Dr David Kelly

[Aladdin]

The police has all but confirmed that the body found this morning is that of Dr. David Kelly, the UN inspector at the centre of the war between the government and the BBC. Full story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076801.stm)

His death (if confirmed) is tragic news indeed. But what happened? No details are known yet of possible cause of death. Some has suggested this was a man under great pressure. The government has been desperately trying to locate the 'source' that told the BBC Downing Street had sexed up the Iraq dossier. Did he buckle under the pressure and commit suicide?

Or do I dare to imagine a much more sinister possibility? This man obviously knew many things from his career as a UN inspector and his relations with the Ministry of Defence...

In either case, this is the worst possible news for the government, and something that will draw even more attention to the Iraq dossier issue.

[Clandestine]

Disposing of whistleblowers is nothing new to either the UK nor to the US. Just another indication of how unaccountable our governments both are and wish to remain.

The truth behind the facade we call "democracy".

[pnjsurferpoet]

Did some ambitious person at the BBC...the Baghdad Broadcasting Company...kill him? They have the motive...right? Or am I wrong. I'm asking.

[Aladdin]

This is big, big news over here (as it should be). All the news channels have dropped everything else and given continuous coverage. Even BBC 1 has connected over to News 24 for a special broadcast.

I hope the government will stop acting so cocky now and looking for scapegoats when everybody knows they exaggerated (to put it mildly!) the threat Iraq posed. For what's worth I believe he committed suicide- the other possibility is sickening beyond belief- but this was an avoidable death. A senseless loss of a man with an impeccable record who found himself in the path of the mighty Downing Street spin and political machine.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
Did some ambitious person at the BBC...the Baghdad Broadcasting Company...kill him? They have the motive...right? Or am I wrong. I'm asking.
Oh please pnj give it a fucking rest.
Get it in your head once and for all: the BBC is not biased, or anti-American, or anti-Blair. The only people capable of actually killing someone to protect themselves are the government and the secret services. As it has been proven in Northern Ireland.

[pnjsurferpoet]

You are probably right. But what about the other people with a motive? Ambitious people at the BBC? It's o.k. on my part to consider the possibility.

[ElysiumUnknown]

Goodness...

"After questioning Dr Kelly earlier this week, the Commons foreign affairs select committee said it was "most unlikely" he was the main source for the BBC story."

Hmmm...even if he did commit suicide, I strongly suspect it was this fracas that led him to it. It's all very correlational and coincidental.

His poor family. :(

Did anyone watch State of Play? Eerie resonations.

[pnjsurferpoet]

If he knew the information he gave was true...why would he kill himself? Why?

[Aladdin]

It is said that he did not take well to being in the spotlight and under pressure.

Or perhaps is that he knew very well what the government has been up to and the information it chose to withhold in order to fight its case. So even though he was not the BBC mole he was fully aware of government wrongdoings. Perhaps his loyalty prevented him from blowing the whistle himself, and he could not live with the burden of knowing the truth and doing nothing about it.

Or perhaps our government/secret services will stop at nothing to protect themselves.

[Clandestine]

pnj, for once, please, go do some real research and educate yourself into the darker side of the political arena. You wont get much insight from mainstream news im afraid.

Whistleblowers, regardless of the truth and accuracy of their revelations have much to fear from power hungry political establishments hellbent on avoiding the exposure of their illicit activities and agendas.

Take Daniel Ellsberg, the CIA operative who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the NY Times back in the early 70's and blew the lid off the lies of the Vietnam War and the systemic agenda of the Pentagon and various government agencies to routinely defraud the American public as well as their willingness to employ the most horrendously criminal acts to further their political interests.

Or try recalling the article i posted the link to not long ago about Mordechai Vanunu who continues to languish in an Israeli prison indefinitely for exposing the truth behind Israel's hidden WMD development.

Basically this man had much to fear if it became known that he was the whistleblower. Don't be so naive as to think the truth will set you free when it comes to holding our leaders accountable!

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by ElysiumUnknown
"After questioning Dr Kelly earlier this week, the Commons foreign affairs select committee said it was "most unlikely" he was the main source for the BBC story."

Yes, Andrew Gilligan, by his own account, only met with on MoD official and based his "story" on that meeting.

By a strange quirk of co-incidence it was on the same day that he met Dr Kelly (by his own admission) - a MoD official.

