Earlier this month we noted that the BBC was giving the views of ex-British ambassador, and pro-Assad mouth-piece, Peter Ford, complete credibility…The BBC…doing Russia’s dirty work for it.
The BBC interviewed him and then proceeded to use quotes from him throughout the day to promote the idea that the chemical attack in Syria may well have been a false flag operation by the rebels…in every news bulletin that I listened to the BBC did not inform us that Ford was in any way a supporter of the Assad regime, introducing him solely as ‘former British ambassador’.
The Telegraph reports Ford has indeed got very close links to Assad…
Revealed: How Britain’s former Syria ambassador appeared on BBC to defend Assad… after quietly taking a job with dictator’s father-in-law
A former British ambassador to Syria who appeared on the BBC to defend the Assad regime had already become a director of a lobby group run by the dictator’s father in law.
Peter Ford, 59, courted controversy this month by claiming that President Bashar al-Assad would not have carried out the chemical gas attack on his own people.
Now the Telegraph can reveal that just weeks before the April 4 attack Mr Ford had become a director of the controversial British Syrian Society.
This was founded by Fawaz Akhras, a London-based cardiologist whose daughter Asma is married to President Assad, and is closely linked to the regime, frequently accused of acting as its mouthpiece in the west.
The BBC’s response was to claim…
The BBC yesterday defended its use of Mr Ford as a commentator on events in Syria.
A spokesperson for the broadcaster said: “When Peter Ford has appeared on various BBC outlets this year his particular viewpoint has been signposted in the introduction in terms the audience will understand, for example he has been variously described as a ‘long term critic of Western Policy’, or part of ‘a dwindling group who still think Bashar al-Assad is the solution to Syria’.”
Now that’s just untrue, certainly on the day in question. The BBC was spreading doubt and pro-Assad messages purely to try and undermine Trump and his missile attack on Assad.
The BBC so hates Trump they are prepared to do anything to do him down….including supporting a man who has bombed, tortured and attacked his own people with chemical weapons.
Only one opinion should be heard on the BBC – that’s impartiality for you – Alan style!
p.s His directorship of a lobby group run by the Assad’s father in law was on his Wikipedia profile – not much of a secret.
Hmmm…don’t see anywhere where I suggest the BBC have only one viewpoint….you miss the point of this site…to argue that the BBC does indeed have more than one point of view, and then informs us of who is paying the piper to play that tune.
Ford’s closeness to Assad not a secret? Was to the BBC who didn’t bother to tell its audience about it…might have informed the debate…but the BBC ony wanted a good quote from someone ‘respectable’…ie an ex-British ambassador in order to attack Trump.
As the BBC response says and from what Peter Ford himself said, it was quite clear what his point of view was. The BBC sought him out because he was expressing a counter view to the general consensus – I doubt you can argue with any credibility that the weight of coverage did not point to Assad being responsible?
He was the former British ambassador to Syria, and therefore qualified to give a view – you are of course free to disagree with Ford – as I also do too, vehemently. But I tend to judge based upon the merits of his argument – this is the point – judge what he says, based on what he says.
No other media, or newspaper that includes his views, point this fact out either. Every time Malcolm Rifkind is introduced, it is usually as a former Foreign Secretary, because that’s his main qualification to speak on the subject, it’s not described that he worked for defence contractors who may benefit in some way from military action. Miriam González is introduced as an international lawyer – because that’s what qualifies her to speak on the subject – it’s not pointed out that she’s Nick Clegg’s wife – why should it be? (It’s always amused me the idea that husbands and wives must necessarily agree on all political matters!)
Contributors are introduced on the basis of their qualification to speak on a subject, and a viewer judges them on the merits of their arguments. Simple. It would clearly be a minefield to begin any introduction with a forensic examination of possible links that may have influenced their opinion. And you will inevitably find that people with experience and qualifications in an area – are likely to be involved in that area! And they may well get paid for it. Presumably every GP invited to discuss vaccines, should first have it pointed out that they may receive financial reward for vaccinating children?
Ford, who was clearly speaking against the consensus, is a well known critic of British and US policy in Syria. That’s why he was there – not because of some bias against Trump – he has been on the BBC previously making similar criticisms of the US/UK/David Cameron etc:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/british-policy-against-isis-in-syria-is-like-dog-returning-to-its-own-vomit-says-former-british-a6879256.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/23/british-policy-syria-former-ambassador-peter-ford
The BBC Editorial Guidelines on the matter:
4.4.14 We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities) are unbiased and we may need to make it clear to the audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint, if it is not apparent from their contribution or from the context in which their contribution is made’.
