This post brings to light an astonishingly blatant lie by the BBC, one that is intended to smash Thatcher’s reputation and claim she, and the ‘deeply unpopular’ Conservatives, would never have won the 1983 election if the British Public had known the ‘truth‘ about ‘secret’ negotiations to sell out the Falkland Islanders to the Argentinians.
The BBC line is also a betrayal of all who served and fought to retake the Falklands by suggesting their sacrifices were based upon a lie fighting an unnecesary war.
Odd that the BBC should present the negotiations as a sell out…..here are John Humphry’s recent thoughts:
‘So the time has come for Britain to negotiate. A deal should be struck which establishes Argentinian sovereignty over the islands while allowing the islanders to remain British and which perhaps shares the spoils of oil exploration.‘
The Falklands War was the defining moment for Thatcher that set her on course as the Iron Lady and brought her characteristics as a leader to the fore…a capable, determined and strong leader in a major crisis.
The BBC aims to destroy that image and reputation…this programme is the latest in a long line of efforts to undermine the Thatcher years and achievements.
To the BBC she is essentially the foundation of the real Tory Party much as Churchill was to Britain as a whole in the war….she represents everything that the Tories value and which put this country back on its feet, and would again given the chance.
The BBC want to tarnish that image in the belief that if they can destroy her image, one based on real achievement not media spin, they can put the final nail in the Tory political coffin.
The programme, UK Confidential, presented by Martha Kearney, looks closely at the Falklands War….
‘With unique access to secret government papers, Martha Kearney presents a look at the political events of 1982 as told through the Cabinet minutes, Prime Ministerial papers and Foreign and Commonwealth Office documents and briefings that are being released to the public at the end of the year.
Close to 30,000 Government papers containing top secret memos, notes and briefings are included in the release, and the Radio 4 team have been given special access over the last few weeks.
In addition we may well find out details of how the Franks Inquiry into the Falklands War put politicians and civil servants under the spotlight and how those around Margaret Thatcher sought to capitalise on her renewed popularity in the wake of the victory in the South Atlantic.’
The programme has to report the ‘facts’ of course, up to a point anyway….but it is how it interprets them that is important…in this case that interpretation is inclined to be negative, attempting to ensure that Thatcher comes out with little or no credit for her stance over the Falklands….and indeed hopes to pin blame for an ’unnecessary’ war onto her…..claiming either that she fought the war to win an election….never mind that it was the Argentines who started the war, or conversely, that because she was surprised that the Argentines invaded she was out of touch and incompetent.
Kearney tells us what an election winner the Falklands War was…
‘The Tories were deeply unpopular but now as a result of the Falklands factor they [the Conservatives] could look forward to an election with some hope of success.
It was a very important factor in winning the 1983 election.‘
But was that the motivation?
Mrs Thatcher says far more was at stake…
‘Nothing remains more vividly in my mind, looking back on my years in 10 Downing Street, than the eleven weeks in the spring of 1982 when Britain fought and won the Falklands War. Much was at stake: what we were fighting for eight thousand miles away in the South Atlantic was not only the territory and the people of the Falklands, important though they were.
We were defending our honour as a nation, and principles of fundamental importance to the whole world – above all, that aggressors should never succeed and that international law should prevail over the use of force.
The significance of the Falklands War was enormous, both for Britain’s self-confidence and for our standing in the world.’
The Falklands factor had repercussions around the world for how the West was viewed by likely ‘enemies’…..
‘We had come to be seen by both friends and enemies as a nation which lacked the will and the capability to defend its interests in peace, let alone in war. Victory in the Falklands changed that. Everywhere I went after the war, Britain’s name meant something more than it had. The war also had real importance in relations between East and West: years later I was told by a Russian general that the Soviets had been firmly convinced that we would not fight for the Falklands, and that if we did fight we would lose. We proved them wrong on both counts, and they did not forget the fact.’
Kearney goes on to quietly denounce the sinking of the Belgrano which she thinks was ‘illegally’ sunk because it was heading away from the Falklands…..despite these revelations….and the fact that whichever way the ship was heading it represented an enormous threat to the British forces who were supplied and reinforced by sea….sinking it was a legitimate course of action.