Not that the two meetings are linked of course. :rolleyes:

~~~~~~~

On a separate point, my sympathy goes to his family.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Clandestine
Disposing of whistleblowers is nothing new to either the UK nor to the US. Just another indication of how unaccountable our governments both are and wish to remain.

The truth behind the facade we call "democracy".

Congratulations! It took you a whole nine minutes (from Aladdin's original post) to pin this one on the UK/US Govts...

Surely a record? :p

[pnjsurferpoet]

pnj, for once, please, go do some real research

k:thumb:

Your links are good.

[Clandestine]

Shouldnt come as any great shock to you MoK that our own governments indeed will do whatever they wish to ensure that the full extent of their misdeeds are not made public.

If they are as shrewd as I expect, and undoubtedly the intelligence services are if not our actual leaders, then i suspect they see a slippery slope looming ahead. If the truth of this set of lies is finally confirmed, how long before the meatier investigations into 9/11, the anthrax scares, collusion on WMD sales and other horrendous indictments are given new life?

Knocking off the odd informant on "national security" grounds is nothing new and you shouldnt take me to task for pointing that out.

[ElysiumUnknown]

They have confirmed the cause of death as suicide:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3079787.stm

There is still something ever so unsettling about it though. Those who beared such great pressure and scrutiny on him should be feeling ashamed right now.

"But Mr Blair would only express his "deep sorrow" for Dr Kelly and his family and stressed:"We should make our judgement after we get the facts.""

Blair's hypocrisy has reached paramount. :mad:

[Clandestine]

Indeed Elysium, I suspect this event means little more to Blair than a passing courtesy to yet another political victim sacrificed at the altar of his personal ambition.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by ElysiumUnknown
They have confirmed the cause of death as suicide:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3079787.stm

There is still something ever so unsettling about it though. Those who beared such great pressure and scrutiny on him should be feeling ashamed right now.

"But Mr Blair would only express his "deep sorrow" for Dr Kelly and his family and stressed:"We should make our judgement after we get the facts.""

Blair's hypocrisy has reached paramount. :mad:

There is something very unsettling about this and to be honest it makes me ashamed to be a supporter of the same party that Blair heads and as a Briton to have a government that could push a man to kill himself.

I think the "wait til the judicial inquiry reports" message from the government is little more than a cynical exercise to buy some time to think of a decent excuse also the "wait for the facts" is extremely hypocritical coming from the man who encouraged Dr Kelly to be pinpointed as Gilligan's source without any evidence - a "fall guy" as I think Andrew Mackinlay put it in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

But what do you expect from the man who said the UN inspectors were taking too long to do their job and then asks for more time when it is he who is now responsible for finding WMD.

As for who should resign over this, I don't think anyone can blame the BBC - it is common journalistic practice not to reveal your sources and to get them to deny it was Dr Kelly would just have launched a witch hunt until there came the suspected source the BBC could not clear. I don't think anyone can blame the MPs on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, they only asked the questions that they should have. I don't even think that you can blame Alastair Campbell or Geoff Hoon because they were only obeying orders from the man who should resign, one Tony Blair.

Blair has blood on his hands, not only the blood of innocent Iraqi civilians he murdered, but the blood of the British troops who went to war on false pretences and now the blood of an innocent man who was murdered for the sake of Blair's "integrity" which was pursued with zeal by Blair and those around him.

> Clan, I don't think he died for Blair's ambition, he died for Blair's vanity which is infinitely worse. Dr Kelly died because Blair's vanity could not handle him being called a liar, because Blair wanted to bask in those eighteen standing ovations from Congress, because Blair wants his infinitely precious place in history to be unsullied by such matters as lying to Parliament, the British people and the world.

I have to say that the New Statesman portrait of Blair as a psychopath seems to have hit the nail on the head. This is a truly sad and horrific affair.

[ElysiumUnknown]

I agree Kevlar, well said.

There is no way I am voting Labour if it is Blair who still heads them; the man is a selfish, thoughtless and ignoble hypocrite.

I hope this event and previous disagreements within the Labour party evoke them to re-think their position, values and integrity.

[Clandestine]

Well well kev, seems youve had a burst of literary inspiration today! Well presented and annunciated post!

I would personally not excuse the select committee members however, as you have suggested above. From reports on the proceedings it was precisely their targetted, derisive and cynical remarks which put Dr. Kelly in an embarrassing corner and made him out to be a fool before his peers and colleagues.

For a quiet and private man such as he this was only further shame to that he already undoubtedly felt being called to question on an otherwise unimpeachable professional record.

I do agree that perhaps the altar of Blair's vanity does have more relevance than his ambition. I can but applaud your burst of linguistic flair for the searing indictment of the hollowness of Blair's character that it is.

*Stands to applaud*

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Clandestine
Well well kev, seems youve had a burst of literary inspiration today! Well presented and annunciated post!

I would personally not excuse the select committee members however, as you have suggested above. From reports on the proceedings it was precisely their targetted, derisive and cynical remarks which put Dr. Kelly in an embarrassing corner and made him out to be a fool before his peers and colleagues.

For a quiet and private man such as he this was only further shame to that he already undoubtedly felt being called to question on an otherwise unimpeachable professional record.

I do agree that perhaps the altar of Blair's vanity does have more relevance than his ambition. I can but applaud your burst of linguistic flair for the searing indictment of the hollowness of Blair's character that it is.

*Stands to applaud*

Thanks for the compliments Clan (and Elysium too!), I guess I was inspired by the sense that something has gone very wrong with the state of this country. I've been following the normal hurly burly of politics since the 1997 election campaign and I've never seen politics in this country end up in a situation like this - I thought this kind of thing was limited to South American corrupt republics.

I think the select committee just asked him the questions that they were there to do, who put him before the select committee? Hoon, under orders from Blair methinks. Personally, I couldn't see much wrong with their line of questioning, it didn't seem to me to be especially harsh, in fact I remember the news bulletins of the day mentioning how well Dr Kelly had appeared to take the interrogation. On the day of the interrogation it seemed that Dr Kelly had been proved innocent and had come out of it well and it was the government who were in trouble.

It's just a shame that a good man had to die like this. I saw the news conference in Japan on the news a few hours ago - Blair just seemed to not care, his message of condolence seemed false, he seemed unfazed at the suggestion he has blood on his hands - he looked more upset for himself as opposed to anyone else. What was it The New Statesman said? "Blair has the ability to disconnect himself from the consequences of his actions like a chameleon." I think this was a prima facie example.

I would like to see an orchestrated campaign to force Blair out of office like the Anti Poll Tax demonstrations in 1990, I know if I hear of any demonstrations with a call to get Blair out of office I will be there at the front!

I think the newspapers are already going after him now, the newspaper reporters are apparantly furious at Blair continually dodging being questioned such as the briefing occuring during landing in Tokyo to restrict the time available, the limiting of the British press to 2 questions and the "blood on his hands" outburst at the press conference seems to indicate this. Plus apparantly Blair is terrified of facing the press without Alastair there to hold his hand, Paul Routledge referred to a time in the early halcyon days of government when Campbell was late for a press conference and Blair got cornered by all the cameras - apparantly he was like a rabbit in headlights and kept asking "Where's Alastair? Where's Alastair?"

Not another literary marvel like my earlier post but it is midnight! :)

[Clandestine]

Well perhaps they did ask the questions required of them to ask, but from what I saw in the replay of portions of the process, the way in which questions and comments were delivered and the tone adopted was one of sneering.

Of course I agree that Dr. Kelly did maintain his composure throughout which only spoke higher of the man's stalwart character.

