Blair 1 BBC 0

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 52
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Im listening to BBC news 24. Gilligan has resigned.



    OMG, this is getting so nasty - in critisism of Hutton - that im trying not to laugh.



    I think things are going to turn around quite quickly.
  • Reply 22 of 52
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Andrew Gilligan said:





    Quote:

    I am today resigning from the BBC. I and everyone else involved here have for five months admitted the mistakes we made.



    We deserved criticism. Some of my story was wrong, as I admitted at the inquiry, and I again apologise for it.



    My departure is at my own initiative. But the BBC collectively has been the victim of a grave injustice. If Lord Hutton had fairly considered the evidence he heard, he would have concluded that most of my story was right.



    The government did sex up the dossier, transforming possibilities and probabilities into certainties, removing vital caveats; the 45-minute claim was the `classic example' of this; and many in the intelligence services, including the leading expert in WMD, were unhappy about it.



    Thanks to what David Kelly told me and other BBC journalists, in very similar terms, we know now what we did not know before.



    Tribute to Dr Kelly



    I pay tribute to David Kelly.



    This report casts a chill over all journalism, not just the BBC's. It seeks to hold reporters, with all the difficulties they face, to a standard that it does not appear to demand of, for instance, Government dossiers.



    I am comforted by the fact that public opinion appears to disagree with Lord Hutton and I hope this will strengthen the resolve of the BBC.



    The report has imposed on the BBC a punishment far out of proportion to its or my mistakes, which were honest ones.



    It is hard to believe now that this all stems from two flawed sentences in one unscripted early-morning interview, never repeated, when I said that the Government "probably knew" that the 45-minute figure was wrong.



    I attributed this to David Kelly; it was in fact an inference of mine.



    It has been claimed that this was the charge which went round the world, but a cuttings check shows that it did not even get as far as a single Fleet Street newspaper.



    Nor did the government mention it in its first three letters of complaint.



    In my view, this helps explain why neither I nor the BBC focused on this phrase as we should have. I explicitly made clear, in my broadcasts, that the 45-minute point was based on real intelligence.



    'Exaggeration not fabrication'



    I repeatedly said also that I did not accuse the government of fabrication, but of exaggeration. I stand by that charge, and it will not go away.



    In Greg Dyke the BBC has lost its finest director general for a generation.



    He should not have resigned, and I am extremely sorry to see him go.



    I would like to thank the BBC for its support throughout the extraordinary and terrible ordeal that has been the last seven months.



    It has defended the right to investigate and report accurately on matters about which the public has a right to know. Save for the admissions I and the BBC have made, my reporting on the dossier's compilation fulfilled this purpose.



    I love the BBC and I am resigning because I want to protect it. I accept my part in the crisis which has befallen the organisation. But a greater part has been played by the unbalanced judgments of Lord Hutton.



  • Reply 23 of 52
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    The British reaction to this, or what I gather about it from over here, is interesting to me. There seems to be little sympathy for Blair as the victim of some kind of BBC smear, as many American conservatives are suggesting. It seems like it almost would have been better for Blair, politically, if it had gone the other way.
  • Reply 24 of 52
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    The British reaction to this, or what I gather about it from over here, is interesting to me. There seems to be little sympathy for Blair as the victim of some kind of BBC smear, as many American conservatives are suggesting. It seems like it almost would have been better for Blair, politically, if it had gone the other way.



    If American conservatives are really suggesting that, then you are really being completely misled. I realise that in the US, you may not have had the blanket coverage, of the last few days on the issue, or have seem the televised coverage of the Hutton enquiry as it proceeded, so you are less informed on the events.



    But it is clear to most of the UK, that the BBC, while it made a few simple, unchecked errors, which deserved critisism, the whole story of the BBC reporter was correct, bar two sentances, transmitted just once very early in the morning on the radio.



    What followed culminating a few days ago, was a public enquiry supposedly into the death of a well respected scientist, in which all parties were called to account, from Blair to the depths of the government departments, to the BBC and various reporters.