Kearney goes on to suggest that the Franks Report into the start of the war was a whitewash…..‘The Franks report exonerated the government, a conclusion critics say is a whitewash. In the flush of victory there was little appetite for censure.’
It is that last ‘little appetite for censure’ addition that gives away her thinking….that perhaps there should have been censure.
Then comes the Big Lie…..at the end of the programme we get the claim that the Falkland Islanders were sold out by Thatcher in pre-war secret negotiations …and that if the British Public had known of this they would have viewed Thatcher differently and voted otherwise in the election.
‘The Franks Report exonerated the government, a conclusion critics say is a whitewash. In the flush of victory there was little appetite for censure.
Kept out of the report was the record of secret talks Nicholas Ridley held in 1980.
Had the Public known how close the bargaining position had been less than 2 years before they went to war would they have viewed the conflict in the same way.
Prof. Paul Rogers (a professor of peace studies)….‘History could have had a different path.’
Simon Jenkins….‘Britain was preparing to sell out the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.’
So the talks were secret and the British Public had no knowledge of them?
Really?
What makes that such an obvious lie is that the BBC has had access to these documents and has been preparing this programme for weeks….
‘Close to 30,000 Government papers containing top secret memos, notes and briefings are included in the release, and the Radio 4 team have been given special access over the last few weeks.’
And yet literally 30 seconds on Google will turn up this from 1980 revealing that the Falkland Islanders themselves knew of the negotiations, were involved in them and that they were discussed in Parliament…so much for ‘SECRET‘:
Ridley and Leaseback
Extracts from the House of Commons debate of 2 December 1980
(First published in the Falkland Islands Newsletter No.9, December 1980)
The background to the proposal by FCO Minister Nicholas Ridley that sovereignty of the Falkland Islands be transferred by the United Kingdom to Argentina, who would then lease back the Islands to the UK for an agreed period of time, can be found in ‘A Brief History of the Falkland Islands’ on this portal
I therefore visited the Islands between 22 and 29 November in order to consult Islands councillors and subsequently, at their express request, all Islanders, on how we should proceed. Various possible bases for seeking a negotiated settlement were discussed. These included both a way of freezing the dispute for a period or exchanging the title of sovereignty against a long lease of the Islands back to Her Majesty’s Government. The essential elements of any solution would be that it should preserve British administration, law and way of life for the Islanders while releasing the potential of the Islands’ economy and of their maritime resources, at present blighted by the dispute. It is for the Islanders to advise on which, if any, option should be explored in negotiations with the Argentines. I have asked them to let me have their views in due course. Any eventual settlement would have to be endorsed by the Islanders, and by this House. ‘
Should that not have been enough there is this report from the Times, again from 1980, two years before the war:
Britain puts forward four options on Falklands
By Michael Frenchman
There is good sense in some of the options which Britain is putting forward on the Falkland Islands, particularly the lease-back formula. Under this plan, sovereignty over the islands would be ceded to Argentina but Britain would lease back the islands, either without a time limit or for say, 99 years.
It remains to be seen whether the islanders will agree with this or any of the other ideas which the British Government is canvassing after having taken soundings with the Argentines. The dispute over sovereignty has gone on for more than a hundred years.
Mr Nicholas Ridley, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, who is having talks with the islanders, apparently believes that a solution may be achieved by outright transfer of sovereignty, by transfer and lease back, by freezing the dispute for 25 years, or by taking what would be a drastic step and breaking off talks altogether.
An outright transfer would be politically unacceptable. The lease-back idea, on similar lines as for Hongkong, is the one Whitehall has been suggesting behind the scenes for some time. A freeze would merely defer the decision. A break-up of talks would probably lead to a confrontation.
During the past five years the population has declined from just over 1,900 to 1,720 (a census is imminent). Most of them are directly descended from the original British colonists, others have, come to the islands since the colony was founded in 1833.
1980 Nov 28 Fr Commentary (The Times)
Was there ever a clearer case of the BBC misleading the listener about one of the major events in British history with the intent of smearing a politician whose reputation they have spent 30 years trying to destroy?