These kinds of witchhunts however, only further my contention that the system has been turned upside down with those who reveal the wrongdoing of elected leaders being the ones villified rather than protected by the public whilst those exposed are all too often allowed to further abuse their power (i.e. the full power of the state) to try to dodge, divert and dismiss the revelations rather than be subject to thorough public enquiry themselves and indicted for betrayal of the public trust.

May Tony be the first domino to topple and may his fall reach across the pond to strike down his political master and those who surround him each in their turn.

[kevlar85]

It was a tone of sneering but I felt the sneering was at the government for putting Dr Kelly before the committee in the first place rather than at Dr Kelly himself. Take the "chaff" and "fall guy" comments - I don't think they were addressed to Dr Kelly merely pointing out the fact that as he (in their view) was not the BBC source, it was a waste of time him being before the committee, indeed the session was cut short because it was clear he wasn't the source.

I think the trouble with the parliamentary committees, especially during the Gilligan interrogation is that it is filled with a large majority of ambitious Labour MPs, not just those eager and actively seeking promotion but the silent majority who don't want to rock the boat. Hence accusations of a "Hanging jury". This isn't usually a problem but this situation added to Blair's contempt of Parliament and its procedures makes this damaging to our democracy - I hope the oppositions demands for a full and OPEN inquiry into not only Dr Kelly's death but the whole Iraq situation and for a recall of Parliament are met but I think Blair will just ignore these demands as usual. His unwillingness to face questioning by the press and Parliament says more about his role than those 18 standing ovations in Congress, I can say that much.

Amen to Tony toppling! There are many things I and probably most of the British public could forgive of our political masters - honest mistakes of judgement, ignorance of a full situation, sheer incompetence but the thing I cannot stand is a leader who does not have the nation's best intentions at heart - even if they are wrong - Blair I don't believe has ever had this nations best intentions at heart, I think his term of office has been one long exercise in his vanity. I used to think he did have a mission but I don't think he does, I don't know why he's in the Labour Party, I don't know why he introduces policies such as tuition fees and foundation hospitals - more and more I think that this is solely for the boost to his ego when he defeats his party into submission. What I wouldn't give to swap him for Gordon Brown, Ken Livingstone or Helen Clark PM of New Zealand right now.

[Clandestine]

Having raised the point on enquiries allow me to point out that in my view this is precisely one example of how the elites have turned the system on its head in order to safeguard their own political control.

The very nature of government in a free and democratic republic (or any other manifestation of a democracy based society) is that it is to serve the public from which it derives its mandate.

It's high time we reminded the political establishment that it does not exist for the sake of furthering its own hidden agendas nor for capitalising upon for personal power, financial gain or glory.

One way of doing this is to resume public control of the process of governance and accountability by removing the executive from the equation when it comes to chairing independent enquiries. No executive (US or UK) should have any say whatsoever in either the creation nor the composition of any public enquiry. This should be the purview of the Parliament/Congress with full and open scrutiny throughout by both the general public and the judiciary in order to ensure that

1. The process and the proceedings are completely transparent
and
2. No powerful vested interests, political party bias, nor the oft eclectic sentiments of the general public may singularly dominate the direction of those charged to carry out the enquiry.

If politicans and heads of state knew that they faced mechanism out their direct ability to control or ifluence when called to account for their actions, I suspect we'd see government measuring up closer to the principle "of the people, by the people and for the people" as it was intended to be certainly in the US if not the UK.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Clandestine
Knocking off the odd informant on "national security" grounds is nothing new and you shouldnt take me to task for pointing that out.

I didn't take you to task for that, I just mentioned the speed at which you appeared to blame the "intelligence" services for the incident.

At that time there was no confirmation it was him

No details of the cause of death had been given, there for no suspicion could be placed

Oh, and you didn't seem to give a hot about the people he'd left behind. You gave the impression that the incident was a chance to make a political point.

That was why I commented on your post. I certainly wasn't questioning the capabilities of Govt to kill people to husha story. One only has to look at the JFK assassination to see how effective they can be...

BTW No blame for the BBC? Who are you trying to kid kevlar? If it wasn't for Mr Gilligan's apparent embellishment of the source's comments then the story wouldn't have been such big news.

I'm not defending the Govt actions here, but please, let's not pretend that the BBC's hands are clean here either.

[Kermit]

I hope Blair is proud of himself, with all this blood on his hands. Storming off when someone asks you a question wont save you Blair, youre looking rattled- lets hope by shaking a bit more the rest of screws come loose, you deserve a mental breakdown for what youve done to thsi country. Id be suicidally ashamed of myself if Id done what Blair has.

But back to the point.

Several things to consider- his death seems mildly suspicious, as death by slitting the wrists is not effective. Certainly not by only slitting one wrist. Welcome to the shady world of MI5- motive and ability. Im with the Mirror on ths one. After all, I doubt a respected physicist would say "dark shadows are chasing me" in his suicide not for naught.

Also- for everyone saying "the BBc shold name the source" two things to consider. Journalistic tradition is that sources are NOT named, and also theres the slight matter of the Official Secrets Act. Death over a long stint of porridge- maybe?

Who knows if it was suicide or not, I certainly dont. And I dont think its all that relevent to be honest- Blair and his stooges in the Intelligence Select Committe- especially that piece of shit Donald Anderson- have hounded a man to his death. I hope they resign with immediate effect, but as we all know politicians ahve no morals at all theyll shed a crocodile tear and then set about lining their own pockets afresh.

No rest for the wicked, I dont suppose. But it does break my heart that men like Dr Kelly are dead when Blair is still alive. Not that I wish Blair dead, its just if people die it might as wlel be filth over good.

[Man Of Kent]

So, the BBC have confirmed this morning that Dr Kelly was indeed their source. Story Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3081027.stm)

And so the trail starts, as we work up the chain of "guilty" which may possibly end with the PM can we expect Andrew Gilligan and some BBC managers to do "the decent thing" and resign - or are the BBC just going to hound the politicians...

Just looking at the timeline, this all started with an exagerrated BBC news "story"...

[Clandestine]

I personally do not see any cause for your crusade against the BBC, MoK. As a media source they have no moral or legal obligation to divulge the name of their sources nor should they be required to do so. They, unlike elected officials who are sworn to uphold the public trust, protect both the public and their sources when exposing wanton abuse of power in government, why should that wrankle you in the slightest?

What you should be crusading against is the fact that it took an inside informant to expose the truth of what we, the antiwar lobby, said was the truth right from the start when all the warmongers were gladly accepting both the US and UK governments' word that they had incontrovertable proof of immediate threat and that they could brook no further delays to their pet imperialist conquest.

You should be further crusading against the fact that the powermongering practiced by the Blair government in this case drove a decent upstanding patriot to his death whether truly be suicide or by more insidious means.

Frankly I wonder if youll ever see that the only villains here are Blair and his cronies. I personally applaud the BBC for having more balls than any US news media to date by acting in the interest of the public trust rather than colluding to protect the powermongers.

Glenda Jackson has said it rightly, the only person who should be handing his resignation in is Blair.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
BTW No blame for the BBC? Who are you trying to kid kevlar? If it wasn't for Mr Gilligan's apparent embellishment of the source's comments then the story wouldn't have been such big news.

I'm not defending the Govt actions here, but please, let's not pretend that the BBC's hands are clean here either.