    It was entirely clear to us in the UK, due to unprecedented coverage of the enquiry, that while the BBC made these errors, and admitted them fully at the first instance, that Bliar and co. squirmed, lied, decieved and dodged their way through the enquiry. The didn't conceed any, I mean any areas, where they were proved to be at fault. And I think Its fair to say that Hutton sided with the Govnment despite the evidence that proved otherwise, beyond all reasonable doubt.

    The phrase of the week over here has been 'whitewash'.



    9 out of 10 people in recent polls conducted by many organisations in the UK, have clearly seen straight through the verdict as presented by Hutton, to be an unfair and unrelavant account of what the evidence given at the enquiry was about. Hutton was chosen by Blair, to lead an inquiry into an extremely narrow area of the war, under the guise of Kelly's death, but to clear the government of the allegations. He had, I believe, an impeccable reputation. I believe he will now be remembered as the biggest phony, hippocrite and fraud. He quite clearly sold out to the establishment.



    Even today, more and more evidence is coming to light that the BBC's story was correct. I soon believe that the BBC story in its entirety, will be proven to be almost a 100% accurate representation of the truth. It is not that hard to believe that the allegation that "the government knew the 45 minute deploment of WMD was probably false", was a true allegation.



    There are some very serious questions that the government now needs to answer. Here are a couple.



    Why was the spindoctor Alastair Campbell revising the war dossier over 14 times to make it an acceptable reason to go to war? WTF has a PR officer got to do with Intelligence draughting if not to sex it up. Why did Hutton completely ignore this.



    Why did Blair completley deny ("Emphatically not!") that he was ultimately responsible for naming Kelly, and later during the enquiry it was discovered that he chaired the meeting where it was decided that Kelly would be named. Did this completely escape Hutton?



    There are so many Q's that are unanswered, none of them in the governments interest. On the other hand the BBC have held their hands up and admitted everything, well before the verdict. Many very good people have lost their jobs and lives.



    This is not a smear on Blair by the BBC by any yardstick. The government lied and decieved the whole UK, and the BBC found it out first. Because it is fully independant it ran the story. Had there not have been a few schoolboy errors, this would have exposed the government as rotten to the core, but somehow, Hutton only managed to give the BBC a beating for its errors. Obviously Blair and co. could only take the stance they did, or face annhilation, Hutton was their tool, the BBC was the sacrifice.



    But nobody believes it.
  • Reply 25 of 52
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Another point, you must remember, is that Blair sold the war to the nation solely on the issue of WMD. Any expose of deceit in this will bring him crashing down, so you can understand the extent to which he and Campbell decided to take on the BBC.



    Contrast this to Bush appearing on TV today, demanding to know 'the facts'. If blair did this, he wont last a week.



    I understand that Bush sold the war to the US, on much more than the WMD, so to a large extent, he is partially protected from the fallout of this. Correct me if Im wrong - I dont get 24 hours of blanket US news coverage.
  • Reply 26 of 52
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    The British reaction to this, or what I gather about it from over here, is interesting to me. There seems to be little sympathy for Blair as the victim of some kind of BBC smear, as many American conservatives are suggesting. It seems like it almost would have been better for Blair, politically, if it had gone the other way.



    I find it interesting that the American conservatives, are painting it this way. Excuse my ignorance, but are the conservatives the party in power at the moment? Would there be political fallout in the US if Blair was found to be a fraud? Perhaps this might explain their stance. What are the other party saying? Sorry I dont get the whole republican/democrat relation to the UK parties.
  • Reply 27 of 52
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    For example, here's what Andrew Sullivan had to say about it:



    Quote:

    BEEB CHAIRMAN RESIGNS: The much awaited Hutton report is an absolute vindication for Tony Blair and a catastrophe for the BBC. So the BBC Chairman has now resigned. Yay! Here is the BBC's summary of the findings:

    (etc.)



