BBC Make Me Vomit 80

The BBC led their 10 O’clock News today with a five minute piece on the delay to the Chilcot report. It gave a retrospective on the Iraq War that did not mention, once, Weapons of Mass Destruction as the raison d’etre but told us the war “removed a brutal dictator”. They said the dead of the war were in thousands – not hundreds of thousands, not even tens of thousands. “Thousands died”, they said. Literally true, but diminishing the scale. They could equally have said dozens died, also literally true – just an awful lot of dozens.

Then they allowed Blair unanswered and unquestioned to speak sincerely to camera about how much he wanted the report published, and the reporter stated without challenge that Blair had not delayed publication and had not objected to the publication of his correspondence with President Bush – both statements which are a very long way from the whole truth.

Even by recent BBC standards, it was the most vomit inducing production. They compounded it by finishing with Ed Miliband in parliament demanding publication, when he has a shadow cabinet packed with the very criminals who launched the illegal war – a fact they did not note. Anti-war opinion was briefly represented by – Nick Clegg!!!

I do not recognise what the British state has become. Or rather I do recognise precisely what kind of state it has become, and it bears no relation to the democracy it claims to be.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

80 thoughts on “BBC Make Me Vomit

1 2 3
  • Ba'al Zevul

    The Mail thinks (with some reason) that Heywood is the guilty party:

    It fits: as the Mail points out, Heywood, now Cabinet Secretary, was Blair’s PPS during the runup to Iraq. Also as the Mail says –

    As for the ever-slippery Mr Blair, he denies holding up proceedings, while claiming he regrets the delay as much as anyone else. But then why should he trouble himself with raising obstacles to publication, when Sir Jeremy has been so willing to do the job for him?

    Indeed, the stench of a conspiracy to keep the public in the dark grows stronger every day.

    Wow. The Mail backs a conspiracy theory. IMO, rightly.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    we should give more thought to trying to ensure they are completed in very good time.

    Lol. Translation: “we will continue to kick embarrassing reports into the very longest grass in a park miles from the stadium.”

  • fred

    “I do not recognise what the British state has become. Or rather I do recognise precisely what kind of state it has become, and it bears no relation to the democracy it claims to be.”

    Once again those of us who don’t have a TV because they resent having to pay a license fee are left commenting on what they haven’t seen. However the state hasn’t become anything, that is how it has always been, one of my teachers told us to take what the papers say with a pinch of salt and to read between the lines, no doubt his teacher had told him the same thing. Orwell wasn’t predicting the future, he was telling how things were then.

    There have always been people out in the cold standing on soap boxes shouting about it as well.

  • giyane

    How come George Galloway gets a Radio 2 slot and a chance to make excellent speeches to an empty House of Commons? You are obviously not wearing the right leotard Craig.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Once again those of us who don’t have a TV because they resent having to pay a license fee are left commenting on what they haven’t seen.

    I think we may be joined by increasing numbers of people who have noticed that (a) 99% of all TV programming is dross – the underlying reason for my not having a TV – and (b) there’s an internet. BBC news output is increasingly dependent on partisan press releases, agency material available to all, and indeed on other media outlets, without attribution. In its defence, you can only say that ITV is as bad, and Sky is worse.

    But does anything like a majority care about this? The news is something you get up during, to make a cuppa, and politics programmes automatically cue the remote to transport the viewer to a repeat of a soap.

    What’s needed is education, education, education, as a great man, who didn’t realise how damaging this might be to his own reputation, once said. Big up your teacher, Fred.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    PS Oh, and let’s ban sports on TV. If chasing a ball turns you on, go and do it for real. It will help the NHS, too.

  • Mark Golding

    22 Jan, 2015 – 10:23 am

    Why is it we, our leaders and most of us succumb and cave in to the power of rationalisation?

    The predominant answer to that is most humans are suckers for disinformation.

    Thinking about deceit we can turn to the tobacco industry for proof. Smoking is damaging and until recently scientist working for the ‘evil weed’ industry told us smoking was not harmful, in fact, it is enjoyable, cool, grown up, sophisticated. And it is a choice; nobody has to smoke, nobody is forced to smoke. Smoking had no blow-back.

    Exactly the same strategy used by the tobacco think-tanks was applied to the US doctrine of pre-emptive war. It is the only game plan to keep us safe. Absolutely we enjoy war demonstrated by the huge following of ’embedded’ journalism or news reporters being attached to military units involved in armed conflicts esp. Iraq.