I do honestly believe the BBC's hands are clean. Dr Kelly talked to a BBC reporter, there was nothing unusual in that all reporters have a collection in sources in all government departments, due to the less than open nature of British government it is a necessity to have these sources.

The government had no right to interfere with the BBC's journalistic integrity by demanding they reveal their sources - it was the pressure that he would be revealed and indeed eventually was by the Ministry of Defence it appears and was then thrown into the public spotlight that caused the pressure on Dr Kelly to be so great that he took his own life, not the fact that he talked to the BBC because he did that regularly, it was the government's determination to out him that caused his death - not the BBC.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
So, the BBC have confirmed this morning that Dr Kelly was indeed their source

So hes the source. Perfect justification for hounding the man to death- he ratted on Blair's bullshit and lies.

The BBC have used a journalistic source in an article, Blair took exception to it. Because of this Kelly has been hounded to death- obviously if the BBC hadnt used Kelly's words hed still be here, but the BBC journalist was just doing his job in running a topical story. Where is the BBC's blame in all this?

Stop trying to justify Blair's shameful attack on Kelly through his stooge Donald Anderson in the ISC. It doesnt matter what Kelly did or said, he was subjected to horrific abuse because he dared to criticise the Supreme Leader.

Its time Blair was given a taste of his own medicine.

[ElysiumUnknown]

Originally posted by Kermit

Several things to consider- his death seems mildly suspicious, as death by slitting the wrists is not effective. Certainly not by only slitting one wrist.
Who knows if it was suicide or not, I certainly dont. And I dont think its all that relevent to be honest- Blair and his stooges in the Intelligence Select Committe- especially that piece of shit Donald Anderson- have hounded a man to his death. I hope they resign with immediate effect, but as we all know politicians ahve no morals at all theyll shed a crocodile tear and then set about lining their own pockets afresh.

No rest for the wicked, I dont suppose. But it does break my heart that men like Dr Kelly are dead when Blair is still alive. Not that I wish Blair dead, its just if people die it might as wlel be filth over good.

I thought the the fact he had only slit one wrist and laying conveniently nearby was a knife and a packet of high-strength painkillers was highly suspicious. To walk out into the countryside near to his home made sense...but the mode of death and situational factors didn't.

I thought the select committe were really quite harsh on him to be honest, there were times where Dr Kelly looked genuinely pressurised and distressed. The committe were all there on their high-horses in self-serving attempts to dig the deepest. I hope they feel damn guilty now.

All politicians and journalists should take heed to the fact that ambitious, self-serving and immoral attitudes only serve to destroy those around them, and in the case of those such as Blair, themselves one day.

[Clandestine]

Ill tell ya what time it is as well Kermie, ;)

It's time the warmongers accepted that the right to withhold sources, which they were so ready to argue in collusion with both the US and UK governments when they were claiming "proof" and "intelligence that demonstrated a clear and imminent threat to our security as the case for immediate cessation of the inspections and commencement of invasion, is not a matter that they can now use to villify the BBC.

Especially when it is now apparent to all but the utterly self deluded that the government did not want to fully reveal its "evidence" precisely because it was in fact thoroughly contrived, plagiarised, or otherwise bogus.

The same cannot be said for the BBC's revelations in this situation!

[The Matadore]

the BBC is not biased, or anti-American, or anti-Blair.

The BBC is biased , it is a left wing organisation , there is no such thing as a completly unbiased media source.

As for Blair , he wont last much longer , the hard core left wing in the labour party will replace him with an old-style Labour leader , who will do the old style labour stuff (major defence cuts , union appeasing , rampant nationalisation) .

Come next election , the labour party will be swept from power by the British public and the Torys will once again come to their rightful place in Government.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by The Matadore
The BBC is biased , it is a left wing organisation , there is no such thing as a completly unbiased media source.

As for Blair , he wont last much longer , the hard core left wing in the labour party will replace him with an old-style Labour leader , who will do the old style labour stuff (major defence cuts , union appeasing , rampant nationalisation) .

Come next election , the labour party will be swept from power by the British public and the Torys will once again come to their rightful place in Government.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Thanks Mat I haven't laughed so hard for ages. The BBC is not biased as can be shown by the government's war of words with it which led to the situation we are now in and also the fact that the Tories complained about their treatment during the local elections. It is only when everyone is attacking the BBC that you can know that it is unbiased. If you say the BBC is biased you may as well say ITN is pro-Tory because of the links Nick Robinson once had with the Conservatives also the balance in their reporting is as "pro-Tory" as the BBC is "pro-Labour". True there is no such thing as a completely unbiased media source but the BBC is the nearest we'll ever get to it.

I hope we do get Blair replaced by a Labour Prime Minister. Although you're living in the 1970s if you expect a Labour government to restore union power, it's what kept us out of office for eighteen years and no modern Labour PM would be stupid enough to let the unions run wild again. I hope there will be large defence cuts, our defence force is bloated and it's about time we realised that the job of the armed forces is to protect Britain in the event of an invasion not to act as a division of the Imperial American Army and go following in their foreign adventures. Also we need some nationalisation, we need at least air traffic control, the railways and the post office brought back fully into state hands - the public backs more nationalisation in certain cases because it is sick and tired of Thatcherite bosses ripping off consumers, sacking workers and pocketing huge pay rises and giving parasitic shareholders huge dividends so the sooner we start nationalising a few things the better!

:lol: :lol: Tories winning the next election - I've never heard anything so ridiculous. People are sick and tired of the Thatcherite agenda being proposed by the Tories, they know that tax cuts only benefit the rich and the greedy and they've had enough. They want better schools, better hospitals and a better transport system and they know the only way to get it is to pay more tax and this will only come about through a real Labour government.

[Aladdin]

One word sums it all up nicely in your post Matadore: "rightful". That you think the rightful place to be for the Conservative Party is in government tells us all we needed to know.

And you dare to accuse others of being biased! LOL.

Going back to the topic, the government will try to use the BBC admission to shift the blame for the death of Dr. Kelly. Many questions remain though, not least why did the government gave Dr. Kelly's name to the press and proceeded to tear the man apart and to conduct a witch-hunt of unprecedented proportions.

Like is often the case (Jeffrey Archer comes to mind) compulsive liars never stop lying and will go to incredible lengths trying to convince others they are telling the truth.

[byny]

I really cannot understand why some people insist on blaming the BBC! Dr Kelly presumably went to speak to the BBC Journalist of his own accord...The BBC then (According to Journalistic Guidelines and integrity) refused to name the source (Despite extreme pressure and bullying from the Government) ....The BBC should be commended for their integrity and refusal to put the Spotlight onto Dr Kelly.

The Government on the other hand behaved appalingly and it is because of their hounding of Dr kelly and The BBC that this poor man felt so pressured and killed himself.

If the Government insist on trying to throw the Blame onto the BBC then they will only embarrass themselves even more.

PNJ...REALLY!!! You should stop will all this bullshit!

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Aladdin
One word sums it all up nicely in your post Matadore: "rightful". That you think the rightful place to be for the Conservative Party is in government tells us all we needed to know.

And you dare to accuse others of being biased! LOL.

Going back to the topic, the government will try to use the BBC admission to shift the blame for the death of Dr. Kelly. Many questions remain though, not least why did the government gave Dr. Kelly's name to the press and proceeded to tear the man apart and to conduct a witch-hunt of unprecedented proportions.

Like is often the case (Jeffrey Archer comes to mind) compulsive liars never stop lying and will go to incredible lengths trying to convince others they are telling the truth.

