If like me you have been listening or watching the BBC for the last few years and hearing their coverage of the alleged abuse of Iraqis or Afghans by British troops you will know that the BBC has given itself over to the likes of lawyer Phil Shiner and his extraordinary tales, his own very singular version of the truth.
Today the BBC must be absolutely gutted as the Al Sweady inquiry clears, as expected, British troops of allegations they tortured and killed prisoners.
The BBC has put a lot of work into helping Shiner smear the Army’s reputation and put a great many soldiers through the wringer for so many years.
In 2008 the BBC’s Panorama produced a programme, On Whose Orders?, that claimed to investigate the allegations….here is what one viewer thought of the programme:
Is it just me or do these left wing lobbyists and solicitors actually work with, or very close with the BBC , they have a voice out of all proportion and seem to be able to spout whatever bollox they like on the BBC, I swear they should give Shami Chakrabati her own show, for someone who’s never been elected as any kind of public official, she seems to get more airtime than the PM!
Is it any co-incidence that her sister works for the beeb?
What I’m getting at is do these far left lawyers aproach the bbc with program ideas?
Make no mistake , this was phil shiners program, the bbc only tried to distance themselves from him at the end because of all the critisism they’d recieved in all the major newspapers , that’s the reason they emphisised the program was still being made in the newspaper reports, to do some last minute distancing from phil shiner.
The Sun newspaper wasn’t impressed:
Beeb ‘slurs’ on Iraq heroes
The BBC were initially blocked from broadcasting the programme but went to court to force the issue so insistent were they about finding out the ‘truth’ of the matter:
Panorama’s legal victory
Panorama has won an important victory in the High Court against the Ministry of Defence which was attempting to prevent the broadcast of details of alleged abuse by soldiers in Iraq.
The Panorama programme ended with a bit of a disclaimer…as set out in the web report:
Panorama has seen no proof that prisoners died at the hands of their captors and concludes that the case being brought by solicitors Phil Shiner and Martyn Day represents the most extreme interpretation of a troubling but confusing incident. They are asking for the bodies to be disinterred and evidence to be handed to Scotland Yard.
Despite that dsitinct lack of proof for the next 5 years the BBC continued to bombard us with the allegations in a manner that suggested there was far more substance to them than there was…as we now know…they being the result of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hatred….you can wonder whether the judge was talking about the Iraqis, Shiner, the BBC or all three of them.
The BBC was very proud of its Panorama programme stating this on the announcement of the inquiry:
New inquiry into British army abuse in Iraq vindicates Panorama
Ironically the first line of this pyrrhic victory was this:
Time can make a world of difference in an emotive, ongoing story.
The BBC goes on to suggest:
In revisiting these allegations through public inquiries, the entire system of military justice will inevitably be called into question.
Well I imagine military justice has been vindicated…the RMP said there was no case…and there was no case….it was clearly a case of highly suspect allegations being encouraged by ‘ambulance chasing’ lawyers backed up by a media organisation that had its fingers badly burnt as it was caught lying about the Iraq War Dossier and has been seeking to exact revenge ever since.
As the BBC was so clearly ready to congratulate itself on firstly getting its ‘legal victory’ and then slapping itself on the back when it thought itself ‘vindicated’ perhaps it should now make a very large apology to the Public it so badly misled and not least the soldiers it helped pillory and their families who have all had to suffer these allegations for so long.
Con Coughlin at the Telegraph is of the same mind:
Al Sweady inquiry: The British Army deserves a full apology from the BBC
Looking back, it is amazing just how many people were prepared to believe the accusations that the British Army routinely tortured detainees.
Of course it was the BBC and its fellow travellers on the Left who made the most of accusations that British soldiers had committed what amounted to war crimes following a three-hour battle with Iranian-backed insurgents in Iraq in May 2004. Rather than praising the British soldiers for their undoubted heroism in tackling the Shia-dominated Mehdi Army in a fierce battle that could have gone either way, the BBC preferred to concentrate its considerable resources on Iraqi claims that some of the captured insurgents had been killed in cold blood, while others had been subjected to torture.
It is hard to imagine a more damning indictment of the Army’s accusers, and all those at the BBC and elsewhere who were credulous, or naive, enough to believe them. But now that the truth is out, perhaps those responsible for making this programme, and who gave an air of credibility to the claims, would now like to issue a fulsome apology to the British Armed Forces for their own grave errors of judgment.
They could even make a new programme explaining why they got the story so horribly wrong in the first place. Now, that really would be a first.
More seriously, though, Tony Hall, who as the BBC’s director-general has overall responsibility for the corporation’s current affairs output (in a previous life he was in charge of BBC news and current affairs), should undertake an urgent investigation of his own to find out how Panorama got it so badly wrong.