    That is not an absurd statement from an economic perspective. Right now I argue our economic model is based on infinite growth and consumption. Without growth we are in recession and even low growth is very bad. Austerity was designed to make us think that way!!!

    It appears disastrously and regrettably the only solution for Britain, America and her allies to prosper and live well is….war.

    How can we reconcile moving forward and flourishing with world instability and chaos?

  • mike

    Curious to see how the BBC would airbrush mass slaughter based on lies. They didn’t disappoint !

    There are so few journalists left now. Everyone does PR.

    Persuade as many people as we can not to watch/listen/buy their newspapers. Hit ’em where it hurts. Shun them like the child-killers.

  • Geoffrey

    I flicked between BBC and ITV,where at least it was the main story,but I wouldn’t say it was much better.Channel 4 pretty tame too.

  • Anon

    UKIP has set up an online petition demanding the immediate release of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War. Yesterday on BBC Radio FiveLive, deputy leader of UKIP, Suzanne Evans, citing the appalling loss of Iraqi lives and British soldiers as well as the huge cost of the War, demolished all John Rentoul’s arguments for delaying the report. For anyone who missed it, this can still be heard in all its glory on the BBC iPlayer.

    The petition can be signed here:

    I urge all readers to sign it forthwith.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    NB. releasechilcot is…Published and Promoted by Steve Crowther on behalf of UKIP…

    Those intending to sign (UKIP reaps the PR benefit whatever happens) might care to note two other proposals from an aspirant kipper:

    1. Ban the jobless from driving to reduce congestion by madeupnumber of vehicles, and
    2. Force cyclists to get off the road, ride on the pavements, give priority to pedestrians.

    2….ok, I give in. I’ll vote UKIP if that’s on the manifesto. What a bastard, eh?

  • Richard Gadsden

    “Thousands” of British and American soldiers died. They’re just ignoring the Iraqis.

  • Keith Crosby

    The British state has always been a fascist conspiracy, all states are. You were lucky to get out of Stepford alive.

  • Mary

    Leon Brittan has died. As the BBC’s Chris Mason said on Radio 4’s News ref Brittan’s handling of child abuse allegations – ‘He always maintained that his handling of the case was entirely proper’ – So that’s alright then.

    Similar wording on the website.

    ‘Lord Brittan had come under the spotlight last year as part of the investigation into historical sexual abuse because he was home secretary in 1984 when ministers were handed a dossier on alleged high-profile paedophiles.

    He insisted that the proper procedures were followed.

    A review found no reference of the dossier, which had been compiled by former Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens, and the government’s inquiry into historic child abuse will consider whether the Home Office handled the allegations properly.’

  • ------------·´`·.¸¸.¸¸.··.¸¸Node

    Ba’al Zevul 22 Jan, 2015 – 11:27 am : “PS Oh, and let’s ban sports on TV. If chasing a ball turns you on, go and do it for real. It will help the NHS, too.”

    . . . . then art?

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Well, yes, Node. No more plummy pundits, and no more crap installations. The National Gallery was good enough for me, and what are coffee-table books for anyway? Read books too, instead of listening to/watching badly-adapted lowest-common-denominator travesties.

    Hand Yentob to ISIS for disposal, too.

  • Mary

    That UKIP petition quotes the ludicrous Iraq Body Count figure.

    ‘The Iraq Body Count website estimates that up to 151,000 civilians lost their lives as a result of the conflict. This was done in your name, with your money.’

  • Jermynstreetjim

    Mary (5.15 PM): Bush was (apparently) reluctant to countenance a figure, North of ‘30,000’… 😉 An October 12, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article[26] reported:

    “Six hundred thousand or whatever they guessed at is just, it’s not credible,” Bush said, and he dismissed the methodology as “pretty well discredited.” In December [2005], Bush estimated that 30,000 Iraqis had died in the war. Asked at the news conference what he thinks the number is now, Bush said: “I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life.” At a separate Pentagon briefing, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that the figure “seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen. I’ve not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so I don’t give it that much credibility at all.”

    The Lancet & Johns Hopkins Uni’ stalwarts, findings, suggested otherwise, though.. !

  • Mary

    Thanks Jermynstreethjim for that.

    Over the years of the terrible slaughter in Iraq, there have been many discussions on Medialens and the editors, David Edwards and David Cromwell, have often written on the subject.