And we all know where Archer ended up! Hopefully, Blair will follow him. Thanks for bringing him up Al you reminded me of his little outburst where he said something like "You wait 'til I'm Mayor, you see if I don't." I don't know what it was about but the image of Archer's pompous face saying that has cracked me up! :lol:

[Man Of Kent]

Man, where do I start?

Why is it that people here can only see one demon in this situation when so many people together have impacted on the victim? None of them looked at Dr Kelly, each was trying to achieve their own ends from this story. The original reporter, Ali Campbell, Tony Blair, the MoD, Intelligence services, the select committee, theanti-war campaigners – each has had a role to play in the death of this man.

Originally posted by Clandestine
I personally do not see any cause for your crusade against the BBC

My “crusade” is there because they have tried to paint themselves whiter than white in this incident and that couldn’t be further from the case.

They took a single interview and twisted it (as journalists are want to do) and made it into a story that suited their own agenda. In this case it was a chance to say that Alistair Campbell had personally changed a report to Parliament to hype up the threat from Iraq.

Certainly, Dr Kelly’s evidence suggests that he gave no such impression or undertaking in the conversation he had with the journalist. So where did the “sexed up” part of the story come from? Remember that this was the whole crux of the story.

Mr Gilligan claimed that his story was based on a single source, yet the person now confirmed as the source disputed that he said any such thing. Therefore you only draw a single conclusion from this – i.e that the journalist lied. Something which the select committee seems to be thinking now.

Had Mr Gilligan reported what he was actually told, the “exposure” of Govt lies wouldn’t have been possible. The story couldn’t have run as it did and the fuss which came from it wouldn’t have come about.

What were the Govt supposed to do? Accept the lie? Of course not. They were under pressure from the anti-war lobby. Here they had a chance to hit back with a story which was clearly untrue. As I said at the time, this gave the Govt an opportunity to force a hole in the anti-war case. A case which had merit was being undermined by poor reporting by the BBC.

No, they had a duty to ensure that the truth of this story came out – that being that Alistair Campbell didn’t change the document. They never questioned that the document may have been changed (you'll note) just that it wasn't Cmapbell who did it.

It's worth noting that this is something which the select committee exonerated him of. Certainly I believe that the Govt lied over Iraq and it’s threat, but when it came to this story they were right.

As a media source they have no moral or legal obligation to divulge the name of their sources nor should they be required to do so.

And I never suggested that they should. If anything they should protect their source. One way of doing this is to only print what he said, and not embellish it to fit their own agenda.

when exposing wanton abuse of power in government, why should that wrankle you in the slightest?

Because the particular “wanton abuse” didn’t actually happen. At least it didn’t according to the source, the select committee, or the Govt. The only people who maintained that it did was the BBC and their case was based on Mr Gilligan’s “report”.

Frankly I wonder if you’ll ever see that the only villains here are Blair and his cronies.

Frankly I wonder if you will see any villain other than the Govt. I am happy to spread my net, and yes it includes the Govt. Why can’t you?

Orginally posted by kevlar85
Dr Kelly talked to a BBC reporter

Who misreported what was said to him. We should not overlook that aspect.

[quote]Originally posted by Kermit
Stop trying to justify Blair's shameful attack on Kelly

I’m not. I don’t think you will find any post here which has defended the Govt. My attack on the BBC isn’t because I think the Govt are innocent in this charade, but that I think that the BBC should accept some blame to what has subsequently happened. Mr Gilligan certainly should.

Had he reported the source in the manner it was given to him, then the story wouldn’t have had so much impact, and so wouldn’t have had so much interest.

Originally posted by ElysiumUnknown
I thought the the fact he had only slit one wrist and laying conveniently nearby was a knife and a packet of high-strength painkillers was highly suspicious.

Oh please.

Firstly, of course the knife would have been nearby. He was hardly going to open a vein and then walk home and put the knife away, was he.

Secondly, and educated person would know that one cut is enough, if done correctly. I’ll accept that this could apply to someone with “evil” motives, but if you really want to commit suicide you would make sure you did it correctly, wouldn’t you. Personally I was surprised that he didn’t hang himself.

NB The “dark forces” in play could also apply to the media as the Govt or “intelligence” services.

I thought the select committe were really quite harsh on him to be honest[/b

I agree with you there and they need to consider their impact on the final outcome too.

Originally posted by byny
[b] Dr Kelly presumably went to speak to the BBC Journalist of his own accord...The BBC then (According to Journalistic Guidelines and integrity) refused to name the source (Despite extreme pressure and bullying from the Government) ....The BBC should be commended for their integrity and refusal to put the Spotlight onto Dr Kelly.

:lol:

Integrity my arse. There was no integrity in this story, other than that shown by Dr Kelly. Every person involved from then on where looking at their own agenda. Including the BBC and the Govt.

#########

Can I also ask the question that I asked before – but which nobody even answered.

If the BBC are so unbiased, why is it that they face regular accusations of being “left-wing” but have never been accused of being right-wing?

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Can I also ask the question that I asked before – but which nobody even answered.

If the BBC are so unbiased, why is it that they face regular accusations of being “left-wing” but have never been accused of being right-wing?

It depends on the government of the day, under a Labour government they are accused of being "left-wing" and under a Conservative government they are accused of being "right-wing". This is the peril being a state broadcaster and in a way it's very healthy because it encourages a good distance between the government and the state broadcaster.

We don't know that Gilligan misinterpreted what Kelly said - the only people who know what was said at that meeting were Dr Kelly and Andrew Gilligan. Although bear in mind that in an organisation the size of the BBC that two reporters, Gilligan and the Newsnight woman, who work in different places as the Newsnight woman would work at TV Centre and Gilligan would either work at the BBC Westminster studios or at the BBC Radio HQ, would be highly unlikely to be able to make up a similar story for both their respective programmes together. What they had in common was their source - Dr Kelly. Therefore, in these circumstances with, let's assume, Dr Kelly giving air to the claims over Alastair Campbell and the 45 minutes it isn't unreasonable to assume that a furious government would allow his name to become public thus allowing the pressure to pile on top of him until he was forced to take his own life.

Let's remember that Dr Kelly was well used to talking to journalists to help with their stories in fact it would all have been an uneventful course of events for him - until the Ministry of Defence allowed his name to enter the public domain thus piling the pressure onto him. Therefore, the pressure that caused him to take his own life was solely down to the government.

In fact, I think the BBC made a mistake releasing their sources in that statement because they have shifted blame away from the government and have wrecked their "journalists don't reveal sources" line which was a fully credible line for them to stick with.

[Clandestine]

I am happy to spread my net, and yes it includes the Govt. Why can’t you?

I think you conveniently forget that I have named many collusionists including the corporate media, intelligence services, defence agencies and other such private and public agents in the neverending battle between those who wish to concentrate power in the hands of the elite and the public which should have means to scrutinise and remove that power from those who would so abuse it.

My net is fairly wide my friend, the culpable constituency of powermongers just happens to be by nature a rather limited circle.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by Man of Kent
Mr Gilligan claimed that his story was based on a single source, yet the person now confirmed as the source disputed that he said any such thing. Therefore you only draw a single conclusion from this – i.e that the journalist lied.

Unless of course he didn't...

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by kevlar85
It depends on the government of the day, under a Labour government they are accused of being "left-wing" and under a Conservative government they are accused of being "right-wing".

Really?

I think that Norman Tebbit would argue with that. Okay not a good source but the Tory Govt of both Thatcher and Major certainly thought that the BBC was left-wing.

We don't know that Gilligan misinterpreted what Kelly said - the only people who know what was said at that meeting were Dr Kelly and Andrew Gilligan.

Indeed, and this reply goes to Aladdin too.

