Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 12, 2012 23:32:28 GMT
The BBC have shown in the past, with their coverage of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, that they are no friend of the British serviceman. More keen on appeasing terrorists and extremists, whatever the cost - and to whom, to protect themselves and further their own empire building.
Back in 2003, because the crew of the Ark Royal found the BBC coverage of the war too slanted against our forces efforts they switched to Sky News. Following pressure on the navy high-ups by the Beeb, they were forced to switch back a few days later. This in one of a few examples we have covered here to show how the BBC demoralize, and sometimes endanger our troops.
As far as using public money for building projects the BBC are the least of those that should be 'throwing stones'. Most recently with the 1.5 billion pounds of license fee money in the unnecessary building of Media City in Salford, not to mention the ongoing additional moving costs and expenses of transferring staff and programme participants.
This documentary by the insidious and traitorous BBC appears to be nothing more than a vain attempt to make itself appear to be concerned about our wounded serviceman, regardless whether it actually hurts them by reducing donations to Help for Heroes.
Back in 2003, because the crew of the Ark Royal found the BBC coverage of the war too slanted against our forces efforts they switched to Sky News. Following pressure on the navy high-ups by the Beeb, they were forced to switch back a few days later. This in one of a few examples we have covered here to show how the BBC demoralize, and sometimes endanger our troops.
As far as using public money for building projects the BBC are the least of those that should be 'throwing stones'. Most recently with the 1.5 billion pounds of license fee money in the unnecessary building of Media City in Salford, not to mention the ongoing additional moving costs and expenses of transferring staff and programme participants.
This documentary by the insidious and traitorous BBC appears to be nothing more than a vain attempt to make itself appear to be concerned about our wounded serviceman, regardless whether it actually hurts them by reducing donations to Help for Heroes.
'Beeb got it totally wrong': Top general is furious over BBC's claim Help for Heroes charity was spending money on MOD buildings and not soldiers
Former Army chief has attacked BBC report criticising military charity
'Slur could prejudice help for wounded soldiers' Lord Dannatt says
By Brendan Carlin
BBC chiefs faced a barrage of criticism last night over a report attacking the work of military charity Help for Heroes.
Former Army chief Richard Dannatt accused the broadcaster of an ‘abuse of the truth’ over claims the charity was subsidising government rehabilitation buildings rather than spending on everyday care for veterans.
Writing in today’s Mail on Sunday, Lord Dannatt says the report took television journalism to a ‘depressingly low point’.
His attack was echoed across the political divide, with Defence Secretary Philip Hammond saying the charity did not deserve the criticism and Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy adding that the BBC ‘got it totally wrong’.
Last night the BBC was standing by its report, broadcast on BBC2’s Newsnight on Thursday.
Help for Heroes was set up five years ago by ex-serviceman Bryn Parry and his wife Emma to raise money for the care of wounded veterans. It has so far raised £141 million, with much of that being spent on a series of world-beating ‘personnel recovery centres’ run on Ministry of Defence land.
But the BBC report quoted some veterans complaining that the charity was spending money on MoD buildings rather than on practical help. Investigators said they had uncovered examples of injured soldiers having to pay for physiotherapy and prosthetic limbs.
Former Royal Marine Ben McBean, a double amputee and one of the charity’s patrons, said it should work more closely with veterans.
But ex-Chief of the General Staff Lord Dannatt – who helped set up the charity – mocked the idea that Help for Heroes had been ‘duped by the Ministry of Defence’.
And he said of the use of the servicemen quoted in the report: ‘It was a tragic abuse of them and a tragic abuse of the truth.’
He also raised fears that Newsnight may have ‘seriously prejudiced’ the charity’s bid to raise another £63 million for the centres.
Last night, Mr Parry said the report was ‘completely misinformed’.
And Mr Hammond joined in the row, saying: ‘We shouldn’t be criticising the important work they do; we should be backing them and encouraging members of the public to continue showing their appreciation of the Armed Forces by donating to such worthy causes.’
Labour’s Mr Murphy said: ‘Help for Heroes should be supported not slurred. Army Recovery Centres are a major success and to suggest otherwise is misguided.’ Lib Dem MP Sir Bob Russell, a member of the Commons Defence Committee, said the ‘tenor of the criticisms was bang out of order’.
But the BBC said: ‘We stand by the programme and the high quality of our journalism.