The BBC, rotten to its core. Like all things rotten, it gets thrown in the bin.
“Like all things rotten, it gets thrown in the bin.”
Sadly we are not allowed to put it in the bin. We have to pay for it to sit there making more of a stink and telling more lies.
The BBC will not say that they were wrong. They will ignore any complaints. I complained years ago about a documentary called Armageddon, that was about the Cold War nuclear threat. They said “the people” protested against British nucleur deterrent voiced over shots of a CND march. I objected saying that some may have objected and pointed out that all political parties supported the nucleur deterrent and asked them if they had polls about public opinion from that period to back up their assertion. It took extensive correspondence before they conceded that they should have said “some people” objected with considerable I’ll-grace. Institutional cultural mindset.
The BBC has been shameful in its support of these so called public interest lawyers.
The two most costly and insidious pieces of legislation for the taxpayer passed by the Blair and his government stuffed with lawyers, Human Rights Act and the Public Disclosure Act 1998.
The BBC appears to need disclaimers now at every point, from the headers of staff tweets to tucked away paras of stitch-ups masquerading as investigative reporting, to the small print of CECUTT correspondence.
Something only lawyers could love. Shakespeare had a triage suggestion for this.
And the number of stains to the reputation of the bbc are like a discarded swab in a field hospital.
They have turned their malign Sauron’s gaze in the wrong direction and what is coming back will haunt them.
I really hope their usual retreat behind ‘purposes of’ exemptions and claims of editorial integrity are brushed aside legitimately in the name of national security.
These are those with whom the national broadcaster, funded by compelled fees, has chosen to ally with:
http://order-order.com/2014/12/18/torture-lie-lawyers-unrepentant/
Maybe PIL should have an anonymous spokesperson who simply issues a daily ‘we believe we have got it about right’ and they can share PR with the BBC?
Surely we all know by now that whilst ordinary folk probably agree that this is ‘a stain on the reputation of the BBC ‘, but those whose opinion the BBC listens to, their leftist pals, will undoubtedly think that the BBC did a good job in further rubbishing the reputation of another British institution.
The BBC believes that it is too powerful and has too many friends in the liberal left establishment, who actually run the country, ever to be held to account. It has become a law unto itself and no party can govern without its tacit consent.
The Army is of course unable to demand an apology from the corporation, but perhaps those who believe that the BBC behaved despicably in giving credence to these trumped up claims and lies could club together to fund a law suit by the soldiers against the BBC.
The findings of the inquiry were well down the list on the BBC News bulletins yesterday. They will not concede they got it wrong. If you listen to ‘Feedback’ on Friday afternoons, listener’s complaints are brushed aside and should a Producer be called to respond, his/her attitude is that they have done nothing that would warrant or justify the complaint. From ‘The Archers’ to ‘Question time’ the left wing, ultra PC juggernaut trundles on regardless of public opinion.
I’ve just looked for the report on the website………nowhere to be seen . You have to place Al Sweady into a search to find it. Funny that…….Not . Just when you think the BBBC can’t get any lower you find the button in the lift for the cellar.
I have no illusions regarding the depth to which the BBC will sink be it miss reporting, exclusion or rigging votes on phone in programs and reality shows.
I am afraid that the Biased Broadcasting Corporation will do anything to undermine the reputation of this country, staffed as thet are by trendy, middle-class, liberal and Metropolitan stereotypes. Of more concern are the lawyers who “advised” these Iraqui nationals regarding their now discredited types. The Law Society and the Bar Council need to ask themselves whether these lawyers encouraged thsese individuals to pursue the claims, knowing that the evidence was non-existent, in order to increase the amountof legal aid they could claim from the state in order to line their pockets. If this was indeed the cae, then these bodies should bring disciplinary proceedings against them as soon as possible.
Phil Shiner of PIL is the guilty man here – even more than his fellow travellers at the BBC. He went to Iraq deliberately to look for those who could persuade to claim some form of mistreatment; promising lots of money and, of course, getting squillions in legal aid cash.
It’s ambulance chasing in its most extreme form and when there has not even been an accident.
It’s a total disgrace and Shiner should be charged with fraud.
Fraud, yes, and also conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. And his firm should be disbarred.
Treason more like.
Aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war.
Isn’t it time the BBC was unfunded, privatized, unbundled or whatever term is suitable? What should be left behind is its core allegience to Islam, the Trotskyite left, and associates of Labour hard liners. They could fund the organization via subscription and donation from various Arab countries.
‘Guardian’:-
“BBC current affairs not doing enough to explain difficult issues, says John Birt.”
[Opening excerpt]-
“The former BBC director general John Birt has criticised the corporation’s current affairs output, which includes Panorama, saying it is not doing enough to address ‘awesomely difficult questions’ about issues including Europe, the UK economy and the threat from radical Islam.”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/18/bbc-current-affairs-difficult-issues-john-birt?