What chance the BBC wheeling out Tam Dalyell ?
I would say that there is a 100% chance that ex-etonian marxist class warrior Sir Thomas Dalyell Loch of the House of Binns (it’s nice and recently had a new library installed on expenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Binns) will appear on the BBC to denpounce facts and reality. Isn’t it odd that he has a far more aristocratic pedigree than Cameron but perhaps the old Scottish aristocracy is exempted from BBC class war.
The whole lease-back sovereignty issue was widely discussed in the run up to the war and the aftermath. It was no secret and was often pointed to as one of the fundamental causes of the war. It was even so it was cited by Jack Straw as a ‘model’ to deal with the Gibraltar ‘problem’ (to which loyal Gibraltarians later shouted “Bollocks” with a 98.48% No vote on an 87.9% turnout on their unofficial referendum) .
The whole lease back farrago cost Carrington his job and led Thatch to take a much firmer personal hand in foreign policy.
All well known, pretty much published in every political memoir and in every history book.
How about this for an interpretation for the BBC
Argentine fascist military junta encouraged by British military weakness economic and social decline brought about by Labour misrule feel that Britain cannot (no carriers) and will not defend the Falklands. Then some FO arse hole comes up with the lease-back arrangements (widly derided in the press) continuing the Labour policy of decline and withdrawl. Fascists take this as ‘Britain really doesn’t give a ****. Economic and political crisis in Argentina drive them to invade and start the war. All totally true…..
Surely Thatcher ordering the re-taking the islands was the very furthest act from betrayal possible. Can you imagine Michael Foot doing that?
BBC revisionist Bastards
Nail on the head sir!
The very notion of Foot having the cojones to fight a war in defence of a principle like national sovereignty…even against a right wing junta like Galtieris-is a non starter.
The man was a craven peacenik who-in true marxist style-could talk a fine war, but would never have fought in one himself at that stage….but to hear him denouncing Thatcher for not being ready to fight in his shameful April 3rd session in Parliament, you`d never have thought it.
Shameless political posturing and grandstanding…all wind and sails…and Foots example is followed every day by his wipearse acolytes like Miliband and Joyce…remember HIM as Labours attitude to defence.
I was an idiot against Thatcher and the war in 82…I was proved wrong and am grateful to her and those who risked plenty for ignorant Guardian popinjays like me at that time.
As for the likes of Own Jones, Polly Toynbee, Monbiot or Aaronovich…what the hell is THEIR excuse for learning nothing these last 30 years?
To be fair to Michael Foot, he made a very strong speech in the Saturday emergency debate immediately after the Falklands invasion – he denounced the Argie junta and backed Thatcher’s plan to take back the islands.
That is very true John.
My point was that-had he been the PM at the time, he simply would never have had it within himself to assemble a Task Force. He was a Quaker peacenik to the core and could not have fought any kind of war, apart from dropping leaflets at best.
Sure as hell, his craven party of Soviet spooks wouldn`t have let him either….
Typical Beeb.
As the lady recovers from serious life-threatening surgery, trust the BBC to put this stuff out about her.
I imagine that they`ve already got their TUC T-shirts about dancing on the ladys grave when she dies…and will sell them to raise funds for John Peels statue.
The BBC just seems stuffed to the gills with people who are deliberately winding up the nation, possibly in the hope that the EU will take us over.
I see no other reason to employ the likes of Humphries, Flanders and Mason…Savile was a saint compared to these sly winkle picking grease guns.
Excellent article, Alan, and well-researched.
Funny how the BBC have never covered the 70s with similar zeal – but then that might show their TUC chummies in a less than positive light. Thatcher’s battle with the unions was a far more defining one for the survival of this country.
Nor have they chosen to examine the disaster for the UK that was 1997-2010
The Labour Government wasn’t a disaster for the BBC or others on the public sector payroll eg the BBC staff. Quite the opposite in fact as they all got enormous remuneration package rises compared to the private sector. The amount of money spent on education and the NHS was mind boggling but, as Blair admits in his book, the public got very little benefit from it. The public sector employees just pocketed the extra cash and carried on in the same old way.