    That kind of talk is all over the conservative media in the US.



    But yeah, when I say conservatives, I mean Republicans, Bush being one. So a "vindication" of Tony is a vindication of Bush and the conservatives in the US.
  • Reply 28 of 52
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Excerpt from a Guardian opinion piece by Max Hastings





    Quote:

    Andrew Gilligan failed himself and the BBC, and should pay the price. There were editorial lapses within the corporation, for which Greg Dyke's resignation was inescapable. It is impossible to defend shoddy reporting, and the BBC's subsequent handling of the Gilligan case.



    Yet Hutton's assault upon the whole culture of the BBC and journalism is out of all proportion to their offences. It ignores the huge, ugly reality, that Tony Blair took Britain to war in Iraq on a fraudulent prospectus. I say this as one of those who swallowed it at the time. It is partly because I accepted the Whitehall line on WMD that I feel so dismayed today, when it has been shown to be false, whether wilfully or no.



    That more or less sums it up in my view. There were some serious lapses by the BBC on this story, but the bottom line is that the U.K. goverment's war dossier was false and there is considerable evidence that it was deliberately false. Who should pay the price for that?
  • Reply 29 of 52
    The BBC did have an editorial policy of not running single-sourced anonymous material, and chose to break this rule when it allowed them to make an attack on Blair's government. Then even with the magnitude of the story, the BCC's board deliberately refused to look into the story, and instead made the choice to back it without question even when challenged by the government. Anyone who followed the Hutton enquiry closely - and the evidence was posted every day on the Hutton website - could see that the BBC was in grievous error at every level.



    Gilligan report was damaging to the Government, intentionally misleading, if not intentionally malicious. I don't believe that the Hutton report will change the BBC much. Though it's clear that Kelly affair was not the first time BBC has lied. A few token heads will roll and nothing at all will change. The real tragedy is that the BBC, a taxpayer-supported organization, doesn't serve your "right to know" very well. One would like to assume that the press is always truthful, always represents your "right to know," as opposed to politicians who always lie. In BBC's case, not only is this untrue, that they have a very transparent agenda, they also take your money to push it.



    I watched some BBC news broadcasts after the Hutton report. Can't sit through too many as they truly make me nauseous. And I'm not at all optimistic that the BBC is capable of reform. Having spent weeks saying Lord Hutton was a man of impeccable integrity whose judgment should not be questioned, they now question his judgment. That they would bring out three alleged experts who all but dismiss the Hutton report is nothing less than a clear "**** you" to every one of their critics. They are so fantastically arrogant that I don't think there's any chance at all that they are going to change their ways. And so, fraud, arrogance, sloppiness, antagonism and abuse of power will continue as they have.
  • Reply 30 of 52
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    So who's correct? Was the BBC really wrong at almost every level? Or was their story almost 100% correct?



    I mean, procedurally they may have messed up, but still got the facts correct? Is this what's happened?



    I haven't followed this closely at all, but I don't get my news from the BBC either.
  • Reply 31 of 52
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    So who's correct? Was the BBC really wrong at almost every level? Or was their story almost 100% correct?



    I mean, procedurally they may have messed up, but still got the facts correct? Is this what's happened?



    I haven't followed this closely at all, but I don't get my news from the BBC either.




    The BBC's (gilligan) story was correct, but he slipped up when he said "The government probably knew the 45 minute claim to be false" because he apparently did not have evidence of this claim.



    The BBC then decided to defend its reporter after the govnments spindoctor Campbell complained.



    This is the extent of the BBC's errors.

    However note.



    Gilligan spoke to Dr Kelly in person the day before his broadcast. Dr Kelly dead a week after, so cannot testify in person to Hutton about what he really said.



    The 45 minute claim was inserted to the dossier after it had been through Campbells hands something like 14 times.



    The 45 minute claim was late arriving, unverified intel from a single source.



    The 45 minute claim was disputed by several Jr intel agents and Dr Kelly, but all were overruled by Hoon (defence secretary), Blair and Campbell.



