The BBC doesn’t like criticism, it likes to hand it out but doesn’t like it when the tables are turned.
Last year it started to operate a new policy of attempting to charge down any criticism it received in the Press…
Contact right! BBC’s rapid rebuttal unit goes into action against the Sun
The Guardian told us to…
Dig your foxholes good and deep, people – it’s going to be a long war …
And so it seems…the BBC has once again struck out at the Sun for their report on payments to MPs who appear on the BBC…as ‘Retweeted’ by the Mail (It’s free!)..
BBC pays out £200,000 of taxpayers’ cash in fees to MPs who appear on shows with Labour’s Diane Abbott and Alan Johnson pocketing the most
But is the BBC’s reply the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
The reply in brief, and more readable…
SUN ATTACK: THE BBC’S RESPONSE
The BBC claimed stories about appearance fees paid to MPs are run on a “regular cycle” by various newspapers. It pointed out that MPs only get paid when they appear in a capacity beyond their role as a politician, such as on Have I Got News For You.
So “MPs only get paid when they appear in a capacity beyond their role as a politician, such as on Have I Got News For You.”
Really?
How about Diane Abbot?
In 2012 the BBC were caught out…
BBC payments to MP Diane Abbott ‘breached guidelines’
And yet Guido said in December last year…
Diane has raked in a six figure sum from Auntie Beeb for her appearance fees since April 2007. Despite the BBC Trust admitting two years ago that Abbott was overpaid. You can see the full breakdown of her BBC cash via the BanTheBBC blog here. That means Diane has trousered nearly £600,000 from the British public in the last seven years…
Abbot appears on the political programme ‘This Week’…and of course is there precisely because of her role as an MP…as is Portillo….hardly ‘appearing in a capacity beyond her role as an MP’ then. And yet she is getting paid.
Labour stalwart Alan Johnson, MP, is also a favourite of the BBC, no doubt employed to keep the Red Flag flying in the hearts and minds by presenting us with the friendly and avuncular socialist Al….’political’ but under the radar (as Jack Straw might say).
The BBC also employs the likes of Rory Stewart and will claim he is appearing in the role of presenter. But that isn’t true. He’s there on the BBC because he has been carefully selected in light of his well known views on the wars in Iraq and Aghanistan…in essence he is against them, which of course chimes with the BBC’s mindset and so he is presenting programmes that are highly political despite being labelled ‘history’. Like Portillo he is a Tory wet and unlikely to rock the BBC boat but is a suitable stooge that makes it as if the BBC has attempted some balance by giving airtime to a Tory. He is the ‘goto’ guy for the BBC if they want some adverse comment about the Wars.
The Guardian reveals the true narrative of one of his programmes on the invasions of Afghanistan…
I think I know how it goes. Muskets and bayonets will be replaced by tanks and Kalashnikovs, then by drones and IEDs.
But the story will be the same – one of defeat, or uncertain victory, and heavy casualties. It’s as if that past 175 has been one long warning about the dangers of getting involved there, but a warning ignored.
Ah, how stupid to get involved in Afghanistan.
Here he is again, this time on the subject of the Middle East talking about Lawrence of Arabia…associated with the creation of the much hated, by the BBC, nation states in that region…
Rory Stewart examines the writings of Lawrence of Arabia, and learns that the warrior hero himself later questioned the very nature of his intervention in the Middle East.
In these two films, he examines the legacy of Britain’s First World War campaign in the Middle East, and draws parallels with British and American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan today.
He concludes, ‘Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan today, I believe very strongly that Lawrence’s message would not have been do it better, do it more sensitively, but don’t do it at all.’
But that’s not true…Lawrence thought that the outcome was the best that could be achieved and thought it, in the end, quite good all things considered…
In March 1921, Lawrence travelled to Cairo with Churchill, to create a new settlement. With the Arabs they created a new order. Feisal, recently banished from Syria, received the throne of Iraq and British troops were removed.
Feisal’s brother, Abdullah, received the throne of Transjordan. Lawrence was convinced this settlement gave the Arabs all Britain had ever promised.
Finally, his long war was over. ‘
Lawrence himself said in letters to trusted friends…..
‘The settlement which Winston (mainly because my advocacy supplied him with all the technical advice and arguments necessary) put through in 1921 and 1922 was, I think, the best possible settlement which Great Britain, alone, could achieve at the time.’
‘As I get further and further away from things the more completely do I feel that our efforts during the war have justified themselves and are proving happier and better than I’d ever hoped.’
Doesn’t really chime with Stewart’s claim that ‘the warrior hero himself later questioned the very nature of his intervention in the Middle East.’
Even Stewart’s jaunts around Britain exploring its past are supposed to have a political resonance with us today, teaching us lessons that are meant to alter our perceptions of the world and our beliefs and subsequent actions….here he is outlining his opposition to borders….in a documentary ostensibly just about the area surrounding Hadrian’s Wall…but really about so much more….
Rory, who considers the building of Hadrian’s Wall to be one of the single-most important events in Britain’s history, will investigate the issues of identity and culture in a region divided by a fabricated border.
Drawing on memories from his experience in war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan, and from the years spent walking the lands either side of Hadrian’s Wall, Rory hopes to shed some light on the region before the Roman soldiers divided families and communities, the impact of the Roman occupation on the region, and how the area changed once they had left. Rory suggests that the Middleland – sometimes completely autonomous, sometimes ignored, and sometimes a lawless debatable land – was transformed from a meeting point between different cultures into a borderland.
In reality Stewart is advocating open borders, the free movement of people, and no nation states defined and limited by national borders…all ideas close to the heart of any good BBCer.
The BBC is slipping in propaganda dressed up as history. And it has employed a well known figure, an MP, to do its work knowing that he is in fact both promoting their ideas and his own, also knowing that such a ‘respectable’ figure will carry some weight with the audience and therefore so will his arguments and opinions….all backed up by the ‘trust and respect’ they have for Aunty.
So, again, just as with Abbot, Stewart is appearing in a political role, his role disguised but all the same, there….and getting paid for it.
So the Sun is right and the BBC is telling porkies.