/** Tools */
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts

05 November 2008

Sachsgate: Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross, Andrew Sachs, Georgina Baillie, Satanic Sluts & Max Clifford

Fake outrage, real resignations, real sackings, real suspensions and real suspenders, Sachsgate has got the lot, including a whiff of conspiracy. It is difficult to comprehend the way in which the non-story of a few offhand comments from raucous lothario comedian, Russell Brand, and the veteran if slightly unruly light entertainer, Jonathan Ross, became the media and -- more amusingly and worryingly in equal measure -- political frenzy that it has. Still more difficult to believe that the spectacle involving Andrew Sachs and his granddaughter, Georgina Baillie, happens to be running in parallel with the collapse of the carefully engineered but inherently wired-to-implode global banking racket. Yet these things are only difficult to comprehend if you thought the point of the 'news' media was to keep you informed about things of some consequence, and that anything and everything that happens just happens by accident. Luckily, there isn't much of humanity that still labours under those illusions any more.

Once upon a time there was a phone call broadcast on BBC Radio 2 that resulted in a slightly burlesque message being left on Andrew Sachs' answerphone....



Keen listeners will have noted that it was Jonathan Ross who shouted, "He fucked your granddaughter!" into Andrew Sachs' answer machine, and also that Brand's instant reaction was one of shock and horror having already asked Ross not to mention his liaison with Georgina Baillie.

The complaints that followed the live broadcast were, well, negligible, insignificant and inconsequential. "A BBC spokeswoman said the programme had received two complaints". Further, the "two complaints related to Ross's swearing - rather than the content of the phone calls." So, the issue that inspired all of two complaints was that Ross had said the word, "Fuck", not that Brand had carnal knowledge of Sach's granddaughter, nor the manner in which this information was conveyed. It soon emerged via Andrew Sachs’s agent that Sachs had been ‘terribly hurt’ by the incident and Georgina Baillie's mother, Kate, said: ‘It’s awful.’ That's the "two complaints" right there! Except that's not quite the full picture.

There it would have ended, until an anonymously penned editorial incitement of incendiary proportions was published in the Mail on Sunday, Ross, Brand and the BBC's gutter culture. Ignoring the fact that the Mail, aside from its historical support for fascism, is a doyen of the "gutter culture" it professes to despise, the outraged sentiment soon spread almost as if there were nothing much else going on in the world worth talking about.

As is usual when issues of alleged personal moral turpitude become opportunistic point-scoring political playgrounds, it wasn't long before the voices of "conservative" "decency" entered the fray. This time, possibly because he has nothing at all else of substance to say, it was in the form of David "Related to royalty, just like Boris" Cameron. Worth remembering also that Cameron and Ross have previously locked horns after Ross used his Friday night chat show on BBC1 to ask Cameron if he had ever masturbated while imagining Margaret Thatcher in stockings. Coincidentally, it was the Mail on Sunday that led the indignant outraged backlash against Ross that time around too. They say revenge is a dish best served cold and Cameron has kept his offering in the freezer for a couple of years before it was finally dished up.

Not to be outdone by the Tories, the boy's club currently in government joined the whipped-up witch hunt quick-style. First up was the despicable-as-any-Tory, Jack Straw, closely followed by no lesser mortal than the prime minister himself, Gordon BrNWO. So serious is the business of someone saying "Fuck" on the radio that BrNWO even interrupted an economic summit to pass judgement.

That this provocation occurred at the same time as details of yet another report appeared warning of "Teen yobs" and their antics is, perhaps, a "conspiracy theory" too far. (As everyone knows, the cause of all the ills of society are kids, not adult ruling classes whose interests and actions deliberately and wilfully conspire to create poverty, social deprivation and despair.) Pretty soon, in true Pavlovian mass media fashion, the likes of which Goebbels would have been most proud, the public reaction began. It is now claimed that the BBC has received over 40,000 complaints about Ross and Brand in relation to a broadcast that most of the complainants probably hadn't heard for themselves, at least not until they actively sought out transcripts and audio copies of the answerphone messages.

New Puritanism
"No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance."