The Labour party was just ensuring that it kept winning elections by increasing the number of people who depended on the state for their living.The great expansion of immigration was all part of the same project to increase the number of people who are very likely to vote Labour. It took the calamitous premiership of Brown to bring about a Labour loss.
The BBC of course loyally supported Labour only distancing themselves from Blair ( not Labour) and his various Wars. By the way had Lady Thatcher started these pointless but enormously costly wars, in British lives and money , what fun the BBC would be having.
The BBC is so powerful it can re-write history and brainwash the public into taking a particular point of view on a wide range of issues that suit the BBC world view, without the public even being aware of it.
If, as now seems to have been amply demonstrated, the Tories are too frightened of the BBC to actually do something about its systemic liberal/left bias, we can look forward after the next election to Part 2 of the Labour Project and see more and more of the British way of life be discarded in favour of multiculturalism and another huge increase in the role of the state in everyday life.
We are being sold down the river not the Falklanders.
Yes, totally agree Alan, a very well researched and brilliant article. On the face of it, it seems implausible that our National broadcaster could make such a treacherous attempt to rewrite history without carefully checking the facts, thus portraying doubt and the possibility of a wrong political cause of the conflict, in the minds of the programme listeners. I do so despair that our forced licence National Broadcaster cannot bring itself to celebrate such a proud democratic victory over dictatorship, at the cost of so much blood and almost impossible odds. You have given me, a pressing need to confirm this absurd allegation. Thanks for the Martha Kearney Radio 4 link – http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pgksh
I hesitate to condemn but if true this is a real scandal, I have always suspected the BBC of Bias in all its activities and frequently noted bias. Where is Fatty Pang when needed? time to give him a poke with a sharp stick, stir him from his slumbers and see heads roll.
Starting, ideally, with his.
The BBC is at its best when it is re- writing history! And the answer from them is “not enough people are offended ” so they will continue to do it unless masses of people complain directly to them. This injustice needs to be challenged. All thinking people that pay the BBC a license fee. should protest at the use of their money to mislead the public.. Individuals can and do make a difference if enough of them care..
The BBC is truly despicable. This is an excellent article, Alan, possibly your best yet. Is there any way we can get this to a wider audience?
It would be useful if this site could name names more often, such as the editors of programmes most at fault. I am particularly fed up with programmes such as ‘Have I got news for you’ and the radio ‘Newsquiz’ both these programmes are just anti Tory rants. They use the word ‘Tory’ like a swear word.
Interesting that the main BBC News on Friday ran with a piece on the Thatcher papers released under the 30-year rule concerning the Falklands and immediately followed that up with details of several hand-written notes from Jimmy Savile to Thatcher at around the same time.
Yes, just another opportunity to put the words thatcher/savile together as they did with relish when they thought they had connected senior tory/peado/thatcher era.
Trouble was they fucked that one right up! Will they never learn?
Guess we all know the answer to that one.
The total irony lay in the material screened showing Jimmy, Maggie a bunch of blurred children and several NSPCC banners.
So the nice NSPCC what were you doing? Protecting children or doing your usually riding on coat tails to generate more funds for your wages, pensions and sundry other expenses.
The election was 1983.
Yes and there are many in the BBC that have never forgiven the British people for failing to elect Michael Foot. There is a strong BBC and leftist meme that goes something like ‘Thatcher started a war to increase her popularity. She would have lost the 83 election and we would be living in a socialist paradise if she hadn’t approved the torpedoing of the Belgrano.’
Despite being total counterfactual bollocks this has been established as a left wing shibboleth . Thatcher ‘stole’ the election by deliberately engineering a war. Unfortunately we know that left wing pseudo-fact (something while not actually true really should be and is therefore treated as gospel) to be excrement liberally smeared over everywhere by the left. As with everything on the left facts are selected and adjusted and where necessary invented to fit the theory. Yes, Thatcher was so unpopular in Britain that she remained in power until 1990 – without the need for invaisons of foreign Countries based on ludicrous dossiers and even then the conservatives were re elected despite the ascendancy of her pro-euro assassins.
The BBC was still fighting for the victims of HMS Conqueror’s war crime on that Dr Who Christmarx special.
