Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 9, 2007 22:05:56 GMT
Channel 4 ran an excellent Dispatches programme about how Britain is under attack by miltant Islamists and quite a few of these scum preachers were caught on tape expressing their insidious views.
Now Islamists have complained to the police that their words were taken out of context, and they were speaking hypothetically, blah blah blah, and they're as innocent as the driven snow, and Ch4 is responsible for stirring racial hatred.
What a stupid country. Excellent journalism is castigated, and the BBC filth is tolerated.
Anyway, the BBC lost no time putting this story on their website.
However, I find no mention there of a scandal involving their very own Panorama in collusion with a Health Watchdog - HFEA, who falsified material to vilify a particular fertility clinic for their programme earlier this year.
First the story from the BBC about Channel 4 'Dispatches'
:
Now for the one about Panorama. First from the Telegraph
Police investigate BBC reporters' fake letters
By Andrew Alderson, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:54pm BST 14/04/2007
Detectives are examining whether Panorama, the BBC's flagship documentary programme, used illegal tactics as part of an undercover investigation into a fertility doctor.
The probe centres on revelations that television researchers used fake GP referral letters to target Mohamed Taranissi, an IVF expert.
Panorama reporters posing as patients were secretly filmed while visiting Mr Taranissi's main clinic, the Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre (ARGC) in London.
The police inquiries follow research conducted in recent weeks by Clifford Chance, Mr Taranissi's solicitors. The firm made a complaint to the Metropolitan Police Froce after it identified four fake letters from non-existent "doctors".
Detectives from Marylebone Police Station interviewed Mr Taranissi shortly before Easter. Yesterday, he said: "I have given a statement to the police. If Panorama broke the law, those responsible should be brought to account."
It is understood police have consulted the Crown Prosecution Service over the matter but will await its approval before launching a formal investigation. Using a "false instrument" carries a maximum sentence of 10 years under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, 1981.
The BBC conceded yesterday that the referrals were not genuine but denied breaking the law. "Our legal and editorial policy teams deemed the referrals to be justified in the context of the undercover investigation," it said.
There has been a long dispute between Mr Taranissi, 52, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).
In January, Panorama's IVF Undercover programme alleged vulnerable patients were being duped into costly and untested treatments by the ARGC and that Mr Taranissi had operated without a licence at his second London clinic. The fertility expert denies that he or his clinics acted improperly.
Last month, in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Taranissi accused the HFEA of conducting a "witch-hunt" against him and of colluding with Panorama to damage his reputation. The HFEA has refused to answer questions about its relationship with Panorama, claiming it cannot because of "ongoing legal action concerning Mr Taranissi's clinic".
And now from The Times:
And from the Solicitors webpages:
If you find a story in the BBC website showing their or the HFEA involvement - even alleged, about this scandal, please provide a link. Seems to me they didn't think it was that important to put themselves into a bad light, neither the HFEA.
Now Islamists have complained to the police that their words were taken out of context, and they were speaking hypothetically, blah blah blah, and they're as innocent as the driven snow, and Ch4 is responsible for stirring racial hatred.
What a stupid country. Excellent journalism is castigated, and the BBC filth is tolerated.
Anyway, the BBC lost no time putting this story on their website.
However, I find no mention there of a scandal involving their very own Panorama in collusion with a Health Watchdog - HFEA, who falsified material to vilify a particular fertility clinic for their programme earlier this year.
First the story from the BBC about Channel 4 'Dispatches'
C4 'distorted' mosque programme
Channel 4 aired the Dispatches show in January
Police are reporting Channel 4 to the media regulator Ofcom over the way an undercover programme was edited.
But charges will not be brought against preachers featured in Dispatches, which tackled claims of Islamic extremism.
West Midlands Police carried out its own inquiry into three speakers in the Undercover Mosque broadcast, and then into the programme-makers themselves.
The Crown Prosecution Service said the show "completely distorted" what the trio said, a claim Channel 4 rejects.
Kevin Sutcliffe, commissioning editor for Dispatches, said West Midlands police had produced no evidence to support their claims.
"We find it extraordinary that they have gone public on these concerns without discussing them with us first," he said.
To try and demonise the efforts of these people by taking their comments out of context was shocking
Abu Usamah
Green Lane Mosque preacher
"We believe the comments made in the film speak for themselves - several speakers were clearly shown making abhorrent and extreme comments."