‘We accurately and impartially reported our findings and strongly believe it was in the public interest to do so. Lord Dannatt was given an opportunity to state his view in both the filmed report and the subsequent studio discussion, and he acknowledged that there are indeed problems with the way veterans are cared for.’
Newsnight's ambush of this honourable charity has completely backfired
By Lord Dannatt
Truth is the first casualty of war, it is often said, but where should truth lie in the treatment of the casualties themselves? Not with the BBC, it seems. Thursday’s Newsnight report on the support for our wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan took TV journalism to a depressingly low point.
The central proposition was that the service charity Help for Heroes (H4H) had been duped by the MoD and was spending its millions, donated by a generous public, on ‘opulent’ buildings rather than giving money directly to alleviate the needs of our wounded, injured and sick servicemen and women.
Three of the many hundreds of young people who have been helped by H4H were persuaded to take a sort of whistleblowing role. It was a tragic abuse of them and a tragic abuse of the truth.
Mercifully, it now seems to be an ambush that has backfired on the programme-makers to an embarrassing degree. A glance at the H4H website puts forward its defence and tells an interesting story. Help for Heroes was created in October 2007 by a small group of people led by Bryn Parry, an ex-soldier turned cartoonist. He and his wife were so appalled at what our wounded returning from Iraq and Afghanistan received by way of medical and welfare support that they felt compelled to act.
I have seen blood flowing in the streets of Belfast after two soldiers on either side of me had been shot, and carried the remains of four comrades in plastic bags to a waiting helicopter. Bryn’s son and my son were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We knew we had to act, whether others liked it or not.
Our first aim was to raise the cash to build a swimming pool for those recovering at the Defence Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court, Surrey. Incredibly, this key establishment on the path to recovery had no proper pool. It does now, thanks to the public’s generosity.
The dilemma for Help for Heroes was where to go from there. It could have chosen to fold, but it had caught the public imagination and people up and down the country wanted to make a difference for our wounded via H4H.
It could have chosen to become just an appeal and channel money to other charities. Indeed, it has done that in part, giving large grants to Blind Veterans UK, Combat Stress and SSAFA Forces Help, among others. But H4H chose a twin track for the future. First, to set up a Quick Reaction Fund to pay rapidly for individual needs, principally through other charities that were expert in their fields. More than 2,000 service people have been helped in this way so far.
But more importantly, Help for Heroes saw the strategic need to provide a third stage on the road to recovery – the first stages being clinical care at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham and then rehabilitation at Headley Court. The third stage would be a network of Personnel Recovery Centres in major garrisons to help our wounded return to duty or prepare for a new career on civvy street.
Bryn and I discussed this in 2008, but the MoD wasn’t keen: there was a strong element of ‘not invented here’ to the whole discussion. And then the economy collapsed and there was no money anyway.
So after several years of tortuous debate with the MoD it was eventually decided to go ahead with the Personnel Recovery Centres, funded largely by the charitable sector, underpinned by a tripartite deal between the MoD, the Royal British Legion and H4H.
That has been the focus of H4H for the past three years. Four centres are open, with a fifth soon to follow, but the charity sector has had to put up most of the funding, because the MoD chose other priorities for its money – our money. Is that right? Does the Government not have an absolute responsibility to provide fully for those wounded answering the nation’s call? Many would argue they do. Morally that must be correct, but what if there is neither the money nor the will?
But little is new. We have been here before, with the private, public and charity sectors coming together to deliver our obligation to our wounded. That was how the Chelsea Pensioners at the Royal Hospital came about, and the Erskine Hospitals in Scotland. Now we have Tedworth House on Salisbury Plain. Left derelict by the MoD but rented to H4H for £1 a year, it was transformed by H4H and the British Legion into a Personnel Recovery Centre to take your breath away in terms of what it offers those on the path to recovery.
'(The report) on the support for our wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan took TV journalism to a depressingly low point.'
Former head of the Army Lord Dannatt
In its determination to attack what is honourable and good, the BBC chose to focus on the statues, stained glass and chandeliers: but they were already there and merely dusted or painted recently. They chose not to focus on fantastic accommodation and a state-of-the-art gym and learning centre.
This is where those who have survived the trauma of war – the blood, confusion, deafening noise and sickly stench – can prepare for the rest of their lives.
Having given the best of themselves in the line of duty on behalf of the nation, they deserve the best.