-- Leonard Schapiro
If the pen is mightier than the sword, then it logically follows that words are mightier than deeds. Ergo, it is acceptable to do certain things but not to use words and language to talk about them in any meaningful way. It is acceptable for Russell Brand to have slept with Georgina Baillie, but it is not acceptable to talk about it, especially not if the word "Fuck" is used in the process. This is the nonsense logic underlying the 'scandal' and so the bone of contention becomes Ross's use of the word "Fuck", even though the statement in which it was used happened to be the truth. So, truth becomes a crime of verbal immorality, pre-judged by those with the most dubious morals of all. Lenny Bruce turns in his grave and a witch hunt similar to the witch hunts and persecution endured by Bruce after a decade of McCarthyism, becomes its own self-justification after a decade of New Labour.

Some are calling the backlash against the BBC and its Radio 2 presenters the new puritanism, but in a world where the current paradigm requires the commodification, objectification and fetishisation of everything, sex is always good for business. Even within such confines it is certainly an odd form of puritanism where the supposed moral high ground is alleged to be held by an ex-pre-marital-bedmate of Brand that also happens to be known for her role as a burlesque dancer, the Satanic Slut, Voluptua. Imagining that such an alter-ego might secretly conceal a lady filled with particularly virginal and conservative tastes, decency and overt prudishness is quite some challenge indeed, but let's not let that get in the way of a hysterical witch hunt.

As is usual with mass media frenzies whose main thrust is something of no consequence, somewhere among hyperbole and hysteria is at least one other story that the facade conceals. In the case of the Brand and Ross radio show and prank call, aside from its stochastic coinciding with the yob report, it's highly unlikely that many will be aware of any subtexts, unless they happen to have listened to the original radio show in its entirety, or unless they are already aware of Brand's politics.

A little more of the truth behind the persecution and witch hunt of Brand can be found through a better understanding of the nature of Russell Brand and his place in geopolitical space and time. Aside from being a popular stand-up comedian with a large and loyal following among the yobs youth of today who, lest we forget, are the future whether anyone likes it or not, Brand's politics are what the ruling and media classes would term "radical" and "extreme", terms now almost exclusively reserved for use in stories about "terrorism", particularly "Islamic" terrorism. In the early stages of the same Russell Brand radio show in which messages were left on Andrew Sach's answerphone, Brand described himself as a "post structuralist". In short, that means radical left wing politics of the sort a Socialist or Marxist might espouse. Brand briefly expanded his position during the show, saying:
"I was trying to open up a bit of debate about socialism, during the credit crunch, mate. I was thinking perhaps there could be a socialist alternative to capitalism, but if you can't take a bit of talk about economics and revolution, Jonathan, because you're up in your ivory tower on your high horse...."
Before adding:
"The universe is using me as a conduit for revolution."
It is these few words, and many other examples of Brand conveying similarly revolutionary intent and ideals, that provide a more coherent and legitimate explanation of the hugely disproportionate response to a few gags of dubious comedic artistry and integrity. After all, the initial "two complaints" were hardly sufficient to warrant the media and political maelstrom and witch hunt of Russell Brand that has followed. Whatever way other aspects of the story are spun, it is free publicity for all involved and there is, apparently, no such thing as bad publicity. As with all such things, one will find the media darling of the media darlings, Max Clifford, operating on behalf of both the 'victim' and the torch and pitchfork mob of outraged complainants that seek to silence those whose words to which they object, whether they heard the original broadcast or not.

When the entire capitalist racketeering operation that is enduring the deepest and most international crisis in the whole of its brief and nearly ended history, you can't very well have the BBC facilitating the promotion by popular, young, working class upstarts of revolutionary Socialist ideals as an alternative to Capitalist barbarism. Such things cannot be on the agenda of the broadcasting company of a state that is inexorably wedded to the Capitalist paradigm, especially when the show is pre-recorded and its contents have been approved by those higher-ups in the editorial process whose job it is to censor what is and isn't acceptable for broadcast.

