consider myself “rightish” and I opposed the Iraq War (illegal, based on a false premise, guaranteed to cause chaos, Iraq could have been starved into submission, Iran real enemy etc etc ), so don’t immediately assume that any “not in my namers” are lefties.
What I have never understood was why did Bliar and his murky friends wanted to join Bush’s adventure. What was in it for them?
And please don’t say oil …
Assuming Baroness Deech is correct about the numbers listening to the Today programme the figures raise a very serious question and one which has crossed my mind on many occasions. Is it right for one massive media organisation, controlled by a vary small number of people, to have what is, in effect, a total monopoly on current affairs broadcasts on the radio. I appreciate that such broadcasts will never be a commercial proposition so isn’t it time that some of the public money from the BBC Tax be transferred to a completely separate broadcaster so an alternative national radio outlet can be created to counteract the BBC Radio Monopoly? The BBCs own figures, claiming a quarter of the population are listening to a single radio programme would indicate that the public have no similar alternative programme they can tune into. If that were the case in any other form of media, including the press and TV, then the BBC woould be demanding that monopoly should be broken up in the Public Interest. Well, what is good for the goose must also be good for the BBC gander.
Excellent analysis but we must remember the BBC lies are always the truth. This is the whole of the law. There is no other law at the BBC, how can there be?
Lest we forget; ‘Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely’.
The BBC has been spinning away and biting away at our culture since its inception nearly 80 years ago. It was inevitable, any entity that has so much power with no accountability will always lead itself down the road to corruption. The BBC dictatorship has been going on longer than Castro or Stalin and I sometimes think it has the same warped ideals as those two left wing criminals.
The fact is that, whether the BBC is inherently biased or not (and we know it is), I wonder if this deep down if this is what we really hate about it. It is a dictatorship; if you disagree with it or threaten it you will be destroyed. If you don’t pay for it you go to prison. Prime Ministers pander to it and instead of cutting the head off of the beast they whine on, as Cameron did to Marr a couple of weeks ago, about not getting enough positive air time.
These are different times though; we do now have an alternative voice, the internet. This site and many, many others, including the thousands of comments to our national newspapers, now complain bitterly about our state broadcaster. Is this the start of the British Spring? I hope so, but bearing in mind this is Britain, it may take some time and there will be a lot of muttering from idiots.
It’s actually a nice and helpful piece of info. I’m glad that you simply shared this helpful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.