We don't know what was said between the two, other than what was presented to the select committee. Certanly Dr Kelly was emphatic in his denial that he said anything about the "45 minute" issue (the crux of Gilligan's piece) and yet he agreed that part of the story represented what he said.

Unless we are going to suggest that Dr Kelly lied to Parliament.

In fact, I think the BBC made a mistake releasing their sources in that statement because they have shifted blame away from the government and have wrecked their "journalists don't reveal sources" line which was a fully credible line for them to stick with.

The error that the BBC made was through looking at the wrong document. That their report on the September document appears to have been incorrect has changed the focus of the debate.

If they had limited themselves to the "dodgy dossier" they would have seen great political capital. Sadly they have undermined the entire "did the Govt lie" debate though piss poor reporting.

The Govt was on a sticky wicket over the "dodgy dossier", but in this story they appear to have been exonerated.

|Originally posted by Clandestine
I think you conveniently forget that I have named many collusionists including the corporate media

Only those who fit you view of collusion with the Bush administaration. You seem to lack the ability to see that those who support your goal are equally part of the "dark forces" at play.

As I have said, I am happy to condemn my Govt for their part in this farce. They should not have named Dr Kelly, who honourably put himself forward at the source, for example.

By the same token, I will condemn those who used his evidence for their own ends, without considering his position either.

the culpable constituency of powermongers just happens to be by nature a rather limited circle.

Is it bollocks. There are those who have power and will misuse it, and those who want to set the agenda. Neither has our interests at heart, and (in this instance) neither of them had Dr Kelly interests anywhere on their scope.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Really?

I think that Norman Tebbit would argue with that. Okay not a good source but the Tory Govt of both Thatcher and Major certainly thought that the BBC was left-wing.

All governments think the BBC is out to get them and it's usually because as the government the BBC has more to report on them than the opposition and so governments believe that because they are being held up to account the BBC is out to get them. From my knowledge, I don't recall the left being very happy with the BBC during the 1980s either especially over their portrayals of Foot and Kinnock and about their reporting of the Miner's Strike.


Indeed, and this reply goes to Aladdin too.

We don't know what was said between the two, other than what was presented to the select committee. Certanly Dr Kelly was emphatic in his denial that he said anything about the "45 minute" issue (the crux of Gilligan's piece) and yet he agreed that part of the story represented what he said.

Unless we are going to suggest that Dr Kelly lied to Parliament.

Just because Dr Kelly is dead does not mean that we can ignore the possibility that he did lie to the select committee. Although what appears to have been the case now is that although Dr Kelly was the main source for the report and was unable to confirm or deny that Downing Street was involved with the "sexing up" of the dossier there were other sources, most notably one in Downing Street that was able to confirm Alastair Campbell's role. Also I refer you back to my other point - the BBC is a large organisation, the Newsnight team and the Today team are based in totally different parts of London, what are the odds of two reporters collaborating to falsify their stories when the costs in terms of losing their jobs and being unemployable are so apparent? The only thing they had in common was that they both spoke to Dr Kelly. Dr Kelly may not have "said" anything about the 45 minute claim but he may not have denied it either, thus leaving the door open for another source to confirm the rumour.



The error that the BBC made was through looking at the wrong document. That their report on the September document appears to have been incorrect has changed the focus of the debate.

If they had limited themselves to the "dodgy dossier" they would have seen great political capital. Sadly they have undermined the entire "did the Govt lie" debate though piss poor reporting.

The Govt was on a sticky wicket over the "dodgy dossier", but in this story they appear to have been exonerated.

The 45 minute claim was disproved, the 45 minute claim in reality only referred to the amount of time it would take Saddam to issue orders to launch WMDs if he had any, not the amount of time it would take to actually launch the WMDs which as seems so apparant now, did not exist. The trouble is that the BBC's admission that Dr Kelly was the principal source has entered the public conciousness that he was the only source and so with Dr Kelly's denial to the select committee there are a lot of BBC haters out there who are now using this as an excuse to question the whole integrity of the BBC's journalism.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by kevlar85
Although what appears to have been the case now is that although Dr Kelly was the main source for the report and was unable to confirm or deny that Downing Street was involved with the "sexing up" of the dossier there were other sources, most notably one in Downing Street that was able to confirm Alastair Campbell's role.

Sorry, but the BBC and Mr Gilligan claimed that only one source was used. So where did the Downing Street source come from?

Although I have also noted that they are now using the term "principal" source. Change of focus, in the style of Tony Blair I think...

The only thing they had in common was that they both spoke to Dr Kelly. Dr Kelly may not have "said" anything about the 45 minute claim but he may not have denied it either, thus leaving the door open for another source to confirm the rumour.

The BBC originally said there wasn't one.

So, if Dr Kelly was the only source (as claimed) and he couldn't confirm that Mr Gilligan's assertion was that the "45 minute" aspect was added by Downing Street, then Mr Gilligan must have put that aspect in his report himself. Or have I missed something?

there are a lot of BBC haters out there who are now using this as an excuse to question the whole integrity of the BBC's journalism.

I don't actually hate the BBC. On the whole I prefer them to most other news organisations. However, I don't have a blind faith in them.

[edited to add:

From BBC News website
Mr Gilligan says his Today programme report on the 45 minutes claim was based on a conversation of between 90 minutes and two hours with a British official who was a "long-standing contact".

He describes the official as "quite closely connected with the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction".

He says: "He was one of the senior British officials in charge of drawing up the dossier, a source of long standing well known to me."

Note. Single source.

[Clandestine]

Yet you certainly make a mountain out of a mole hill over exactly "who" added the 45 minute claim. Point is who gives a rats arse who precisely added it? It was false, and the government knew it, yet Tony got right up and said it, insisting that the nation "take his word for it".

The only issue of import is that thanks to the BBC's balls for kicking some life into the debate, the revelations have confirmed the flasehood of the government's claims, have shown that Tony's "word" is worthless.

Get rid of the whole lot of them by toppling Blair and the whole issue is resolved. Future governments will I suspect be less willing to send young men and women into combat unless they can, as should always be the case, prove to the public that there is a credible and imminent threat to British security itself.

Whatever other diversionary bullshit this harranguing of the BBC is providing for the government, the principal benefit of the piece and the government fraud it unmasked is indisputable.

[pnjsurferpoet]

UNRELATED POST FOR ALADDIN:

thought you'd get a kick outta this:

CIA: SADDAM, OSAMA HAVE THREE LETTERS IN COMMON

Persuasive Link Between Middle East Madmen, Tenet Says

Testifying before Congress today, CIA Director George Tenet revealed for the first time that the names Saddam and Osama share three letters in common, offering the most persuasive proof to date of a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.


It's on Borowitz.com...a liberal comic who makes fun of the news.

[byny]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent


Can I also ask the question that I asked before – but which nobody even answered.

If the BBC are so unbiased, why is it that they face regular accusations of being “left-wing” but have never been accused of being right-wing?

oH BUT THEY HAVE!

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Clandestine
The only issue of import is that thanks to the BBC's balls for kicking some life into the debate, the revelations have confirmed the flasehood of the government's claims, have shown that Tony's "word" is worthless.

How have they?

Precisely.

The revelations prove nothing because they weren't "revelations" at all. They were the fancy of a reporter whose story has yet to be supported by anyone, including the apparent source.

The accusation is that the Govt inserted the "45 minute" clause, but that it is still unsubstantiated. Hell, if the sole source for the story says that he mad eno such claim then the only other person involved in the writing of the story is the journalist.