What matters to the controlling political interests is that other messages of political opposition and significance that Brand has to offer -- particularly relating to the opening up of discussions about socialist revolution as the only sensible and final reaction to the unfolding Capitalist Armageddon, and particularly opening up this debate among his large audience of young people who have little or no faith in the existing system of Capitalist 'democracy' run at the behest of inbred Oxbridge graduates and their international counterparts -- remains buried and without a public forum.

After a time Russell Brand filmed a video apology, in addition to issuing verbal apologies, specifically addressed to Andrew Sachs rather than the outraged minorities, for an explosive issue that never should have been. In the video, Brand -- the creative, ingenious demagogue that he is -- made another far more subtle political statement. His apology was issued as he stood in front of a black and white background, by all accounts a pretty bland background. Until, that is, you notice the black part of the backdrop is a telescreen and the white background is mostly created from a large picture frame, in the centre of which is a small photo of the Russian totalitarian dictator, moral arbiter and censor in chief, Joseph Stalin. In a bitter-sweet twist and the cruellest of ironies, and almost as if to prove that Brand's symbolic socio-political commentary about the totalitarian nature of life on prison ship Britain was correct, the video apology featuring Stalin was itself censored when broadcast by the BBC and Stalin was nowhere to be seen.

A whiff of conspiracy - a final word on Woss

Given Ross's long held position as the staple of all light entertainment fare, and that it was his saying "Fuck" that prompted the uproar, one might well be tempted to wonder whether his part in initiating the persecution of Russell Brand was an accidental oversight as he got caught up in the mood of the moment, trying to outdo his younger, funnier and more entertaining host, or whether it was by a somewhat more sinister design. Factor in the following:
  • the involvement of the sensationalist publicist, Max Clifford as Baillie's publicist, whose life and infamy is based on the sort of devious cunning that can manufacture stories out of thin air, make a gay man straight and turn liars into paragons of virtue;
  • that the incitement to national hatred was provided by an anonymous editorial in the Nazi supporting Mail on Sunday;
  • that Andrew Sachs, being the consummate gentleman and professional that he is, although a little disappointed and nonplussed at the first interview effort in which the answerphone messages were left, had in fact graciously offered to participate in the Brand's show the following week so the intended interview could be properly recorded (see Andrew Sachs interview video);
  • Russell Brand's post structuralist, revolutionary, socialist, radical rhetoric and politics and his rising popularity among large, youthful audiences to which he brings that message in a time of global financial crisis in which the State can only offer greater servitude and subjugation;
  • the on-message cross-party political class unity in its universal condemnation of the non-event;
  • that Satanic Slut Georgina Baillie was so incensed by the invasion of her privacy that she felt moved to flog the remainder of her privacy to the Dirty Digger's Sun tabloid, among others to exploit this "awesome opportunity";
  • that Ross had been specifically asked by Brand to err on the side of discretion during the call;
  • that the show was pre-recorded and approved by BBC editorial controls before being aired;
  • that the original live broadcast on Radio 2 prompted only two complaints;
  • that Russell Brand has been forced to resign from his BBC position;
  • that the Radio 2 station controller, Lesley Douglas, has been forced to resign from her position;
  • that the BBC itself is once again in the sights of a State apparatus that cannot tolerate anyone or anything straying too far off message, just as it was around the time of the mysterious death of Dr David Kelly / Andrew Gilligan affair,
  • and that Ross, the sole public instigator of the uproar, has merely been suspended for three months and remains in the overpaid employ of the BBC at a time when his cryptically titled book is published: Why do I say these things?
As is often the case when a few clearly established facts provide a more comprehensive context and understanding for a series of inter-connected events, it is the facts themselves that offer up a plausible conspiracy theory which practically writes itself.

Two thousand years ago, legend has it that Jesus was crucified for the sins of others. In modern times it is Russell Brand and his messianic and revolutionary aspirations that are being crucified. As with the tale of Jesus, Brand too is being crucified for the sins of others.

19 April 2008

Weekend spot the difference competition

Compare:

7/7 accused 'joined weapons camp'

....

"Zubair [Mr Shakil] fired the Ak-47 and the light machine gun," said [Mohammed Junaid] Babar.
Guilty! String him up! Contrast:

Schoolchildren to be offered weapons training

....