    A section of the dossier was proved to be a students thesis downloaded from the internet.



    Campbell was sending letters of complaint to the BBC almost every single day, about anything and everything.



    Campbells original complaint to the BBC about gilligans broadcast didn't even mention the 45 minute claim - ie it was just another general complaint as usual. Only after 2 weeks did he make this the issue of his complaint, when he realised he has some legal argument he could pursue.



    At the present time, we have first the US government calling for an enquiry about the quality of Intel, and now the British govn has been forced to do the same. Now we have a situation, where Blair admitted just a few days ago, that he did not know what the 45 minute intel reffered to when we went to war. But apparently Hoon and others did know, but didn't tell him.



    Why?



    The dossier intel was bollocks (proven), the fact that it was modified so much by Campbell (proven), who should have had nothing to do with intelligence reports (proven), only confirms (to me and 90% of the public (proven!)) that it was 'sexed-up' deliberately to dupe the British public. Lord Hutton somehow could not see this!



    Gilligans BBC story only fell down because gilligan slipped up in two sentances. Everything else was correct. But those 2 sentances gave the govn legal authority to crucify him and the BBC. The BBC slipped up in the fact that it should have discliplined gilligan for slipping up.



    If gilligan had phrased it differently, this would have been one of the most important exposures of government deceit in recent history, but the slip allowed Blair and co to legally clear themselves of all wrongdoing at the BBC's expence.



    END OF STORY.
  • Reply 32 of 52
    "The BBC does not spin their reports.

    Oh, sorry, I meant the BBC does spin all their reports."




    Translation: I can make shit up all I want, but if most of it is correct, then hey, I got most of it right, so what's problem?!



    The problem is, if the BBC "News" Service is going to carry on being an Arab League/Jihadi mouthpiece, then let those parties foot the bill. Just sell the remaining interests to them Saudi lovers of democracy and free speech and be done with it.
  • Reply 33 of 52
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Let's watch what we say. People are deliberately pushing others buttons in here, and not really addressing any points to be made about the topic.
  • Reply 34 of 52
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blue Shift

    [i]



    Translation: I can make shit up all I want, but if most of it is correct, then hey, I got most of it right, so what's problem?!



    The problem is, if the BBC "News" Service is going to carry on being an Arab League/Jihadi mouthpiece, then let those parties foot the bill. Just sell the remaining interests to them Saudi lovers of democracy and free speech and be done with it.




    Alrighty then. I think you have the BBC confused with Al Jazeera there. This is one of the most Waaayyyy Out There? posts I've ever read on this site.

    Bunge, if you want the BBC story explained, I suggest you read what MarcUk says. The polls in Britain, from 55% to a whopping 67% (Murdoch owned Sky ironically) seem to agree with MarcUK.



    Quote:

    Almost half of the public thinks the Hutton report was a "whitewash" and that it is unfair the BBC has to shoulder all the blame for the death of David Kelly, according to a poll by the London Evening Standard. The first major survey of the British people's reaction to Lord Hutton's verdict has uncovered widespread scepticism, with 56% of people saying the judge had been unfair to heap most of the blame on the corporation.

    Exactly half of those questioned on the Hutton report

    by pollsters NOP for the Evening Standard said they

    found its conclusions unconvincing, while 49% said it

    was a whitewash.

    A separate poll carried out by Sky News provided

    even more dramatic figures, with 67% saying no to

    the question "Has the Hutton inquiry got to the

    truth?".



    Linky
  • Reply 35 of 52
    Well, certainly many former BBC employees don't have that confusion regards Al Jazeera - as many of them are now respected Al Jazeera employees. Here's a sample of their work:





    Lights, Camera, Action!



