9 Months For BBC to Admit History Blunder

[Teddy Bear]

Christopher Booker with this piece on the machinations involved to finally get the BBC to admit - it made a mistake.

Shows the 'respect' the BBC has for its licence fee sucker payer

BBC'S HISTORY BLUNDER

There are few more futile exercises in this world than trying to get the BBC to admit it has got anything wrong. Normally, after a series of fruitless exchanges with apparatchiks in the BBC Complaints Unit, each more dead-bat than the last, most people give up in despair. Not so Henry Keown-Boyd, who was aggrieved to hear the BBC news reporting last April on how, in the Fifties, Britain had “brutally suppressed” an “uprising against British rule” in Malaya.

Having served in Malaya for 15 months as an officer in the Hussars, Mr Keown-Boyd was keenly aware that, far from this being a typical nationalist uprising, British and local Malay forces had for 12 years fought a textbook jungle campaign to prevent the country being ruthlessly taken over by a small ethnic minority of Chinese communists, who were given full support by both Mao’s and Stalin’s dictatorships. No one was keener to see off this vicious threat than the Malays themselves, who finally ended the rising in 1960, three years after winning peaceful independence from Britain.

So determined was Mr Keown-Boyd to get the BBC to set the record straight that, after nine months of the usual “get lost” replies, he has finally received a three-page letter from Fraser Steel, Head of BBC Complaints, to say that their researches “support the view that this was an inaccurate and materially misleading way of describing the Malay Emergency”. Well done, Mr Steel.

But knowing the BBC staff’s usual Guardianista view of British historical events that happened before most of them were born, I suspect this may not be the last time that better-informed listeners will have cause for amazed alarm at how little they seem to know.

[thehighlandrebel]

Well done that man. I can smell the demise of Al Beeb in the air........yipppeeeeeee

TV licence evader refused to pay because the 'BBC covered up facts about 9/11 and claimed tower fell 20 minutes before it did'

[Teddy Bear]

Certainly it's good to see somebody standing up for his convictions.
His premise I find a bit hard to swallow for the reasons he stated though.
I've no doubt the BBC assist the rise of terrorism, and we've documented enough examples to prove it to any fair court many times over. I personally doubt 9/11 is one of them though, except for how they handled the following Question Time.

I don't think there would be many judges in this country who would want to rule against the BBC on this, unless it was brought there by our own security services, or somebody with a cast iron case that would prove complicity.

I recall Roni here when she registered telling how she was looking to bring a case against them in the US for a similar charge, but the evidence she required was a lot more than we have, and I believe without the assistance of a covert security organisation, would be very hard to obtain.

We can hope though

[thehighlandrebel]

Yeah, a lot of conspiracy theories about 9/11 from the usual tinfoil helmet brigade although Al Beeb did mention the 'Israeli plot' and 'Mossad agents' on more than one occasion to humour them.
It's the judicial system that should be put under the spotlight though as I've seldom seen them put blame where blame is due.

[Teddy Bear]

Question is, who is likely to put them under the spotlight?
The government? Nah, they've got too much corruption within their ranks to want a truly moral court system.

The BBC? ;D
Seen any pigs flying lately?

[steevo]

They did their best to discredit and cast suspicion on the Bush Administration's efforts, so much day in day out. Here's a couple obvious examples (I know this is from years ago but the subject easily inflames me and besides, I just want you guys to know I really do have direct reasons to hate your traitor )

Their claim some of the hijackers were still alive spread like wildfire. It wasn't true and not completely the Beeb's fault - that is, not completely but they definitely helped those against the war on terror. Then there was their documentary The Power Of Nightmares. Here's a clip from the 3-part series: Al-Queda Doesn't Exist...



Tax dollars at work...

[Teddy Bear]

I wrote this some time ago, but I think you'll see its relevance here.

I did and still do support the invasion of Iraq, the only pity is it stopped where it did.

The problem for most people to understand the justification for it is that the media has gone to great lengths to avoid bringing those issues to the table that showed why it was right. If anything, the media stopped our forces going as far as it needed to in putting down the threat to our society that daily further encroaches on our lives.