Of course, I’m sure we all look forward to the next time David Vance appears on television or radio, having it pointed out that he has appeared on the Russian propaganda channel Russia Today, and has therefore been in the pay of the Kremlin. A Kremlin which supports ‘a man who has bombed, tortured and attacked his own people with chemical weapons’. I’m sure we’d all welcome that, right?
Blackwell,
Ford works with Assad’s father-in-law and , no doubt, is well paid to peddle the propaganda. Personally, I would ignore anything he has to say and I do. I suspect he is just a gun-for-hire. His opinions are irrelevant and worthless.
That’s a judgement to come to as a viewer. As I said, I tend to judge on merits on arguments. You prefer your bubble.
He must have had to take a pay cut when he described Assad as ‘brutal and cruel’ here:
Bearing in mind that the chemical attack appears to be from the opposition to Assad, methinks that, in this case, you ARE letting your bias against the Ministry of Truth colour your opinions Alan. Personally, I support Assad in Syria – the lesser of two evils.
In no way does the attack ‘appear’ to come from the rebels…you have absolutely no evidence other than your own prejudice…pure speculation and fantasy.
The actual evidence points to Assad being the most likely culprit…he has the aircraft, rebels do not, he has the ability and experience to store and use highly toxic nerve agents like sarin, the rebels do not. Turkish analysis says sarin was used. Assad still has stocks of chemical weapons…and he has good reason to use them…he has nothing to lose in his position.
It’s irrelevant whether you support Assad or not, the point is we should know if any of Assad’s mouthpieces are touring BBC studios spreading misinformation. Be good if the BBC acknowledges that in order that we can assess the truth and accuracy of his words rather than just accept them because you rather like the look of Assad…despite the fact that he has killed vastly more people than the rebels ever have, the fact he essentially established ISIS in Syria and that the immigration crisis in Europe is mostly down to him and his refusal to accomodate another point of view.
Making immediate claims of attackers is dangerous: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jumping-conclusions-something-not-adding-idlib-chemical-weapons-attack/
It reminds me of the Sarajeva mortar bombing which brought in NATO on behalf of the Muslims. When examined by British army artillery sources, they stated that, most likely, the source of the mortars were the muslim side. This was backed up by French and Russian artillery sources. Yes, I know, Russia sided with Serbs, but Geral Rose accepted their evidence.
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/bosnia_sarajevo.htm
As to bBBC telling us that their commentators might have an agenda – agree.
As to Assad, in effect, established ISIS…….
And Ford was Ambassador under Blair. That does not make him a liar, of course !
My late father always used to say “Never trust a man who wears a tie lighter than his shirt” and it is remarkable how prescient that has turned out.
I bet those matching ties and shirts that were popular in the early seventies threw him then!
With so much disinformation around, the one way one can look at this is who gains from this alleged Syrian government attack on the Freedom Fighters.
It certainly isn’t Pres Assad. In fact he has lost. Why should he take this action when he had the assurance of Pres Trump that the USA was no longer in the business of driving him out of office.
The one who gains most is Pres Trump, as he shows himself to be a forceful president. It also get the rest of the Deep State Establishment off his back. This establishment was slowly edging its way to his impeachment. Pres Trump has lots to gain. The other is ISIS and other murderous Islamic Jihadis.
The Establishment has corralled Pres Trump into the reservation. So the establishment and the Intelligence agencies too have much to gain. Besides they have Pres Trump on board.
I cant think of a single reason why Pres Assad would order a poison gas attack. He has nothing to gain, and much to lose.
Syria nerve agent attack: why it made sense to Assad:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-syria-chemical-weapons-commentary-idUKKBN17D1PN
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/syria-nerve-agent-attack-why-it-made-sense-to-assad
Pres Assad is the one leader in the ME that allows all people to practice their faith freely. It is in Syria alone that Christians of all denominations, as well as Druze, and others, can practice their faith openly and without fear.
If he is deposed because the USA, egged on by the saintly Saudis, is once again in alliance with al Qaeda satellites, or ISIS offsprings, then I fear for Christians in Syria. They will be massacred and driven out of Syria, as they have from everywhere else in the ME.
Pres Assad was winning this US/Saudi funded war, as most of the Syrian people support him. He had no reason to use chemical weapons, knowing full well that it would invite American attack. Just a couple of days prior, the Trump administration had announced that the removal of Assad was upto the Syrian people. So, despite all this, Pres Assad decided immediately after the announcement, to use chemical weapons, and assure an American response.
Its beyond belief. Way way beyond belief.