Nice work, Alan. A clear case of biased, dishonest broadcasting. This comes as a nice belated coda to all that “It’s too far away so we have no right, there’s nothing there, we should leave” stuff a few months back when the BBC was covering the anniversary of the war.
I blame budget cuts and the management system.
A little Googling of my own suggests the secret meeting was in September 1980, not the April meeting Alan quite rightly says was public knowledge.
Details here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
I’ve not yet listened to the R4 programme, but my guess is this is the meeting referred to.
If so, Alan’s article seems to be rather undermined.
Happy to be corrected.
Jim, the BBC seems to be claiming that the public had no knowledge of any thoughts to give the Falklands back at all. Even if there was a secret meeting in September, the bargaining position was in the news, as Alan demonstrates, within weeks. The public had knowledge of the bargaining position, which is the point. Or am I misunderstanding the quotes?
Sorry David, didn’t see your reply but we are saying the same thing.
Not sure that makes any difference which of the meetings: the Times November 1980 article, the end-of-November 1980 visits to the Islands by Ridley, the December 1980 HoC debate all nullify any ‘conspiracy’ from the June 1980 FO proposal or the September meet/s, secret or not. I say nullify because “outright transfer of sovereignty” was clearly one of the options openly on the table. Now, what more could be worth keeping secret? Hoping nobody reads the Times?All Islanders kicked into the sea? Plans to sink the islands? Disappearance of all British Islanders? Alan’s article is fine and highlights blatant bias…do you agree?
It makes a huge difference. The secret talks referred to are those from September; talks Ridley doesn’t mention in his statement to the House after the event. They came to light after the war. And the inquiry didn’t mention them.
There is no misleading the listener. Alan has his facts wrong, including on the date of the election. All else is assertion.
The article is a dud.
So what were the secret meetings about? Mongolian rhubarb plantation management?
So secret that everyone knew? From your Guardian link:
“However, the plan was wrecked after Mr Ridley, whose mission was not helped by a rather offhand and patronising manner, made an ill-fated trip to the Falklands in November, where he tried to sell a deal to the islanders. Suspicion about the government’s long-term intentions grew, fuelling opposition among both Conservative and Labour MPs to any such deal.”
Alan writes that the BBC are bias by saying “at the end of the programme we get the claim that the Falkland Islanders were sold out by Thatcher in pre-war secret negotiations”, but it is clear from everything that by the end of 1980 EVERYONE knew! Your strawman about what was in or not in the report AFTER the war is pointless; Tha Franks Report: ” ‘To review the way in which the responsibilities of Government in relation to the Falkland Islands and their Dependencies were discharged in the period leading up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982, taking account of all such factors in previous years as are relevant; and to report” (claimed as a whitewash, maybe, but I repeat, what more could be worthy of keeping secret than an option of handing the Falklands back?
And, if you can’t prove that the BBC meant the September talks and not others then your strawman is called Aunt Sally!
You are wrong. This article is not a dud. The main point is the Islanders themselves were well aware of behind the scenes diplomatic negotiations and the SECRETs were open secrets both on the islands and within HoC, where Sovereignty approval would be needed for any change (which would never have been granted). The Belgrano is another thread highlighted issue which is very important in pointing out the denigration of the Thatcher era.
Very selective on the ‘secret meetings’ you choose to comment on, eh Jim?
Whatever was discussed when, we still have the bizarre situation where the BBC is simultaneously trying to blame Fatcha for selling out the islanders in 1980 and for not selling them out in 1982.
Fatcha sucks! That’s all the BBC thinks you need to know.
‘A little Googling of my own suggests..
I’ve not yet listened to the R4 programme..
.. my guess is…”
I too am happy to be corrected, but getting to an undermining from a suggestion, a not yet listening and a guess has, in the past, seen more than slight reprimands from some hall monitors.
If you read the Guardian article you refer to you can see it refers to exactly the same thing I do…….‘However, the plan was wrecked after Mr Ridley, whose mission was not helped by a rather offhand and patronising manner, made an ill-fated trip to the Falklands in November, where he tried to sell a deal to the islanders.’