He said the one-hour documentary, which was made over a nine-month period and broadcast in January, allowed comment to be seen in a fuller context.
"All the speakers featured in the film were offered a right to reply and none denied making these comments, nor have any of them complained to Ofcom to our knowledge."
Bombings 'justified'
The Metropolitan Police said on Wednesday that a second Dispatches programme was also being investigated.
Britain Under Attack featured a man known as "Abu Mohammed".
He disguised his face with a scarf in the programme, which was shown on Monday, and said British Muslims were in "a state of war" and the 7 July bombings were "justified".
A Met spokesman said: "We are assessing the content of a Dispatches programme broadcast on Monday 6 August to determine if any offences may have been disclosed."
The spokesman said it was too early to say whether officers were investigating the people shown in the broadcast or the programme-makers.
The January programme infiltrated a number of mosques, one of which was Green Lane Mosque in Small Heath, Birmingham.
'Moderate tradition'
It investigated mosques run by organisations claiming to be dedicated to moderation.
Abu Usamah, one of the preachers from Green Lane Mosque featured in the programme, said he was shocked when he saw himself depicted.
"It was the fact that Green Lane Mosque has a 33-year-old tradition of preaching and teaching the moderate version of Islam.
In this case we have been dealing with a heavily-edited television programme
Bethan David, CPS lawyer
"To try and demonise the efforts of these people by taking their comments out of context was shocking."
Mr Usamah said he had been featured as saying homosexuals should be thrown from a mountain when in fact he was explaining it was an opinion featured in some books, which was not one he believed.
An undercover reporter claimed to provide evidence that certain speakers preached messages of religious bigotry and extremism.
In a piece about the programme, the Channel 4 Dispatches website said a reporter had attended talks at mosques and found preachers "condemning the idea of integration into British society, condemning British democracy as un-Islamic and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers".
Police said they acknowledged some parts of the programme may have been considered offensive, but, when analysed in full context, there was not enough evidence to bring charges.
'Completely distorted'
The police investigation was extended to include looking at issues relating to the editing of the programme.
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer Bethan David scrutinised 56 hours of media footage, only some of which was used in the broadcast.
She said: "The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying.
"The CPS has demonstrated it will not hesitate to prosecute those responsible for criminal incitement.
"But in this case we have been dealing with a heavily-edited television programme, apparently taking out of context aspects of speeches which in their totality could never provide a realistic prospect of any convictions."
Police asked the CPS to consider a prosecution of Channel 4 under the Public Order Act 1986 for showing material likely to stir up racial hatred, but they were advised there was insufficient evidence.
Channel 4 aired the Dispatches show in January
Police are reporting Channel 4 to the media regulator Ofcom over the way an undercover programme was edited.
But charges will not be brought against preachers featured in Dispatches, which tackled claims of Islamic extremism.
West Midlands Police carried out its own inquiry into three speakers in the Undercover Mosque broadcast, and then into the programme-makers themselves.
The Crown Prosecution Service said the show "completely distorted" what the trio said, a claim Channel 4 rejects.
Kevin Sutcliffe, commissioning editor for Dispatches, said West Midlands police had produced no evidence to support their claims.
"We find it extraordinary that they have gone public on these concerns without discussing them with us first," he said.
To try and demonise the efforts of these people by taking their comments out of context was shocking
Abu Usamah
Green Lane Mosque preacher
"We believe the comments made in the film speak for themselves - several speakers were clearly shown making abhorrent and extreme comments."
He said the one-hour documentary, which was made over a nine-month period and broadcast in January, allowed comment to be seen in a fuller context.
"All the speakers featured in the film were offered a right to reply and none denied making these comments, nor have any of them complained to Ofcom to our knowledge."
Bombings 'justified'
The Metropolitan Police said on Wednesday that a second Dispatches programme was also being investigated.
Britain Under Attack featured a man known as "Abu Mohammed".
He disguised his face with a scarf in the programme, which was shown on Monday, and said British Muslims were in "a state of war" and the 7 July bombings were "justified".
A Met spokesman said: "We are assessing the content of a Dispatches programme broadcast on Monday 6 August to determine if any offences may have been disclosed."