Far more likely that it was ISIS, al Qaeda etc, that set off the chemical weapons, as a direct response to the new US policy that it was no longer advocating the overthrow of Pres Assad. And then what? The West has shown great reluctance to admit persecuted Christians, in comparison to the millions of Muslims pouring into the West – our future rulers.
“Pres Assad is the one leader in the ME that allows all people to practice their faith freely. It is in Syria alone that Christians of all denominations, as well as Druze, and others, can practice their faith openly and without fear.”
Well NCBBC you are highlighting why the BBC considers it a really good reason to get rid of him. His inclusive policy towards all religions is obviously offensive to Muslims.
General,
Good point. And he is supported by the Russians and the BBC have never forgiven them for the collapse of the BBC’s beloved Soviet Union.
Another reason the “Tolerant” West hates Russia, is that it does not support the LGBTQ agenda, and its propaganda carried into schools with state sanction.
This last, as far as the LeftLib Establishment is concerned, is the final betrayal by Russia of the LeftLib cause of dismantling Western civilisation. Betrayal of the socialist cause, and reverting to Christianity was bad enough, but not carrying forward the LGBT agenda, was going just too far. Started just prior to the Sochi Olympics.
So its blame Russia for everything. I’m surprised that Russia is not blamed for Climate Change- but they cant do that as that would defeat the purpose. So Russia somehow changed the outcome of the US elections, ditto Brexit, and now France.
Could be the invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, assassinations of journalists and political opponents, 25,000 dead civilians in Chechnya, support for the butcher Assad, alliance with Hezbollah, concentration camps for gays…
According to NCBBC, only the ‘left’ have a problem with this.
You should stay off the conspiracy sites bud.
When dealing with the BBC you don’t need conspiracy sites or theories to work out what it’s up to and where its sympathies lie – remember 28gate?
Lucky you have earlier cited The Guardian which, along with the BBC as the apparent limit of your education and information, is of course well known not to ever push a conspiracy theory if it can stir things up. Or…. is it? Petal.
Comical that someone should come on here defending the BBC by linking to the Guardian – and not just once. And the Indy too…
I don’t think posting a link to a Guardian and BBC article suggests that’s the limit of my education. Lucky your intellect isn’t judged on the same basis, or you might be thought of an obsessive Ne’er-do-well.
And you forgot about the Reuters article. I guess they’re in on it too.
Still why engage with the merit of the arguments in those articles about Assad’s motives for chemical weapon attacks? Much better to stick the tin foil hat on.
I’m afraid Alan that I too am with the dissenting voices on here, and am supportive of Assads regime.
You ask for some proof of the Sarin gas attack being perpetrated by the rebels, well it’s a big ask to the point of impossibility, but if past conduct can be used as a guide then here is some proof that the so called rebel groups have indeed been manufacturing, storing and using Sarin gas against the Syrian people:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-05/news/sns-rt-us-syria-crisis-unbre94409z-20130505_1_chemical-weapons-sarin-syria
“GENEVA (Reuters) – U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.
The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.”
Here’s a link to what the war is all about:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/press/syria-pipeline-how-the-press-will-not-tell-the-truth-about-syria/
And how the Obama administration is hopeless implicated in it:
“Back in December 2015, I explained what Syria was all about and why the Obama Administration wanted to invade to help Qatar get a pipeline through Syria to compete with Russia selling gas to Europe. I explained there were two pipelines one approved by Russia from Iran through Syria and the other Obama agreed to with Qatar also through Syria. The American press supported Obama by trying to make everyone believe Obama cared about innocent civilians being gassed. Nothing was further from the truth and the US was supplying the weapons to rebels who were slaughtering people and throwing them in mass graves. Obama turned a blind eye because the pipeline was more important than people in Syria.”
There’s also a video here by Dan Rather, of Watergate fame, on the corruption of the Western media worth a watch:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/dan-rather-exposes-corrupt-media-but-back-in-2008/
Seems to me Alan that you’ve been caught by listening to our one sided media which has not been telling the truth over what is going on in Syria.
There is one valid point about Trump’s attack on the Russian airbase – he first warned Putin and, as a consequence the loss of life is thought to be low. As to the damage caused – it appears to be negligible.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4391446/DoD-releases-satellite-images-Syrian-airfield-hit-US.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/syrian-warplanes-take-air-base-bombed-us-tomahawks/
Thanks for the article on the Syrian pipeline, Thoughtful.
joe,
I think you mean the Syrian airbase. I am not qualified to assess the damage but it certainly sent out a signal !
‘Thoughtful’ – a supporter of the Butcher of Damascus and the tyrant in Ankara. I’ve never came across anyone’s who’s username was so unintentionally ironic.