  • Reply 36 of 52
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Someone should check those photographers for a can of black spray paint.
  • Reply 37 of 52
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blue Shift

    Well, certainly many former BBC employees don't have that confusion regards Al Jazeera - as many of them are now respected Al Jazeera employees. Here's a sample of their work:





    Yeah, those are definitely BBC/Al Jazeera photographers. We have that based on solid intelligence.
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blue Shift Standing by w da 2 by 4



    Come on Blue, to call the president "da 2 by 4" is not very nice.That's uncalled for.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Someone should check those photographers for a can of black spray paint.



    Agree. You never know. Those could be Fox reporters, or even Chalabi people. Graffitti should not go unpunished!
  • Reply 38 of 52
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gilsch

    Come on Blue, to call the president a 2 by 4 is not very nice.That's uncalled for.





    Tony da president? And I always thought that Israel was da 51st State.
  • Reply 39 of 52
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blue Shift

    "The BBC does not spin their reports.

    Oh, sorry, I meant the BBC does spin all their reports."




    Translation: I can make shit up all I want, but if most of it is correct, then hey, I got most of it right, so what's problem?!




    The BBC paid a very heavy price for the mistakes they made. IMO the punishment, while aguably some was due, did not fit the crime. It would simply be not acceptable to for the BBC to conduct itself in the terms you said, and I think almost all sane people would agree that the BBC does not conduct itself in this way.



    On the other hand, the extent of the governments perceived crimes as heard at the Hutton report were totally overlooked and cleared. This is where the problem arose. You have a big thorny stick for the small crime, and a big lovely bed of roses filled with a marshmallow centre for the real criminals.



    Quote:



    The problem is, if the BBC "News" Service is going to carry on being an Arab League/Jihadi mouthpiece, then let those parties foot the bill. Just sell the remaining interests to them Saudi lovers of democracy and free speech and be done with it.




    Off the top of my head, the BBC receives something like £110 from each of the UK's 23 million households a year. Thats about £2.5 billion a year. I dont know the ratios of ethnicity in the UK, but I suspect a fair chunk of that comes from minority religious households, maybe £.5 - £.75 billion, so they do have a responsibility to serve this community. I admit I get 80% of my news from the BBC, and I am white, and simply accept and tolerate the 5-10% of news that does not naturally fall within the remit of my own personal thinking, but there is not this bias you claim. Of course I see reports of things that make me think, 'why the **** dont these people get a clue', or 'whats their ****ing problem', but at the end of the day, I am not representative of every view in the UK or abroad, and you have to accept and respect the POV of every person who pays for the BBC's content. Contrast this to Sky News or the Sun (cough cough) where you generally get the political agenda of murdoch, or how many US news agencys bought off by which party, and the BBC looks like the better option.



    Actually, is there a major news agency, anywhere in the world that does not have a political affiliation or commercial agenda to push?
  • Reply 40 of 52
    I am perfectly willing to accept that Sky News might be biased to the right - just don't piss down my leg and tell me the BBC is "impartial". So stop the pretenses!



    The few times I was able to stomach watching the BBC, I'm not at all surprised that 70% of Britons might feel Saddam was the victim of an unfair campaign to get him by Bush and Blair.



    The BBC has also been the most pernicious anti-Israel broadcaster for at least the last two decades, while sympathizing to the extreme with the JordaEgypitian Islamo-fascists. In fact, I believe that the BBC's anti-Israel bias is one of the reasons for anti-semitism making a come back around the world - and in Europe in particular. The reason is that many people trust the BBC as an honest news organisation, a reputation it might have deserved in days gone by, but not for a long time now. The BBC is a huge organization, and has enormous political influence, not just in the UK but worldwide. It sets the agenda, worldwide. It has huge resources in satellite broadcasting and terrestrial transmitters around the world. But the BBC News has become institutionally anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Western, anti-Democracy, pro-Commie, pro-terror, pro-Arab, pro-Saddam. So a removal of a "Captain" might look nice, and may seem like it's setting a new tone, but to me, it is far more important that they purge those captains' sycophants. And I doubt much of that will happen.
Sign In or Register to comment.