Whatever other diversionary bullshit this harranguing of the BBC is providing for the government, the principal benefit of the piece and the government fraud it unmasked is indisputable.

I agree with you. And I think you'll find that I said this at the time that the report first came out. Wrong story, wrong document, wrong focus. The focus of the whole issue has been diverted. Why? Because a reporter, in an attempt to prove that the Govt lied, filed a poor report. The report was damning, but apparently false, thus undermining the agenda that the reporting was trying to support.

I really wish that the BBC had focussed on the second document, afterall it is the most damning one.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by byny
oH BUT THEY HAVE!

By whom, when.

Do you have any details?

[byny]

Labour accuses BBC over axed 'Panorama'
From Independent - 10/03/1992 (558 words) By PATRICIA WYNN DAVIES and MAGGIE BROWN
THE LABOUR Party yesterday accused the BBC of acting as if the election had already been called, as it urged Marmaduke Hussey, the corporation's chairman, to justify the withdrawal of last night's scheduled Panorama report on the causes of the recession.
The costly and carefully- scripted report by Peter Jay, the BBC's economics editor, concluded there was no sign of an economic miracle.
It was cancelled last Friday evening by Samir Shah, the news and current affairs executive recruited from London Weekend Television to be responsible for weekly programmes. The withdrawn report had been in the making for the past month. Nothing from the 40-minute film could be salvaged for last night's Panorama, BBC 1's prestige current affairs slot which is watched by about 4.5 million viewers.
Mr Jay, Britain's former ambassador to Washington, had given key interviewees, including Nigel Lawson and Sir Alan Walters, guarantees that their contributions would be used at length and without distortion. The 22 minutes devoted to analysing the track record of Mr Lawson, the former Chancellor, was reportedly one of Mr Shah's key objections. Panorama sources said it was clear Mr Jay did not see a way of cutting the material, which weighed up allegations that Mr Lawson had spoiled Mrs Thatcher's ''economic miracle'' by his policy decisions.
As an emergency replacement, Panorama's production team assembled a studio team to discuss the state of the economy. They invited Sir John Banham, head of the CBI; Sir Christopher Tugendhat, chairman of Abbey National; Ian MacAllister, of Ford UK; and John Edmonds, leader of the Boilermakers' Union, to appear on a panel chaired by David Dimbleby.
In a reply last evening to a letter from Jack Cunningham, Labour's campaigns co-ordinator, Mr Hussey said Mr Shah's decision, which was based on his own editorial judgement on the programme's content, had his ''full support''. The BBC was determined to report fairly and objectively during the election campaign, he said.
The decision has appalled many people concerned about the BBC's ability to report the election in a robust manner. Some saw it as an example of nervous self- censorship, or cowardice.
David Hill, Labour's director of communications, said: ''If this had been a programme attacking the Labour Party, the Tories and the Government would have gone barmy. The BBC is acting as if the election has been called already.''
Mr Hussey yesterday refused a renewed request by Dr Cunningham for a meeting with senior party figures. He said: ''If I open the door to one party I open the door to them all, and that, I think, is in no one's interest on the eve of an election campaign.''
Labour's latest protest follows an earlier allegation of biased BBC reporting of its proposals to finance pension and child benefit increases with a 50 per cent tax rate and higher national insurance.
The last straw was a Radio 4 Today programme which Labour claims unfairly concentrated on a minority of people who would not benefit. ''It was blatant and a sign of what we feared was happening,'' Mr Hill said.
''We asked for a meeting with Mr Hussey to point out how the broadcasters' agenda was being unduly influenced by newspapers such as the Mail and Express,'' another spokesman said. A meeting with John Birt, the BBC director- general designate, is expected to take place this week.
Copyright 1992 Newspaper Publishing PLC
Date: 10/03/1992

The Day in Politics: Labour accuses BBC news of bias
From Guardian - 13/12/1991 (147 words) By GEORGINA HENRY
SIXTY Labour MPs have signed an early day motion accusing the BBC's Breakfast News of 'extreme bias' over its handling of the results of the Maastricht summit on Wednesday.
The motion, put down by Joe Ashton, MP for Bassetlaw, accuses the programme of being 'nothing but a party political broadcast for the Prime Minister and Tory Party'. It says the programme made no attempt to explain how the Social Chapter affected various groups and workers and 'neglected to give a level playing field to the other side of the argument'.
The BBC yesterday said it was happy with the programme. Peter Bell, managing editor of news programmes, said it carried a wide range of reactions to the Maastricht agreement from Britain and Europe. 'The shadow employment spokesman, Tony Blair, was interviewed live and had an opportunity to put Labour's point of view.'
Copyright 1991 Guardian Newspapers Limited
Date: 13/12/1991




'The BBC says that complaints from the public are evenly split between accusations of bias against the government and the opposition. ''We believe our coverage has been fair to all parties,'' the spokesman said. ''Surveys also suggest the public believes we have been fair.'' '
Additional reporting by James Bethell
Copyright 1992 Times Newspapers Limited

[byny]

PLAID ATTACKS BBC 'BIAS'.
From Western Mail - 10/03/2001 (Unknown words)
THE BBC was accused last night of Nationalist bias by proposing to give Plaid Cymru second ranking above the Conservatives.
A series of four general election television programmes has been proposed, with each focussing on an individual leader and his party.
The show with the greatest impact will go out nearest the election, and that spot has been designated for Labour. But the row is over the second-nearest programme to the election.
The BBC proposes to hand that show to Plaid Cymru, despite the fact that the Nationalists are usually fourth in the Westminster election stakes in terms of share of the vote.
The Tories, despite losing all its seats in Wales, recorded the second highest share of the vote. "We have sent the BBC a very short and terse letter, " said a Wales Central Office source.
"We are the second Westminster party in both votes and opinion poll returns, and that spot is ours by right."We hope that this is not the first sign of bias from the BBC."

Copyright 2001 Western Mail and Echo Ltd
Date: 10/03/2001

[byny]

The BBC;
Is it biased?
From Economist - 26/10/1991 (489 words)
THE BBC is under fire again. Rude references to the corporation were loudly cheered at the Conservative conference in Blackpool, and Chris Patten, the party chairman, has formally complained about its coverage of the health debate.
Even John Major, who is more sympathetic to the BBC than Mrs Thatcher used to be, is angry. The Sunday Times claimed that there was a "furious stand-up row" when he met John Birt, the BBC'S deputy director-general, in Blackpool. Then on October 18th the Independent reported that ministers were planning to "break up" the Corporation when its royal charter comes up for renewal in 1996.
The truth is less dramatic. John Major did not complain to John Birt directly (although a cabinet minister did); and his anger was focused on one specific news story rather than all the BBC'S coverage. The Independent story followed a lunch with Kenneth Baker, the home secretary, but Mr Baker seems merely to have repeated his well-honed line that all ideas must be examined when the BBC charter comes up for review. Since any changes are at least four years away, ministers have no firm views yet. If the Tories win the coming election, a green paper will be published later in the summer but that will be designed to start a debate, not pre-empt one.
the BBC does make mistakes and the reaction story is broadcast after the Conservatives' health debate was one of them. It consisted of vox-pop interviews with health workers who disliked government policy. That was hardly news. But the Tories should not draw wider conclusions. As the chart shows, most viewers have long believed that the BBC is biased not against but in favour of the Conservatives. And although Mr Patten urged viewers to ring in and complain, the BBC'S daily log of calls shows few people have followed his advice.
Despite the Tory pressure, some BBC chiefs are also concerned about what would happen if Labour won the election. Labour's policy is still uncertain. Roy Hattersley, the party's deputy leader, wants to keep the licence fee. Many of his colleagues think it should be replaced by a straight government grant. However, Robin Corbett, the broadcasting spokesman, want to replace the licence fee with a tax on new televisions, radios and videos, adding around a third (there's a vote-winner now) to their prices. All Labour thinkers agree that pensioners should be exempted from paying the licence fee, so presumably the government would have to make an additional grant to the BBC to make up the difference.