Another one who swallowed the media coolaid?
Did you not read all the links which prove the media has been lying to us, or do you not care?
Assad for all his faults had a tolerant and mostly peaceful country. We know from past experience the only way to run a successful country with Muslims in it is the way all leaders do it, by imprisonment torture and killing of the loons who would kill everyone else. When those ‘tyrants’ are removed from power just look what happens. Lybia – Iraq they went well when we removed their leaders didn’t they?
As for the ‘tyrant’ in Ankara, I don’t think you will find or be able to produce any evidence of my supporting him.
We know from past experience the only way to run a successful country with Muslims in it is the way all leaders do it, by imprisonment torture and killing of the loons who would kill everyone else.
In a nutshell. The least worst option, but still incomprehensible to the civilised West. But hey, that’s Arab states for you.
I’ve read the links.
The first is from 2013 – and it says only that testimony from medical staff and civilians indicate that rebel forces used Sarin – and that, pending completion of its investigation, it hadnt yet seen evidence of government responsibility.
Since the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has attributed 1 chemical attack to Isis, 3 to the Syrian government, and three were inconclusive but the weight of evidence point to Assad too.
Funnily enough after Assad supposedly gave up his chemical weapons, the nerve agent attacks all but stopped….to be replaced by chlorine. And largely targeting rebel held areas. Hmmmmm
Your 2nd link asserts, without any evidence, that it was all about a gas pipeline. Sure it was. And so was Afganistan, and Libya was about gold, and Sudan and North Korea refused to be part of the Rosthchild world bank. This stuff is for weak minded people who can’t handle reality. Try to be more ‘Thoughtful’.
Dan Rather’s criticisms may well be fair – but he doesn’t mention Syria, and never in any way suggests the West’s consensus (government’s, media, human rights organisations etc) on what’s happening in Syria is all a big lie. His suggestion of the ‘corporate’ media being corrupted by big money doesn’t apply to the publicly funded BBC. It would be quite a task to get just about every serious journalist to maintain the lie wouldn’t it?
Assad’s country was ‘tolerant’ as long as you didn’t oppose him – or you’d be taken away by his secret police and ‘tolerated’ in a dungeon somewhere.
You’re ok with ‘imprisonment torture and killing ‘ or at least think it’s a necessary evil. Think on that.
A UN inspection might be able to establish responsibility. Pity Russia vetoed it, and Assad opposed it too.
On the subject of name calling, and in my alter capacity as Gusset Who, I have been wondering if any of your colleagues have been offended enough to request a change to Personofcolourwell?
I too very much doubt Assad gassed his own people. It just doesn’t make any sense (not suggesting he’s not capable though, if it suited his agenda).
There is a claim that the corrupt Western media is so virulently anti Trump that they are even prepared to switch sides in the Syrian conflict simply so they can oppose Trump on every issue possible.
They weren’t going to blame Obama when he was up to his dirty little deals over Gas, but the Donald is different, and there is a feeling that they will attempt to pin the blame for the Syrian conflict on him.
This might be the start of that by the BBC, but we do need to keep an eye of their shenanigans.
‘There is a claim that the corrupt Western media is so virulently anti Trump that they are even prepared to switch sides in the Syrian conflict’
That’s what I’m hearing. Lots of people are saying it. Believe me. Bigly.
A week ago Boris Johnson wrote an article in the Telegraph on the gas attack. Amid all the ‘isn’t Assad terrible’ stuff there was an interesting sentence on the delivery of the gas: “a shell landed in the street, making a small crater.” As Boris is the Foreign Secretary I have to assume that he receives the most accurate intelligence reports.
I don’t care what aircraft the Syrians had in the air at the time – aircraft don’t drop shells.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/15/assads-murderous-behaviour-offers-opportunity-russia-end-tyranny/
Peter Ford has given us lots of background information on Syria that the government was keeping hidden. These attacks on him seem to be a classic case of “play the man not the ball”.
RJ, we know from what others, including Pounce have told us, that you cannot drop Sarin from the air. The explosion destroys the gas, which it is trying to disperse but not so widely that its effect is reduced. We do not know for sure that Sarin was used but the BBC have reported it as fact. The Turkish authorities claim they have evidence.
I think you have it perfectly right in your last sentence.
If I am recalling correctly that the BBC was initially banned and then only operated in Syria with restrictions, that doesn’t stop them seeking information as widely as possible from outside. Peter Ford’s contribution forms part of that. It would have been good if he had mentioned his new appointment. Maybe he did to the BBC but they did not give him time to mention it? I do not recall whether there was a time pressure on his contribution.