In other words, we licencepayers are being inadequately brainwashed by BBC-NUJ and ‘Panorama,’ ‘Today,’ into the wonders of:
1. E.U federalism, 2. socialism 3. Islam.
John Birt was (is ) part of the problem. It was John Birts ‘Birtisms’ back inthe 1980s that rebadged the BBC news output to align with the ‘The Guardian’ readership and faking ‘balanced’ (contrary) news style (little news and more comment) to endorse a left-liberal perspective. All the BBC ouput since has engineered staff to seemlessly conform to left wing orthodoxy. The BBC uses its ‘distinctive’ voice to mock ‘English conservative values’ and rebrands ‘Britishness’ as Labour (liberal) values. Birt alone invented ‘Poltically Correct’ – Orwellian speakisms – well before Blair made it compulsory test for the rest of Public bodies to follow; Civil-service, Education (notably Universities) and state Schools, Union obliged NHS and Council and public quangos foloowed suit. All now follow Birts PC requsite to be employed – we now call it Politically Correct. Proper PC is always ‘left’ wing ‘human rights’ and ‘EU impositions’ immediatly endorsed adn implemented by Labour). Conservative ‘PC’ does not exist. Birt also sits on the advisory committee (Ministry of Media Culture andSports) on the future of the BBC charter and almost cetrainly and influenced all the Director Generals of the BBC ever since. He was basically a civil-servent drafted in to give the BBC ‘purpose’, very much the Tony Hall of his day. Now they both have Lordships in the title. That is the nature of ther BBC and then there is the large amounts of money to be gained from such a position of total power and privilige and this has made teh BBC archaic and indifferent to its future as it can NOT rely on future license fee funding in the future.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/01/john-birt-coded-battle-bbc-future
Should plan B consider the enforced removal of the word “British”
from this operator in the unfortunate outcome that it retains a licence tax regime beyond 2016?
This was a deliberate act of treason by both the BBC and the shyster socialist labour supporting lawyers !
Shyster being the operative word here.
thinking about it now,have the goverment and the security forces not got a good case now to bring against phil shiner and public interest lawyers for perjury,i think they have,also,with this disgusting attack on the army by the bbc with this panorama programme that was full of mistruths and lies about the british army when they was in iraq, i think there are now contempt of court charges that could be brought against the bbc and these panorama producers for one putting british soldiers lifes in danger before the full facts were known that these al qaeda suspects was found to lying through there teeths about being tortured and murdered by innocent british soldiers.
Where is Dez when we need to hear from a cheerleader for the bbc or has even he/she decided that their actions are morally Indefensible
Sigh….i have quipped for years to anybody who listens, but usually in a raised voice in public houses frequented by lawyers that the Law is not a profession, but a racket, studied by a species that has not the ability to study more useful subjects as Engineering, medicine, science etc….and are therefore a cost to society, and are little more than parasites.
Bullshit. A strong independent legal system is most of what separates us from the third world.
Interesting that you think that the third world has weak, non-independent legal systems. How very superior of you. A bit of soft racism there I think.
Also interesting is that you think ‘ambulance chasing’, of which this case is a superb example, is indicative of what separates us from the third world.
Bizarre.
How many judgements are imposed on us by the European Court? How many of the countries which represent it have ‘strong independent legal systems’ as opposed to ‘barely out of the cradle legal systems you wouldn’t trust to referee a Sunday league game’?
Though I agree with your sentiment, in practice it counts for less and less.
Well cockney, bullshit comes out of the mouths of some lawyers, Mr Shiner is but one, a repulsive, evil man, with a sordid and traitorous agenda. Will the Legal system act against him over this obvious fraud upon the taxpayer?…..No. Then again, the last 13 years has seen this country slide towards third world status in many aspects of life. Show me a left-wing human -rights ‘lawyer’, and i will adjust their greedy , grasping disposition……as they’ accidently’ fall off of a cliff.
But the BBC will still be showing the Trooping of the Colour and the Remembrance Parade as if they actually care about our armed forces. They should be banned from broadcasting any national event which involves our brave men and women
Here is how it works:
1. Panorama will investigate crimes by the British army. (Not yet proven)
2. The Panorama programme is referred in prepublicity and trailers as ‘Panorama’s crimes of the British Army’ programme.
3. After the show is over, proven or not, the ‘British Army’s crime programme’ is how the show is known.
4. British army crimes as a phrase passes into the language.
This is how America lost the Vietnam War, Che Guevara was a freedom fighter, Maggie Thatcher was an evil right winger, etc etc become summon parlance. The trick is to stop Thai stuff at the root.