Ridley revealed his ‘secret’ plans to the Islanders and in December it was discussed in parliament….the exact date of negotiations is irrelevant….the fact they happened and the British Public knew of them in 1980 is the important fact that the BBC deny.
The BBC is claiming that the sovereignty/leaseback negotiations were secret and knowledge of them would have altered the outcome of the election….clearly not true as the negotiations were reported by the MSM and discussed in Parliament….in 1980.
It is shameful that the current leader of the Conservative Party does not have the balls to complain to the BBC about this distortion of history.
David, you’re mistaking Mr Cameron for one of the good guys. He’s just as much a socialist as any of the enemy in our country. He’s not going to damage the bbc while it’s doing satan’s work for him and his socialist friends. And don’t be decieve into thinking that all socialists are poor; they have more money than most normal people; that’s why they love the life they lead.
The current leader of the Conservative Party was chosen by the misguided fools who run that party specifically to appease the meejah dahlings who automatically make any Tory leader their public enemy number one.
They hoped a young, slick PR toad would be less upsetting to Islingtonites than the usual Tory choices.
It was, as any fule kno, a pointless exercise. They could have reanimated Trotsky’s corpse but the moment a blue rosette was pinned on it, he would still have become the BBC/Guardian’s prime target.
Either way, Cameron is too spineless to attack the BBC. Quite probably a significant part of his tiny mind agrees with its propaganda anyway.
Yes, and don’t ever forget Dopey Dave wants 80 million islamic turks admitted into a borderless EU!
And no I don’t care that I have said it before.
Will any of our hacks ask him why?
At midnight tomorrow cancel the TV licence debit and never turn the BBC on again. B**t**ds.
Happy NewYear!
I`m with you there Mr Wisp.
Had a great few days off from the BBC, and feel much better about it.
You just KNOW their Gramscian take on absolutely everything-I`ve been reviewing the year in 2012, and the stories that really matter-like Alan Greaves, like Toulouse etc-just don`t make the cut with the liberal elite -not when there`s a pasty tax or a Mo Farah to puff up.
Far better off just reading all we can on Mexico, China and Sudan for ourselves…we all know what`s coming elsewhere, and the BBC won`t do anything other than try to bundle us into their OB van and bound up in gaffa tape!
No taxaxtion for misrepresentation…don`t give the BBC a bean…better off giving it to the P.I.E(c/o Harriet Harman)
In 1982 I was a fully paid up member of the Labour Party. I breathed in everything Michael Foot said, went on “peace demos” and thought Thatcher was a demon. But 30 years is a long time and most of us change quite radically in three deades. Gone is the long hair (sadly!) beard and duffle coat and I’ve binned the CND badges as well.
Our government had absolutely no choice but to fight an invading fascist junta and we were very fortunate that Mrs T was prime minister at the time.
Just think of the alternative…
The papers just released (http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab-148-211-1.pdf) by the National Archives reveal that Margaret Thatcher She said (p 204) at a meeting of the Defence and Oversea Policy Committee – Sub-Committee on the South Atlantic and Falkland Islands on Friday 18 June 1982 “Certain aspects of the BBC’s reporting of the Falklands operation had been damaging to the national interest: consideration should be given to the best means of bringing this home to the BBC authorities with a view to preventing a recurrence.”
The committee invited the Home Secretary (p205) “to consider how best to bring home to the BBC the extent of the damage done to the national interest by aspects of BBC reporting of the Falklands operations and to prevent any recurrence.”
Fat lot of good that did, eh?
OMG! When you substitute ‘climate change’ for ‘Falklands operation’……. like deja vu all over again.
Good find! Cements the oft ignored comments on how the BBC were responsible for some British deaths. As pounce would say: the traitors in our midst.
And they have never forgiven her for her temerity to criticize their behaviour. Says it all.