The spokesman said it was too early to say whether officers were investigating the people shown in the broadcast or the programme-makers.
The January programme infiltrated a number of mosques, one of which was Green Lane Mosque in Small Heath, Birmingham.
'Moderate tradition'
It investigated mosques run by organisations claiming to be dedicated to moderation.
Abu Usamah, one of the preachers from Green Lane Mosque featured in the programme, said he was shocked when he saw himself depicted.
"It was the fact that Green Lane Mosque has a 33-year-old tradition of preaching and teaching the moderate version of Islam.
In this case we have been dealing with a heavily-edited television programme
Bethan David, CPS lawyer
"To try and demonise the efforts of these people by taking their comments out of context was shocking."
Mr Usamah said he had been featured as saying homosexuals should be thrown from a mountain when in fact he was explaining it was an opinion featured in some books, which was not one he believed.
An undercover reporter claimed to provide evidence that certain speakers preached messages of religious bigotry and extremism.
In a piece about the programme, the Channel 4 Dispatches website said a reporter had attended talks at mosques and found preachers "condemning the idea of integration into British society, condemning British democracy as un-Islamic and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers".
Police said they acknowledged some parts of the programme may have been considered offensive, but, when analysed in full context, there was not enough evidence to bring charges.
'Completely distorted'
The police investigation was extended to include looking at issues relating to the editing of the programme.
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer Bethan David scrutinised 56 hours of media footage, only some of which was used in the broadcast.
She said: "The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying.
"The CPS has demonstrated it will not hesitate to prosecute those responsible for criminal incitement.
"But in this case we have been dealing with a heavily-edited television programme, apparently taking out of context aspects of speeches which in their totality could never provide a realistic prospect of any convictions."
Police asked the CPS to consider a prosecution of Channel 4 under the Public Order Act 1986 for showing material likely to stir up racial hatred, but they were advised there was insufficient evidence.
:
Now for the one about Panorama. First from the Telegraph
Police investigate BBC reporters' fake letters
By Andrew Alderson, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:54pm BST 14/04/2007
Detectives are examining whether Panorama, the BBC's flagship documentary programme, used illegal tactics as part of an undercover investigation into a fertility doctor.
The probe centres on revelations that television researchers used fake GP referral letters to target Mohamed Taranissi, an IVF expert.
Panorama reporters posing as patients were secretly filmed while visiting Mr Taranissi's main clinic, the Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre (ARGC) in London.
The police inquiries follow research conducted in recent weeks by Clifford Chance, Mr Taranissi's solicitors. The firm made a complaint to the Metropolitan Police Froce after it identified four fake letters from non-existent "doctors".
Detectives from Marylebone Police Station interviewed Mr Taranissi shortly before Easter. Yesterday, he said: "I have given a statement to the police. If Panorama broke the law, those responsible should be brought to account."
It is understood police have consulted the Crown Prosecution Service over the matter but will await its approval before launching a formal investigation. Using a "false instrument" carries a maximum sentence of 10 years under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, 1981.
The BBC conceded yesterday that the referrals were not genuine but denied breaking the law. "Our legal and editorial policy teams deemed the referrals to be justified in the context of the undercover investigation," it said.
There has been a long dispute between Mr Taranissi, 52, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).
In January, Panorama's IVF Undercover programme alleged vulnerable patients were being duped into costly and untested treatments by the ARGC and that Mr Taranissi had operated without a licence at his second London clinic. The fertility expert denies that he or his clinics acted improperly.
Last month, in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Taranissi accused the HFEA of conducting a "witch-hunt" against him and of colluding with Panorama to damage his reputation. The HFEA has refused to answer questions about its relationship with Panorama, claiming it cannot because of "ongoing legal action concerning Mr Taranissi's clinic".
And now from The Times:
Fertility watchdog facing £1m bill for raids on clinic
(Times Newspaper)
Mohammed Taranissi leaving the Royal Courts of Justice
Mark Henderson
The head of the Government’s fertility watchdog was under pressure last night to resign after raids on the clinics of Britain’s most successful IVF doctor were ruled unlawful, leaving the regulator facing a legal bill that could exceed £1 million.
Warrants authorising the search of Mohammed Taranissi’s two London premises in January were quashed yesterday by the High Court, after the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) admitted that it had presented insufficient evidence to justify them. It had been investigating claims that the doctor had practised illegally without a licence.