Children at comprehensive schools will be asked to sign up for military drills and weapons training under new plans to improve classroom discipline.
And the moral of the story is?

08 April 2008

BBC Conspiracy Files, MI6, Milosovic, 7/7 & Jill Dando

Following yesterday's revelation about the startling similarities between the murder of Dodi Fayed and Lady Diana Spencer and a proposed methodology ascribed to an MI6 assassination plan for Serbian President Milosovic that involved "disorienting Milosovic's chauffeur using a blinding strobe light as the cavalcade passed through one of Geneva's motorway tunnels", BBC2 will shortly be screening (7pm tonight) what they refer to as a 'Conspiracy Files Special' on How Diana Died.
As the High Court jury return a verdict of unlawful killing on the death of Princess Diana, a special programme explores how the conspiracy theories into her death emerged over the past 10 years and grew ever more elaborate.
Whether tonight's Conspiracy Files is merely a re-run of last year's shameful masquerading of what was once known as 'investigative journalism' is unknown but, if nothing else, it does provide an excellent opportunity to republish the response issued to the BBC Conspiracy Files team by J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign following a somewhat underhanded approach last year.

Notably, the Conspiracy Files web site fails to mention the planned episode which purports to address the events of 7th July 2005 but, no doubt, one can expect to see the usual suspects and cast of nasties comprising at least one media and blog darling with a flair for shameless self-promotion and self-publicity, a couple of equally laughable 'experts', a smattering of 9/11 Truthling Campaigners and anyone else whose arms the BBC could twist with the promise of 15 minutes of fame.

For anyone interested in more from the source of the alleged plot to assassinate Slobodan Milosovic, 'ex' MI6er Richard Tomlinson, you may wish to download a PDF copy of his book The Big Breach - From Top Secret to Maximum Security.


Over to J7 for their rejection and rebuttal of the BBC's Conspiracy Files and its flawed, facile and formulaic methodology:
J7 refuse to participate in BBC's Conspiracy Files

Shortly after the second anniversary of 7th July 2005, J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign was contacted by Chris Alcock of the BBC who advised us of plans for a BBC documentary covering the events of 7th July 2005. No detail about the nature of the 'documentary' was provided until five months later, in December 2007, when another BBC employee, Assistant Producer Susan Prichard, advised us by email that the BBC production in question, rather than being a serious documentary effort for which the BBC was once well known, was in fact an episode of BBC2's risible Conspiracy Files series.

For anyone that missed out on the 'privilege' of watching the first four episodes of the Conspiracy Files, previous programmes have covered the events of 11th September 2001, the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly, the murder of Dodi Fayed and the Oklahoma bombing. Some episodes of the first Conspiracy Files series are available to view online and links are provided below:

Upon learning that our assistance was being requested in connection with the production of an episode of the formulaic Conspiracy Files rather than a serious, honest, open-minded and in-depth documentary that examined the official Home Office account of events -- the original 'conspiracy theory' about what happened -- the lack of evidence to support it, the errors exposed by J7's ongoing research and the numerous anomalies and inconsistencies in the story the government has endeavoured to fob the British public off with in place of a full and independent public inquiry outside of the Inquiries Act 2005, J7 issued a response to the BBC declining to participate in the programme and outlining our reasons for reaching this decision. What follows is a full copy of the J7 response to the BBC request to participate in its Conspiracy Files series. Much of what is written below is equally applicable to other broadcast and print media:

Date:     Wed, 12 Dec 2007
From: J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign
To: Susan Prichard
Subject: Re: BBC Documentary
Dear Susan,

As you will be aware, earlier this year, J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign was contacted by Chris Alcock with regard to our participating in a BBC programme, although the programme in question was never identified. We cooperated fully with Chris, providing him with links to further information and avenues of investigation and Chris also took it upon himself to directly contact several of the highly respected authors and academics who have written articles for J7 that are published on our web site. In none of these communications was the nature of the programme in question mentioned, although all those contacted were primed for a possible appearance in a BBC documentary examining the events of 7th July 2005.