    This extract from one –

    ‘Last month, a ComRes poll supported by Media Lens interviewed 2,021 British adults, asking:

    ‘How many Iraqis, both combatants and civilians, do you think have died as a consequence of the war that began in Iraq in 2003?’

    An astonishing 44% of respondents estimated that less than 5,000 Iraqis had died since 2003. 59% believed that fewer than 10,000 had died. Just 2% put the toll in excess of one million, the likely correct estimate.

    In October 2006, just three years into the war, the Lancet medical journal reported ‘about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation, which is equivalent to about 2.5% of the population in the study area’.

    In 2007, an Associated Press poll also asked the US public to estimate the Iraqi civilian death toll from the war. 52% of respondents believed that fewer than 10,000 Iraqis had died.’


    and from the article linked within

    Death Counter Explanation Page
    What Just Foreign Policy’s Iraqi Death Estimator Is and Is Not

    Since researchers at Johns Hopkins estimated that 601,000 violent Iraqi deaths were attributable to the U.S.-led invasion as of July 2006, it necessarily does not include Iraqis who have been killed since then. We would like to update this number both to provide a more relevant day-to-day estimate of the Iraqi dead and to emphasize that the human tragedy mounts each day this brutal war continues.

    This daily estimate is a rough estimate. It is not scientific; for that, another study must be conducted. However, absent such a study, we think this constitutes a best estimate of violent Iraqi deaths that is certainly more reliable than widely cited numbers that, often for political reasons, ignore the findings of scientifically sound demographic studies.

    In January 2008, a poll of Iraqis confirmed that the number dead is likely to be over a million. The prestigious British polling firm, Opinion Research Business, estimated that 1,033,000 Iraqis had been killed violently since the U.S. invasion as of August 2007.


    It is of course shocking that even one Iraqi was killed let alone the surviving little ones born with birth defects.

    Blair: Bombing Iraq Better. Again
    16 June 2014

  • Mary

    BBC – ‘The Duke of York has denied claims by a US woman that she was forced to have sex with him when she was 17 and says he wants to focus on his work.’
    ‘Prince Andrew, 54 and fifth in line to the throne, stepped down as UK trade envoy in July 2011 following controversy over his then friendship with Epstein.’

    Just one question. What is his work? I assumed he was unemployed.

  • Jives

    “We dont do body counts.”

    General Tommy Franks.

    Yet apparently this was a war where every paper clip was accounted for.

    Just dont mention the alleged $2 billion that disappeared into the hands of various private contractors though.

  • Anon

    UKIP’s Paul Nuttall has just said on Question Time that over 600,000 Iraqis died. I think he’s wrong but thought you might like to know.

  • Mary

    Yesterday in the HoC

    Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): The Iraq debate is scheduled for next Thursday. I welcome that debate as both Foreign Secretary at the time of the Iraq war and as a witness before the Chilcot inquiry. May I say that I share the deep frustrations felt in all parts of the House and across the country about the delays in the production of this report? I think we all acknowledge above all the anxieties and distress that the delays in publishing it are causing the families of those who lost their lives fighting for the United Kingdom in that theatre. Leaving aside for a moment the arguments about whether we could have appointed an inquiry earlier, which I do not think we could have done, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, given that it was appointed in June 2009 and that the inquiry promised first that it would report by the end of 2010 and then by the end of 2011, there was a reasonable expectation from everyone that it would certainly have reported by the end of 2013? Will he confirm that witnesses, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair and me, had absolutely nothing whatever to do with declassification of sensitive material, and that, because the Maxwellisation process has only recently begun, witnesses have had nothing whatever to do with the delays that have taken place?

    Mr Hague: The right hon. Gentleman and I would differ on whether the inquiry could have been established earlier, but, leaving that aside, as he says, the House will of course be able to debate this in detail a week today thanks to the choice of the Backbench Business Committee, and I think many of these points are best explored then. It is of course an independent inquiry, as the whole House acknowledges, so Ministers do not have much knowledge of the detailed reasons for the delays in its proceedings. I think I can say we all had a reasonable expectation that it would have reported by now, and while I cannot, given its independence, confirm some of the things the right hon. Gentleman has just said, I certainly have not seen any indication that the behaviour of witnesses like himself has been delaying the inquiry.


1 2 3

Comments are closed.