First I would suggest that people read the book ' The High Cost of Peace' by Yossef Bodansky. He was the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, as well as director of research at the International Strategic Studies Association and a senior editor for the Defense and Foreign Affairs group of publications. The author of eight books on international terrorism and global crises, a former senior consultant for the US Depts. of Defense and State. He also predicted and wrote about 9/11 before it happened, by observing what was going on within the Islamic world.

He shows in this book how Clinton's zeal for peace was motivated by his desire to divert national attention away from his domestic scandals, and why his administration completely ignored the growing threat of militant Islamism. Also, what secret preparations Saddam ordered for the next war with, and terrorist strikes against, the United States and Israel. Saddam wasn't the only leader within the Muslim world who was vying to be 'the supreme leader', but he had his hands on the reins. Taking out Saddam wasn't only about getting rid of this direct threat, but also to send a message to the rest of them. We saw how Gaddafi, for example, immediately became a good boy once he saw what was happening to Saddam.

The problem began with our media laying the focus on WMD as the necessary justification instead of what can still be deemed a weapon of mass destruction that lies within the Islamic mindset. Even today, following over 20,400 deadly terrorist attacks since 9/11, the ambitions of the Islamists have still not been properly identified by our media, and counter measures put into place. The problem for Bush and Blair in spelling out the real reasons for takeing out Saddam was to allow the other regimes with similar ambitions to back down, like Gaddafi. If they would have stated that this was the purpose of the war, it would have been more likely to have them dig in their heels, rather than make themselves look weak in front of their followers. But this made it impossible to publicly ridicule the premise that the only legitimate purpose of the war was to get rid of WMD.

Clinton knew that the media would attack him if he would have chosen to counter the forces of Islam the way Bush did, which is why he preferred to appease them, sending them billions, and only serving to empower and embolden them further. It's a pity that our media made it impossible for Bush to finish the job, as in the long run for us to take control it will cost a lot more lives on all sides. Blair was not initially a proponent of war, and was making the same sort of noises as France and Germany. Then one weekend in the run up to the invasion, Bush had him come to Camp David for an 'education' on what was really going on in the world. When he returned, he was a 'convert'.

What I'm trying to point out is the media is stupid, Instead of thinking about the real threats to our society, and what needs to be done about it, they go by the 'letter' and can't see the forest for the trees.

Bush said it was a 'war on terror', and he was absolutely right.
Al Qaeda or Ali Baba, it doesn't make any difference. He's not going to say that he's making war on Muslims, just a specific mindset within their religious community, wherever he finds them.

This is what it will come down to eventually. We are dealing with a hydra - a multi headed monster. Al Qaeda was just somewhere to start, and take it from there. It would have been great if he would have been left to get on with it, and for those within our society to have understood - just play along.

Unfortunately - the idiots among us were just 'too clever' to understand it. The same idiots that populate so many of the media organisations.

[steevo]

I agree with a lot of what you've said but I will say our media are really not stupid. The 'mainstream media' here coordinate in group-think with the ultimate objective to discredit and demonize Republicans, those conservative/libertarian, associated institutions and life styles at apparently any cost (most in the media being insulated). They are total hypocrites with respect to old time liberal values. They are statist, globalist and not really fellow citizens. They really don't care about human life. Only the ultimate left-wing ideal and scenario of power and privilege where presumably they will watch and control the elite Authority.

With regard to Islam and it's radical threat, it doesn't matter to our Left if it's in direct opposition to their shallow claims of rights. Both are anti liberty, individual rights of conscience, old time western values rooted in Judeo-Christain ethic etc. Islam and Islamists will be used, maybe foolishly reckless, until the remnants of western values and it's threat to left-wing power dwindle to meaningless.

[Teddy Bear]

You've just described why I term most of our media stupid.

There's a trap one can set for monkeys.
You get a jar with an opening just large enough for a monkey to get their hand through. You then put a peanut in the jar. The monkey will try to grab the nut, but while holding it, he cannot get his hand out of the jar.
He won't let that nut go.

This is our left-wing media. They have an idea that appears to make them believe is the best way to go. Instead of looking at the reality of whether it can really work, and what will happen as a result were it to be implemented, they judge everything that happens to be the fault of something or somebody else.

Funnily enough I also posted the piece I'd wrote above about Iraq in the comment section of a newspaper article about Blair and Iraq.