Tedworth provides that for today’s recovering wounded and must be there for tomorrow’s veterans too. This is why, of the £141 million raised by H4H, £125 million has been committed, principally to the Personnel Recovery Centre programme. Of this, £70 million will go on capital projects, mostly for the centres but some to other charities’ projects. £50 million is allocated to the centres’ running costs and direct support of the wounded.
To secure these centres for the future and make them fully accessible to veterans, too, H4H needs another £63 million – but last week, Newsnight seriously prejudiced that aim. You have to wonder what the BBC’s agenda is sometimes.
The Armed Forces Covenant, which outlines the Government’s moral obligation to veterans, is now part of the law. H4H may have been seen as an irritant to those comfortable in their traditional approaches to military welfare, but it has been a wake-up call to which many have responded.
It was Britain’s most admired charity in 2011, but that made it a target for the BBC to bash. The Beeb should adjust its sights to the side, put the MoD between the crosshairs and squeeze the trigger usefully. How about running a campaign for the Government to repay H4H the money it has had to spend to do the Government’s work? That would help to restore the moral balance that Newsnight got so disastrously wrong.
Former Army chief has attacked BBC report criticising military charity
'Slur could prejudice help for wounded soldiers' Lord Dannatt says
By Brendan Carlin
BBC chiefs faced a barrage of criticism last night over a report attacking the work of military charity Help for Heroes.
Former Army chief Richard Dannatt accused the broadcaster of an ‘abuse of the truth’ over claims the charity was subsidising government rehabilitation buildings rather than spending on everyday care for veterans.
Writing in today’s Mail on Sunday, Lord Dannatt says the report took television journalism to a ‘depressingly low point’.
His attack was echoed across the political divide, with Defence Secretary Philip Hammond saying the charity did not deserve the criticism and Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy adding that the BBC ‘got it totally wrong’.
Last night the BBC was standing by its report, broadcast on BBC2’s Newsnight on Thursday.
Help for Heroes was set up five years ago by ex-serviceman Bryn Parry and his wife Emma to raise money for the care of wounded veterans. It has so far raised £141 million, with much of that being spent on a series of world-beating ‘personnel recovery centres’ run on Ministry of Defence land.
But the BBC report quoted some veterans complaining that the charity was spending money on MoD buildings rather than on practical help. Investigators said they had uncovered examples of injured soldiers having to pay for physiotherapy and prosthetic limbs.
Former Royal Marine Ben McBean, a double amputee and one of the charity’s patrons, said it should work more closely with veterans.
But ex-Chief of the General Staff Lord Dannatt – who helped set up the charity – mocked the idea that Help for Heroes had been ‘duped by the Ministry of Defence’.
And he said of the use of the servicemen quoted in the report: ‘It was a tragic abuse of them and a tragic abuse of the truth.’
He also raised fears that Newsnight may have ‘seriously prejudiced’ the charity’s bid to raise another £63 million for the centres.
Last night, Mr Parry said the report was ‘completely misinformed’.
And Mr Hammond joined in the row, saying: ‘We shouldn’t be criticising the important work they do; we should be backing them and encouraging members of the public to continue showing their appreciation of the Armed Forces by donating to such worthy causes.’
Labour’s Mr Murphy said: ‘Help for Heroes should be supported not slurred. Army Recovery Centres are a major success and to suggest otherwise is misguided.’ Lib Dem MP Sir Bob Russell, a member of the Commons Defence Committee, said the ‘tenor of the criticisms was bang out of order’.
But the BBC said: ‘We stand by the programme and the high quality of our journalism.
‘We accurately and impartially reported our findings and strongly believe it was in the public interest to do so. Lord Dannatt was given an opportunity to state his view in both the filmed report and the subsequent studio discussion, and he acknowledged that there are indeed problems with the way veterans are cared for.’
Newsnight's ambush of this honourable charity has completely backfired
By Lord Dannatt
Truth is the first casualty of war, it is often said, but where should truth lie in the treatment of the casualties themselves? Not with the BBC, it seems. Thursday’s Newsnight report on the support for our wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan took TV journalism to a depressingly low point.
The central proposition was that the service charity Help for Heroes (H4H) had been duped by the MoD and was spending its millions, donated by a generous public, on ‘opulent’ buildings rather than giving money directly to alleviate the needs of our wounded, injured and sick servicemen and women.
Three of the many hundreds of young people who have been helped by H4H were persuaded to take a sort of whistleblowing role. It was a tragic abuse of them and a tragic abuse of the truth.