It is difficult to express how appalled and disgusted we felt when we learnt, as we did from your email of last week, that the 'documentary' for which Chris Alcock was soliciting participants is in fact an episode of BBC2's risible Conspiracy Files series.

For the sake of clarity, it is worth establishing precisely, according to dictionary definitions, what the term ‘conspiracy theory’ means. While the definition of what a ‘theory’ is requires little or no clarification, in law, for it is under the law which alleged criminals are charged for their crimes, a conspiracy is defined as, “an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.” Therefore, by the very definition of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ any theory about how the events of 7/7 came to be that involves two or more people making it happen, is in fact a ‘conspiracy theory’. As such, the official government narrative, which is based on four, young, British Muslim men conspiring to kill themselves and others is, technically, by the legal and dictionary definitions of a ‘conspiracy’, a ‘conspiracy theory’. As there has been no due legal process – recall the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” – by which the four accused have had their guilt established beyond reasonable doubt, nor has there been an Independent Public Inquiry held outside of the constraints of the Inquiries Act 2005, the official version of events remains precisely a 'conspiracy theory'.

The July 7th Truth Campaign has never posited an alternative theory of what happened on 7/7, ‘conspiracy theory’ or otherwise. Therefore, the July 7th Truth Campaign cannot be defined, nor dismissed, as ‘conspiracy theorists’ in the traditional, pejorative sense, nor even the legal sense, of the term for the simple reason that, unlike the ‘conspiracy theorists’ which you are no doubt seeking for your programme, we do not promote any alternative ‘conspiracy theory’ about what might have happened that fateful day. Instead, the basis of the July 7th Truth Campaign has, since its inception, been that of endeavouring to uncover real, tangible evidence about the events of 7/7 and to challenge the official government narrative in instances where evidence proves the falsehoods in this narrative.

Furthermore, there exists in the public domain absolutely no evidence to support the Home Office narrative, much less evidence which proves it beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, there is evidence in the public domain that directly contradicts the version of events outlined in the Home Office story, evidence that has twice resulted in the Home Office amending the highly flawed narrative that was ten months in the making. It is worth noting that as a result of these two amendments forced by J7’s questioning, the official Home Office narrative has become more convoluted and even less coherent than it was originally, featuring as it now does, a scenario in which the four accused allegedly don their rucksacks on two separate occasions outside Luton station, once at 0649 and then again at 0714.

The BBC is an organisation funded by the licence-fee paying British public and the State, which itself is funded by the tax-paying British public. The BBC and the State are both public service organisations and, as such, should serve the public who fund their existences. Yet, with regard to the events of 7/7, neither the government nor the BBC can be described to have served the public in any respect, unless promulgating factually inaccurate, unsubstantiated speculations is considered to be a public service. In fact quite the opposite of serving the public has occurred, and both organisations have repeatedly performed a shameful disservice.

The events of 7th July 2005 resulted in the single biggest loss of life in London since the Luftwaffe bombings of the second World War and, in the two and a half years that have passed since, the behemoth that is the BBC has never yet found within itself the resources, time or inclination to address -- with the level of detail, gravitas and import that such an event deserves – precisely what happened on 7th July 2005, how it happened, or who was responsible for making it happen. Further, the BBC has never endeavoured to tackle the many unanswered questions, anomalies and inconsistencies in the official version of events outlined in the Home Office report dealing with the subject, despite the plight of the bereaved families whose questions about their loved ones have yet to be satisfactorily answered, and despite the continued efforts of the July 7th Truth Campaign to analyse the validity, or otherwise as is more often the case, of the official version of events. Where is the BBC programme championing the cause of the bereaved families and assisting them to obtain the truth from the authorities about how their loved ones died? As one bereaved family member summed up when they contacted us by email, “Yes, we do need the truth to come out (personally speaking I don't believe it has yet) but truth is what it has to be for proper closure.” Indeed, the father of 18 year old Hasib Hussain, accused of perpetrating the explosion on the number 30 bus, when doorstepped by a BBC journalist and TV crew, despaired at having never been shown any evidence of his son’s involvement or guilt.