You see above where I wrote What I'm trying to point out is the media is stupid, Instead of thinking about the real threats to our society, and what needs to be done about it, they go by the 'letter' and can't see the forest for the trees.
Well somebody posted a reply to my comment and completely embodies this mindset. He writes:

Utter rubbish. It is illegal for one country to invade another unilaterally without a UN mandate or having suffered a provocative attack first. Doesn't matter who is in charge or what threat they pose. It is against international law. The moment we invaded Iraq illegally, Saddam became the good guy, legally defending his nation against an unprovoked invasion from an occupying force (We were an occupying force for 5 years by the way - as long as WW2. We were only supposed to be there for 6 months at the most).

Now how f-d up do your policies have to be to end up giving Saddam Hussein the moral high ground?

A perfect example of the blinkard attitude so prevalent in our society today, and one I see as 'left-wing'.
My response to him was to write:

Don't try using any of your brain cells, you might wear them out.
If you believe that allowing all and sundry to undermine and destroy our society, because they can also use that same system to tie our hands, and the only course of action is to lie down and take it, I hope your children are happy with your choice and 'sense of morality'.

Why do you think the UN were using Blix, of all people?

This is the same Blix that didn't find Iraq's nuclear site in the 80's, and claimed Saddam wasn't developing nuclear weapons - until Israel bombed it. One has to wonder why somebody with his dubious allegiances should be selected again to head the UN's weapon inspection team. Perhaps precisely because HE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO.

Anybody who still believes that the UN functions with integrity and morality after seeing continual corruption in their day to day functioning, has an agenda or patently ignorant or stupid. How can so many nations that are so divergent from the purpose that this organisation was set up for be under the banner of UNITED?
It's a farce for the use of tyrants.

[steevo]

I think I understand your judgement on motivation but I certainly respect your perspective and concerns. I'm inclined to point out distinction just in case and I'll make reference again with confidence about our media. They really don't care about threats because they're ultimately confident Islam won't do us in. I think they're correct in that assessment. But they're callous to gross human pain and destruction in the process when the final goal is their own unabated power.

So for them it's not stupidity in that they are foolish and should know better. Since most of them are insulated in safety of location, personal contacts and financial security, it's just part of the process.

[Teddy Bear]

You have a valid point Steevo, and I agree with what you say as to motive, though I still see stupidity in their thought processes for a variety of reasons.
As people continue to suffer they will look very hard at the issues causing it. Since it is the oil producing countries that 'hold the reins' on our society to a great extent, the same countries and mindsets that we can see to be our greatest threat, which is only likely to increase, as we've seen over the last 12 years. They cannot be neutered now without a great cost that will only create greater instability than exists already.

The anger towards those who allowed it to happen at this point will be tremendous, and no amount of spin is going to be swallowed. People will see, correctly, that they were taken for a ride, and they may well see to take their anger out on those who perpetrated it. I'm also not so sure that our society can continue to function properly if fuel becomes too scarce, which could happen for a variety of reasons.

I doubt those in the media have really considered what might be the future, and what world they're likely to 'inherit'. This is just one angle, the most glaring, but there are others as well.

I don't think they've factored in China either. They believe the world will continue with the same elements and dynamics that exist today. We see their short-sightedness in so many examples.

Define stupidity

[steevo]

I think you give too much credit to the people, but then again I can really only relate to our country and people.

I had been thinking the same thing... define stupidity. I usually apply it to those (including myself) who do something they know they shouldn't, later paying a price. I don't think our journos concern themselves with a price and for the most part don't have to. They only allow or willfully plan for others to pay, for their ends.

I thank you for your time with this, it helps me a lot understanding where you are coming from

[steevo]

I'm still up tonight, we're on the west coast. I've discussed this with my wife and she was in easy agreement with you, though circumstances can be different here. We talked a lot and some things are so obvious I didn't consider. The external threats some of which you've alluded have to be factored in but she brought up our debt and when the house of cards comes falling down. Then Obamacare and the dangerous consequences to our health care system already beginning to be realized. We began to extrapolate various scenarios and how our journo elite can be hit and I must say I understand your reference to stupid much better.

[Teddy Bear]

;D

Thanks for sharing that with me Steevo.
My warm regards to your wife