The authority has agreed to pay most of Mr Taranissi’s costs, which his lawyers estimate at £1.2 million — more than a tenth of the regulator’s annual expenditure of £11.3 million — and its own costs are also thought to be substantial. As the HFEA is funded by the Department of Health and fees from clinics, the bill will be passed on ultimately to taxpayers and private infertility patients.
The HFEA’s humiliation led senior doctors, MPs and patient groups to question the position of Angela McNab, the chief executive who ordered the raids and applied for the warrants.
Lord Winston, the prominent fertility expert, said: “This is further evidence of the complete incompetence of the HFEA and the need for the workings of this organisation to be radically reviewed. With the loss of this amount of public money, the chief executive . . . will presumably need to consider [her] position.”
Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP, said: “There is a real question as to whether the admitted inadequacy in her evidence when obtaining the warrants and the error of judgment in failing to settle the case until now means that the chief executive’s position is untenable.”
Mark Hamilton, chairman of the British Fertility Society, which represents IVF professionals, asked the Department of Health to conduct a formal inquiry. “The regulator needs to be accountable, and
it needs to maintain the trust and confidence of the sector,” he said. “In this case, this has not happened. It is a matter of grave concern that so much money has been spent on something that has ultimately come to nothing.”
The High Court ruling may also influence an HFEA hearing on July 13 that will consider the original allegations against Mr Taranissi and that could withdraw his licence to treat patients. His lawyers said yesterday that they would be applying for the return of all the documents that were seized illegally.
The HFEA applied to search Mr Taranissi’s clinics in January on the same day that a BBC Panorama documentary alleged that he had treated patients without a licence, a criminal offence. The authority was widely criticised by doctors for appearing to co-operate with the programme.
In March Mr Taranissi was granted permission to seek judicial review of the warrants, which he argued were “unjustified, disproportionate and unlawful”.
The High Court rejected a further claim that the HFEA had acted out of improper purpose.
Mr Taranissi said yesterday: “The events in January of this year were hugely distressing for those of our patients and staff who witnessed them.
“I am obviously very pleased about the outcome, but continue to be dismayed that our regulatory body saw fit to present to the magistrates on the day of the raids information described by a judge at an earlier hearing as seriously defective and highly misleading.
“The cost to the taxpayer of this exercise must be enormous. It grieves me that money, estimated to be in excess of £1 million, which could have been spent on research or genuine issues of patient safety has instead ended up in the pockets of the lawyers.
“The whole episode raises serious public interest questions about the way the HFEA acted in this case.”
The authority insisted the ruling would not affect its licence committee hearing on Mr Taranissi. “We would wish to stress that the HFEA acted in good faith, and on advice,” a spokeswoman said. “Our aim is to protect patient safety and ensure patient choice and we regret any distress that may have been caused to Mr Taranissi’s patients.”
Ms McNab was not available for comment.
(Times Newspaper)
Mohammed Taranissi leaving the Royal Courts of Justice
Mark Henderson
The head of the Government’s fertility watchdog was under pressure last night to resign after raids on the clinics of Britain’s most successful IVF doctor were ruled unlawful, leaving the regulator facing a legal bill that could exceed £1 million.
Warrants authorising the search of Mohammed Taranissi’s two London premises in January were quashed yesterday by the High Court, after the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) admitted that it had presented insufficient evidence to justify them. It had been investigating claims that the doctor had practised illegally without a licence.
The authority has agreed to pay most of Mr Taranissi’s costs, which his lawyers estimate at £1.2 million — more than a tenth of the regulator’s annual expenditure of £11.3 million — and its own costs are also thought to be substantial. As the HFEA is funded by the Department of Health and fees from clinics, the bill will be passed on ultimately to taxpayers and private infertility patients.
The HFEA’s humiliation led senior doctors, MPs and patient groups to question the position of Angela McNab, the chief executive who ordered the raids and applied for the warrants.
Lord Winston, the prominent fertility expert, said: “This is further evidence of the complete incompetence of the HFEA and the need for the workings of this organisation to be radically reviewed. With the loss of this amount of public money, the chief executive . . . will presumably need to consider [her] position.”
Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP, said: “There is a real question as to whether the admitted inadequacy in her evidence when obtaining the warrants and the error of judgment in failing to settle the case until now means that the chief executive’s position is untenable.”
Mark Hamilton, chairman of the British Fertility Society, which represents IVF professionals, asked the Department of Health to conduct a formal inquiry. “The regulator needs to be accountable, and
it needs to maintain the trust and confidence of the sector,” he said. “In this case, this has not happened. It is a matter of grave concern that so much money has been spent on something that has ultimately come to nothing.”
The High Court ruling may also influence an HFEA hearing on July 13 that will consider the original allegations against Mr Taranissi and that could withdraw his licence to treat patients. His lawyers said yesterday that they would be applying for the return of all the documents that were seized illegally.
The HFEA applied to search Mr Taranissi’s clinics in January on the same day that a BBC Panorama documentary alleged that he had treated patients without a licence, a criminal offence. The authority was widely criticised by doctors for appearing to co-operate with the programme.
In March Mr Taranissi was granted permission to seek judicial review of the warrants, which he argued were “unjustified, disproportionate and unlawful”.
The High Court rejected a further claim that the HFEA had acted out of improper purpose.
Mr Taranissi said yesterday: “The events in January of this year were hugely distressing for those of our patients and staff who witnessed them.
“I am obviously very pleased about the outcome, but continue to be dismayed that our regulatory body saw fit to present to the magistrates on the day of the raids information described by a judge at an earlier hearing as seriously defective and highly misleading.
“The cost to the taxpayer of this exercise must be enormous. It grieves me that money, estimated to be in excess of £1 million, which could have been spent on research or genuine issues of patient safety has instead ended up in the pockets of the lawyers.
“The whole episode raises serious public interest questions about the way the HFEA acted in this case.”
The authority insisted the ruling would not affect its licence committee hearing on Mr Taranissi. “We would wish to stress that the HFEA acted in good faith, and on advice,” a spokeswoman said. “Our aim is to protect patient safety and ensure patient choice and we regret any distress that may have been caused to Mr Taranissi’s patients.”
Ms McNab was not available for comment.
And from the Solicitors webpages:
Fertility doctor to sue BBC for 'defamatory remarks'
Published 02/05/2007
A doctor who claims to have been the victim of defamatory remarks in a television show may sue the BBC for over £1 million, according to a report in the Times.
Mohammed Taranissi, 52, alleges that the derogatory claims were made during an episode of Panorama which examined practices in fertility clinics.
Having visited one of Mr Taranissi's clinics, the Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre, the programme makers alleged that its treatments were "unnecessary and unproven".
In particular the show alleged that when presenter Kate Silverton went undercover to receive treatment at one of Mr Taranissi's premises, she was offered a treatment that was deemed to be potentially dangerous to an unborn baby.
Commenting on his decision to pursue legal action, Mr Taranissi told the Times: "The programme was biased and irresponsible. I believe that Panorama had more information in their possession that was telling them that there was a different side and a different argument, but they chose not to use it. It's not what I would have expected from the BBC."
For more information, contact our Defamation/Libel and Reputation Management department. Or email enquiries@rjw.co.uk
Published 02/05/2007
A doctor who claims to have been the victim of defamatory remarks in a television show may sue the BBC for over £1 million, according to a report in the Times.
Mohammed Taranissi, 52, alleges that the derogatory claims were made during an episode of Panorama which examined practices in fertility clinics.
Having visited one of Mr Taranissi's clinics, the Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre, the programme makers alleged that its treatments were "unnecessary and unproven".
In particular the show alleged that when presenter Kate Silverton went undercover to receive treatment at one of Mr Taranissi's premises, she was offered a treatment that was deemed to be potentially dangerous to an unborn baby.
Commenting on his decision to pursue legal action, Mr Taranissi told the Times: "The programme was biased and irresponsible. I believe that Panorama had more information in their possession that was telling them that there was a different side and a different argument, but they chose not to use it. It's not what I would have expected from the BBC."
For more information, contact our Defamation/Libel and Reputation Management department. Or email enquiries@rjw.co.uk
If you find a story in the BBC website showing their or the HFEA involvement - even alleged, about this scandal, please provide a link. Seems to me they didn't think it was that important to put themselves into a bad light, neither the HFEA.