It is beyond comprehension that the BBC is not endeavouring to hold the State to account – a state which is already proven to be mendacious, to have lied about Iraq’s WMD, and that has been complicit in the slaughter of over a million Iraqi civilians -- for its production of a speculative, unsubstantiated and entirely evidence-free 'narrative' that is little more than an egregious insult to the victims, their bereaved relatives, and those who survived the event. That the BBC's approach appears instead to be one that will endeavour to portray the July 7th Truth Campaign, or anyone with perfectly legitimate and unanswered questions to which we all deserve answers, as 'Conspiracy Theorists' is still less comprehensible. This approach is as distasteful as it is abhorrent.

We also noted with extreme interest the following line in your email with regard to your proposed episode of the Conspiracy Files:

"Throughout our focus will be on establishing the evidence and building up as definitive an account as possible of what happened."

To the best of our knowledge, "building up as definitive an account as possible of what happened" on 7/7 is not the function of the BBC, for the task of piecing together the story behind what Sir Ian Blair termed, “the largest criminal inquiry in English history”, is the job of the State in the form of the government and police. If you are indeed interested in building up such an account we can only suggest that you, the bereaved families, the survivors who have been all but forgotten as far as the media is concerned and your viewing public would be far better served by an episode of the Conspiracy Files which features representatives from the government and police who have access to information that has hitherto not been made public. After all, it was the Home Office branch of government that produced the official ‘conspiracy theory’ about what happened on 7th July 2005 in the form of a 'narrative' – a story -- that the July 7th Truth Campaign has proven to be based on information that was neither factual nor truthful.

The July Truth Campaign has been consistently appalled by the fact that, with regard to coverage of anything 7/7 related, the efforts of the BBC have been disingenuous, deceitful and downright dishonest and that no effort has been made to rectify this. There are countless examples where the BBC has, either wittingly or unwittingly, placed misinformation into the public domain, whether this be in ‘news’ items or ‘documentary’ programmes. We outline below a few of the more blatant examples of the BBC’s wilful ignorance of the few facts that are known, or dubious tactics employed:

  • Just one week after 7/7, the BBC broadcast an episode of Real Story with Fiona Bruce which gave considerable time to the eye-witness testimony of Richard Jones, an individual who has given many and varied versions of what he claims to have seen aboard the number 30 bus which means that, at best, he is an extremely unreliable witness. Furthermore, none of his accounts bear any relation to Hasib Hussain. The BBC has never revisited the testimony of Richard Jones.

  • On the afternoon of 7th July 2005 information came to light via BBC Radio Five Live’s Drivetime programme about a private company running a terror rehearsal operation at the time that real explosions were reported to have occurred on the London transport network. This information was revealed by the Managing Director of Visor Consultants, Peter Power who, in his own words, was rehearsing, “simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened.” Since the day of 7/7, the BBC has used Peter Power as an ‘independent’ security consultant with monotonous regularity across its entire broadcast media yet, curiously, he has never been questioned about his activities on the day of 7/7 while strenuously making the case for 90 days internment and how the British people must live in fear of another attack as part of what he calls ‘new normal’. Mr Power has also revealed ‘mock broadcasts’ were used as part of his operation and that, “there was a few seconds when the audience didn't realise whether it was real or not.”. Mr Power also featured in a Panorama programme broadcast in May 2004 in which a fictional attack on the London Underground took place, with three explosions occurring on underground trains, followed by another explosion above ground about an hour later. It was the BBC that put together ‘mock broadcasts’ featuring a bona-fide newsreader, Kirsty Lang, who, no doubt coincidentally, just happened to be the ‘relief presenter’ for BBC World on the day of 7/7. This is an irregularity on a par with the efforts of another BBC World presenter, Jane Standley, who announced on 11th September 2001 that WTC Building 7 had collapsed despite it not being hit by a plane, yet the building could be seen standing proudly in the background of her report before the feed fizzled out. WTC7 Building 7 went on to collapse 23 minutes after Jane Standley’s premonitory collapse report announcing it had already done so. Standley and BBC World’s amazing, prophetic foresight was never mentioned during the 9/11 Conspiracy Files and would have made for far more relevant and compelling viewing than the interview with a writer of the X-Files.