Mercifully, it now seems to be an ambush that has backfired on the programme-makers to an embarrassing degree. A glance at the H4H website puts forward its defence and tells an interesting story. Help for Heroes was created in October 2007 by a small group of people led by Bryn Parry, an ex-soldier turned cartoonist. He and his wife were so appalled at what our wounded returning from Iraq and Afghanistan received by way of medical and welfare support that they felt compelled to act.
I have seen blood flowing in the streets of Belfast after two soldiers on either side of me had been shot, and carried the remains of four comrades in plastic bags to a waiting helicopter. Bryn’s son and my son were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We knew we had to act, whether others liked it or not.
Our first aim was to raise the cash to build a swimming pool for those recovering at the Defence Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court, Surrey. Incredibly, this key establishment on the path to recovery had no proper pool. It does now, thanks to the public’s generosity.
The dilemma for Help for Heroes was where to go from there. It could have chosen to fold, but it had caught the public imagination and people up and down the country wanted to make a difference for our wounded via H4H.
It could have chosen to become just an appeal and channel money to other charities. Indeed, it has done that in part, giving large grants to Blind Veterans UK, Combat Stress and SSAFA Forces Help, among others. But H4H chose a twin track for the future. First, to set up a Quick Reaction Fund to pay rapidly for individual needs, principally through other charities that were expert in their fields. More than 2,000 service people have been helped in this way so far.
But more importantly, Help for Heroes saw the strategic need to provide a third stage on the road to recovery – the first stages being clinical care at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham and then rehabilitation at Headley Court. The third stage would be a network of Personnel Recovery Centres in major garrisons to help our wounded return to duty or prepare for a new career on civvy street.
Bryn and I discussed this in 2008, but the MoD wasn’t keen: there was a strong element of ‘not invented here’ to the whole discussion. And then the economy collapsed and there was no money anyway.
So after several years of tortuous debate with the MoD it was eventually decided to go ahead with the Personnel Recovery Centres, funded largely by the charitable sector, underpinned by a tripartite deal between the MoD, the Royal British Legion and H4H.
That has been the focus of H4H for the past three years. Four centres are open, with a fifth soon to follow, but the charity sector has had to put up most of the funding, because the MoD chose other priorities for its money – our money. Is that right? Does the Government not have an absolute responsibility to provide fully for those wounded answering the nation’s call? Many would argue they do. Morally that must be correct, but what if there is neither the money nor the will?
But little is new. We have been here before, with the private, public and charity sectors coming together to deliver our obligation to our wounded. That was how the Chelsea Pensioners at the Royal Hospital came about, and the Erskine Hospitals in Scotland. Now we have Tedworth House on Salisbury Plain. Left derelict by the MoD but rented to H4H for £1 a year, it was transformed by H4H and the British Legion into a Personnel Recovery Centre to take your breath away in terms of what it offers those on the path to recovery.
'(The report) on the support for our wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan took TV journalism to a depressingly low point.'
Former head of the Army Lord Dannatt
In its determination to attack what is honourable and good, the BBC chose to focus on the statues, stained glass and chandeliers: but they were already there and merely dusted or painted recently. They chose not to focus on fantastic accommodation and a state-of-the-art gym and learning centre.
This is where those who have survived the trauma of war – the blood, confusion, deafening noise and sickly stench – can prepare for the rest of their lives.
Having given the best of themselves in the line of duty on behalf of the nation, they deserve the best.
Tedworth provides that for today’s recovering wounded and must be there for tomorrow’s veterans too. This is why, of the £141 million raised by H4H, £125 million has been committed, principally to the Personnel Recovery Centre programme. Of this, £70 million will go on capital projects, mostly for the centres but some to other charities’ projects. £50 million is allocated to the centres’ running costs and direct support of the wounded.
To secure these centres for the future and make them fully accessible to veterans, too, H4H needs another £63 million – but last week, Newsnight seriously prejudiced that aim. You have to wonder what the BBC’s agenda is sometimes.
The Armed Forces Covenant, which outlines the Government’s moral obligation to veterans, is now part of the law. H4H may have been seen as an irritant to those comfortable in their traditional approaches to military welfare, but it has been a wake-up call to which many have responded.
It was Britain’s most admired charity in 2011, but that made it a target for the BBC to bash. The Beeb should adjust its sights to the side, put the MoD between the crosshairs and squeeze the trigger usefully. How about running a campaign for the Government to repay H4H the money it has had to spend to do the Government’s work? That would help to restore the moral balance that Newsnight got so disastrously wrong.