Whatever, this seems to be a bit of a media spat. The BBC are attacking print. The BBC are attacking new media. The print are attacking broadcasters, especially the BBC. New media is fighting back, too.
The public are abandoning the BBC and print and turning to new media.
One new reality the old media does not seem to grasp or be able to come to terms with is new media. People inside Syria have cell-phones, smart phones, tablets and computers. So do people outside. They communicate. They inform. They educate each other. They talk.
The BBC, like the rest of the old media, is under threat. They do not like it.
‘There’s another beauty!’
Alan, I haven’t read the other comments so you may have already been taken to task for this: ” The BBC was spreading doubt and pro-Assad messages purely to try and undermine Trump and his missile attack on Assad.
The BBC so hates Trump they are prepared to do anything to do him down….including supporting a man who has bombed, tortured and attacked his own people with chemical weapons.”
I would not disagree that the BBC hates Trump. That was evident by their coverage of the nomination process, the campaign and post-Election coverage especially on WatO and PM.
However, the BBC has been blatant in its anti-Assad attacks and campaigning. They have deliberately distorted their coverage to omit the two UN weapons inspections that Assad submitted to and the subsequent surrendering of components of potential chemical ‘weapons’. In addition, BBC presenters have repeatedly condemned Assad for using chemical weapons and barrel bombs in attacks on his own people.
This is another partial but at best totally unsubstantiated truth. The BBC have been told several times that the Syrian CIVIL WAR is multi-dimensional with some factions partly or wholly manned from outside Syria taking part in the conflict. They have been told several times – I have heard it – that as many as a hundred different groups or more are fighting Assad and even among themselves. Despite that they repeat the phrase about Assad attacking his own people when the opposite – if you leave out the outsiders – is much closer to the truth.
In Damascus and around the city beyond the suburbs, Assad’s people live in relative peace and normality. The BBC have almost never broadcast that fact in my hearing or on their web-site. I remember just once, an item about shopping and sweet or ice-cream or cake making in Damascus.
Do I recall correctly that the BBC was banned from Syria at the start of the conflict? That may have something to do with their bias.
Did they use Ford deliberately as an anti-Trump weapon?
I very much doubt it. It makes no sense. Just like Assad’s troops using chemical weapons and barrel bombs made no sense at that stage in the conflict. I heard Peter Ford broadcast on that occasion and what he said did not seem excessively pro-Assad. It was useful information based on his experience and contacts.
You should also remember that Donald Trump was described in all sorts of ways by the BBC, based in part and often out of context of some of the things Trump had being saying pre-nomination and in the campaign, enhanced by the BBC’s dislike of him. Here he was, assuming as we do that the US Military had precise information on what had happened, making a military non-isolationist response and confounding the BBC who had built Donald Trump up as an isolationist. Instead he showed up their hero, Obama, and acted. Their other bogey man was Assad. Bogey Man 2 hits Bogey Man 1’s airfield in a token strike over something the BBC has been emoting over and possibly or probably deliberately misreporting for years.
BBC has egg on its face already. What more can you ask? President Trump comes along and rubs it in! ‘That’s another beauty!’
I think you are wide of the mark here.
I love listening to football on Radio 5 live.It’s so diverse to hear so many lady presenters
and pundits. What I specially like is when we hear during a Premiership commentary or FA Cup
match that Chelmsford ladies have equalized.Actually the lines are open for the phone in
I must phone Kelly Cates and ask her if the ladies equalizer was offside?
Offside?
Very good.
Syria is such a mess I don’t suppose anyone has a clue who was really responsible for the gas attack; it might be Assad, it might be the rebels. What we do know is that when it first came to light, the BBC and other main stream media in their news bulletins were wailing, ‘why won’t anyone do something to help the poor children?’ Ok, some of it was implied as they showed their film. But Trump saw their film and did something. The BBC then cried, ‘we didn’t really mean you to do something.’ Of course had Obama still been in the White House the reporting would have been different.
Thanks Deborah. To the point and quite right. I doubt we will ever know who used the weapons. Everybody gets very worked up over the use of chemical weapons, but shooting, stabbing or blowing a person to bits is quite ok. Chemical weapons are primarily terror weapons, and the use of such items generally is for political motives rather than tactical. Yes they can assist in the winning of battles but they are far more likley to assist in loosing the war. I am highly sceptical of claims made thus far.
Deborah/Spider
Agree with both of you. It is ridiculous that journalists and others, who have no more knowledge than you or me, make such dogmatic statements. They just make fools of themselves.