The BBC reporting in question was the leak that 2 Para were about to attack Goose Green. A very challenging operation even without loosing the advantage of surprise thanks to a report on the BBC World Service the day before the attack.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PSsxmXWChqIC&pg=PA563&lpg=PA563&dq=%22Goose+green%22+BBC+leak&source=bl&ots=5GzeidHLuB&sig=8j8AB-oKIst5zwGGKvB5sGpMV40&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fVfhUIaPIaeH0AXo7oFI&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Goose%20green%22%20BBC%20leak&f=false
Good link.
ditto
I don’t suppose Thatcher mentioning the forthcoming advance in the House of Commons really helped either.
Please quote us some coverage from hansard to validate ur claims?
Happy to do so:
“The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
The reply to this question is inevitably longer than usual.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a full statement yesterday. The House would not expect me to go into details about the operations in progress, but our forces on the ground are now moving from the bridgehead.”
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1982/may/27/falkland-islands
The “bridgehead” was at San Carlos and the most likely target for any advance was Goose Green.
It has to be remembered that at this time the British Forces had been suffering casualties due to the bombing of the Task Force ships. Good news was an imperative hence the statement by Thatcher and the subsequent briefing of embedded journalists by the MOD and the wider media by a “senior government official”.
Sorry which part of your link shows any statement By Mrs Thatcher about any ongoing operation or any details at all ??
the only thing said is that operations are ongoing where as the BBC gave out details of a planed operation before it’s start time they also gave out info on bomb failures that led to the Argentine re setting their fuses that is the problem not whether Thatcher talked about the war ??
Poor!!”
Yes, she could have added that they wore boots and had loaded weapons, equally true and equally ‘revealing’ for the enemy. Albaman must try harder.
Did you actually read my post!!! Which part of “our forces on the ground are now moving from the bridgehead” did you not understand.
I suppose you have a point, the argies would have expected them to wait at the bridgehead until they ran out of supplies?
The BBC were directly implicated in leaks of MOD intelligence information intended as an attempt to undermine the Thatcher government by various parties. (Source; Hugh Bicheno ;”The Razor’s Edge; the Unoffcial History of the Falklands War”)- and Surprise, surprise, the BBC were also in the vanguard reference accusations of ‘atrocities’ by the Parachute Regt. via “An Ungentlemanly Act” a TV film on the Falklands War in the early 1990s by left wing producer-writer Stuart Urban.
i suspect the rich ‘socialists’ secretly admire Maggie
My prognosis is slightly different after listening to Martha Kearney’s Radio 4 broadcast:
Radio 4 link – http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pgksh –
On the whole Margaret Thatcher rightly comes over as quite a hero throughout the programme, but yes, the BBC references to the 1980 diplomatic meetings being SECRET and the anti-Thatcher Belgrano ‘dig’ are both wrong.
From my discussions with some of the Falkland Islanders, in June 1982, most politically active members were well aware of the British negotiations with Argentina in 1980 and they were resolutely against any lease-back sovereignty option, (which had been earlier banded about in negotiations. but known to be subject to Islanders agreement).
In any event almost exclusively the indigenous population were British passport holders and had been reassured that any change in sovereignty would have to be agreed by the Islanders.
The 1986 Islanders sovereignty survey result, of 94.5% in favour of sticking with Britain, would be almost impossible to overturn even if tried by EU Commissioners or a Bliar War Cabinet.
The sinking of the Belgrano was unfortunately a necessary action of war. Anyone who thinks otherwise is playing politics and not looking at the harsh reality of combat from their comfortable sofa and trying to further enhance our pain for those of us that were involved in this war.
A couple of other points the thread author makes are also valid:
The programmes assertion, by the political analysis Professor Paul Rogers, that had the British public known of the 1980 Sovereignty negotiations, they might not have voted in droves for Thatcher at the 1983 elections is also wrong.
The vast majority of this Nation were at that time proud and rejoicing in the defeat of this Dictator, with the subsequent fall of his junta, resulting also in Argentine democracy as a by-product. Good old staunch Brits are historically made of that stuff and such politically jealous and negative commentators that try to tell it otherwise can always emigrate to North Korea to find a receptive audience.
The Franks Falklands report exonerated Thatcher. Where is Chilcot’s report?
The Iraq (Chilcot) Inquiry has advised the Prime Minister that it will be in a position to begin the process of writing to any individuals that may be criticised by the middle of 2013.