Yet any plan to replace part or all of the licence fee with a government grant would give ministers more power to influence the BBC'S political coverage. That would be dangerous. Politicians of all stripes would be tempted to use it. Just imagine the delicate threats Mr Major could have made to Mr Birt in Blackpool, if the BBC'S grant was being haggled about in the current public-spending round.

[Clandestine]

Good finds byny! :thumb:

[byny]

Sorry for bombarding the site with stuff, I don't know how to do these link thingies..

however...I think its fair to say that whoever is in 'power' in this country they will always accuse the BBC of Bias. If it were possible to get articles from '79 onward I'm sure we'd find plenty of articles about how hard done by the Labour opposition felt after the three day week thing etc ....

The BBC is and always has been an easy target . and well...thats just lazy!

[byny]

Copyright 1991 The Economist Newspaper Ltd.
Date: 26/10/1991
A die-hard political habit of blaming it all on the BBC: John Grant explains why broadcasters will always have to look out for MPs shouting 'foul'
From Guardian - 21/10/1991 (977 words) By JOHN GRANT
THERE IS one thing that can be said for certain about the current declaration of war by the Tories on the BBC over its alleged pro-Labour bias: it is just one more cyclical blip in a serial that has run for far longer than any TV or radio soap.
Nor will there be any climax while the BBC remains in the super sensitive business of public service broadcasting. John Birt, the BBC's director general-designate, must resign himself to producing the wearisome mix of apologia and defiance in the face of political pressure, sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant, that will be his inevitable response whichever party governs.
The current complaint by the Conservative Party about the BBC's coverage of the NHS debate at the Tory Party Conference in Blackpool has more than a little justification but is really just one more example of the in-built conflict between broadcasters and politicians which is irresolvable in a free society.
Unsurprisingly, Roy Hattersley, Labour's deputy leader, and shadow home secretary, has bounced into the fray. He proclaimed: 'This government has a record of bullying the BBC that goes back a decade. It seems to believe that the BBC should not be an objective broadcasting corporation but a state broadcasting corporation'.
Let me take Mr Hattersley back a decade further. In 1972, in the wake of the infamous Yesterday's Men BBC programme that parodied the then Labour opposition, Labour's leader Harold Wilson appointed me as the party's first-ever parliamentary spokesman on the media. He made it clear to me that the major part of my mission was to put the boot to the Beeb.
The now ennobled Lord Wilson had many more prime ministerial virtues than he is nowadays given credit for but he was rightly regarded as paranoid in his media relations, and especially so about the BBC. Not that his condemnation was entirely unwarranted. But perpetuating the dogfight could only be counter-productive to Labour, not least in a pre-election period. It made more sense to mend fences, and that was both my approach and that of Sir Charles Curran, then the BBC's able and affable director general.
Fortunately, Lord Wilson lunched with the new BBC chairman Sir Michael Swann and things calmed down for a while, helped by growing hostility within the Tory ranks at the media treatment of the Heath government.
BBC-government relations in the Thatcher era were mostly sour, not least when the abrasive Norman Tebbit was Conservative Party Chairman.
Now they have taken another plunge. Rightly, the Corporation has had to apologise to the Employment Secretary, Michael Howard, for the way three of his TV and radio appearances were handled. Foolishly, there are charges that the BBC succumbed to Labour public relations pressure when regular phone calls to producers secured TV slots for the party's spokesmen - a tactic used consistently by all political parties whenever their PR men function efficiently, and certainly used by me in 1974 as a Labour minister responsible for government information services.
Realities, despite a perpetually fraught situation, are nevertheless simple enough to discern. The BBC does seek to maintain the hallowed and essential Reithian tradition of providing a public service of high standards of responsibility and impartiality - independent of government - which informs, educates and entertains.
But the Corporation is the sum of its fallible, huge and immensely unwieldy parts. Those parts do include executives, producers and presenters of widely varied political viewpoints and of none. I was once grilled by an interviewer whose producer quietly warned me in advance was 'to the right of Genghis Khan', and once 'negotiated' out of a BBC radio series on the unions, which I devised, because of TUC pressure on an establishment-minded, don't-rock-the-boat BBC hierarchy.
Objectivity and impartiality may be BBC watchwords but from time to time, prejudiced human nature creeps in, just as it does in the commercial broadcasting sector. There is a tendency for all journalists to seek to excite, to expose, and sometimes to over reach themselves in their self-appointed role as public watchdogs.
Back in the mid-seventies, Mr Birt was co-author, with Peter Jay, now the BBC's economics editor, of a paper about broadcasting which complained of 'a bias against understanding'. Now he stands accused of fostering a different kind of bias. He has done his best by his journalists. He has written to the Sunday Times to defend their 'manifest dedication to impartiality', has pledged continuing serious consideration of complaints, but has added somewhat provocatively that the BBC 'will not be bullied by any party'.
He might have added that if politicians of all parties were judged by the same yardsticks of truth and impartiality as the broadcasters in their responsibilities to the public interest, life at Westminster would be rapidly extinguished.
There is, though, a real danger lurking. The BBC's Royal Charter comes up for review in 1996, and the knives are already flashing. Mr Birt has committed himself to making the cash-strapped and sprawling corporation 'lean and efficient', implying a fundamental re-definition of what sort of public service is required. Should the BBC, for instance, continue to provide the kind of music-based radio that can be supplied as satisfactorily by the commercial sector without costing the licence payer a bean?
Irrespective of the governing party, the BBC must be allowed to maintain its long standing charter requirement to act 'as a trustee in the national interest'.
It must continue to complement, not compete with, the independent sector in the quest for scarce revenue resources. British broadcasting, public and commercial, still leads the world and nothing should be allowed to undermine that situation.
John Grant is a former Labour minister and SDP MP. He is a member of the Radio Authority but writes here in a personal capacity.
Copyright 1991 Guardian Newspapers Limited
Date: 21/10/1991 Publication: Guardian

[Clandestine]

The easiest way to link, byny, is to copy the website address from the browser address window and then paste it into the post.

simple really.

[Aladdin]

And while we are speaking of the BBC and bias, here is a report covering the war on Iraq specifically.

And guess what: far from being anti-war, the BBC was the most pro-war broadcaster (pnj please take note!).

I hope we won't have to hear any more left-wing, liberal or anti-American rants about the BBC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,991109,00.html

PS for byny: Further to what Clan has said, simply click on the http:// button found above the text box when you are posting a message, and paste the website address in question.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Sorry, but the BBC and Mr Gilligan claimed that only one source was used. So where did the Downing Street source come from?

Although I have also noted that they are now using the term "principal" source. Change of focus, in the style of Tony Blair I think...



The BBC originally said there wasn't one.

So, if Dr Kelly was the only source (as claimed) and he couldn't confirm that Mr Gilligan's assertion was that the "45 minute" aspect was added by Downing Street, then Mr Gilligan must have put that aspect in his report himself. Or have I missed something?



I don't actually hate the BBC. On the whole I prefer them to most other news organisations. However, I don't have a blind faith in them.

[edited to add:



Note. Single source.

No if you look carefully what they are saying is that the claim of the 45 minutes came from one source - what they do not say is how many other sources, like the Downing Street source confirmed or denied it. If Gilligan had gone to them "Is it true that the government added the 45 minute claim?" and another source said "Yes." then that source is not claiming anything, instead they are agreeing to the claims of the original source. Hence the reference to a principal source, they had a few sources but only one source made the claim about the 45 minutes.

Therefore Dr Kelly may have been the single source that claimed the government added the 45 minutes line but that doesn't stop other sources from confirming/denying his claims which is what Gilligan, the Newsnight and now the Ten O'Clock News reporters did.

[Man Of Kent]

Nice links byny, thank you.

How many of them claimed that the BBC had a right-wing bias, which is what I asked.

I never argued that the BBC didn't argue against the standing Govt, but on each occasion you show, if was from a left-wing perspective, which is what I was saying