  • BBC news stories about the events of 7th July 2005 have regularly and shamefully been presented with a backdrop that deceitfully shows footage of three of the accused taken from 28th June 2005, some 9 days before 7/7. The severity of this deception is further amplified by the fact that this footage has often appeared in edited form so that the actual time and date stamps are not visible. The lack of any CCTV footage from the day of 7/7 has never been questioned by the BBC, nor has the fact that, in the one CCTV image allegedly showing all four perpetrators outside Luton station, three of the faces are completely unidentifiable.

  • On 27 October 2005, a BBC Horizon programme aired, “The 7/7 Bombers – A Psychological Investigation: What makes someone want to blow themselves – and others - up?", featuring forensic psychiatrist Marc Sageman and Dr Andrew Silke, which claimed to offer a psychological profile of the suicide bombers. The programme stated that the accused caught the 0748 train from Luton to King's Cross and that they arrived at King’s Cross at 0826. This was not the case and yet no amendment or apology for the inaccurate version of events outlined in that programme has ever been issued by the BBC. In response to a complaint about these factual inaccuracies, the laughable explanation was that while “re-tracing the journey of the 4 bombers, he [Silke] was not re-enacting it so there are some bits of his journey that do differ from the journey of the bombers.” Quite what the point of re-tracing steps that obviously weren’t taken by the accused remains a mystery. That the train times had been supplied to the programme makers by the Metropolitan Police Specialist Operations office was also worthy of comment and investigation.

  • There are several documented examples demonstrating the BBC’s guilt in editing stories on the BBC News web site where phrases implying details about the alleged bomber’s journey, such as, “Passengers on the 0748 Thameslink from Luton to King's Cross”, have been edited out, yet the ‘last edited’ date and time has, rather disingenuously, not been updated to reflect these amendments. This is in direct contravention of the Press Complaints Commission guidelines which specify, “A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.”

  • The BBC, along with the Metropolitan Police, claimed that the explosion on the Piccadilly Line train occurred by the first set of double doors on carriage one. The BBC web page containing this information was accompanied by a graphic showing this as the alleged seat of the explosion. Without any explanation, the BBC then changed this information to say that the explosion occurred by the second set of double doors and the graphic was updated accordingly. Curiously the Metropolitan Police – whom one might think would be the source for such information – have never amended or updated their account of the explosion being by the first set of double doors.

While the following information will serve little or no use in the production of an episode of the Conspiracy Files dealing with 7/7, as ‘researchers’ and/or ‘journalists’ you may be interested to note that, while the July 7th Truth Campaign is the only organisation that has been openly and publicly challenging the government on their flawed and inaccurate story of 7/7 since the day the incidents occurred, the government is also being privately challenged by families of the bereaved and survivors with regard to the accuracy of the report. In particular, the government has been taken to task over discrepancies in the alleged locations of the blasts on the underground trains. Another fact that the BBC has failed to investigate is that in August 2006, the then Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, responded that, over a year after the events occurred, a final forensics report had not yet been received.

More recently, after Coroner Dr Andrew Reid sent, unsolicited and without warning in early December, post-mortem reports to the bereaved, at least one family member has noted that there were "fundamental" differences between what they saw when they viewed their son's body and what the post mortem report said. This too has received no further comment or investigation from the BBC.

By way of conclusion to this communication, the magnitude and importance of the events of 7/7 and the repercussions of those events must not be underestimated. The official yet unsubstantiated story has been seared into the public consciousness as the 'first suicide-bombings' on British soil, a concept only trumped by the fact that this also qualifies the official story of 7/7 as the first 'suicide bombings' in the whole of Western Europe. The Home Office narrative of 7/7 is repeatedly used as unquestionable justification by the State and its corporate advisor apparatchiks to institute increasingly repressive legislation, including the widely abused 28 days detention without charge while the authorities struggle to uncover the evidence required to bring charges in a court of law. It wasn’t that long ago evidence was required before arrests were made.

To understand a little more about the wider context of 7/7 and everything that has happened since, one need only look to the words and wisdom of the Ministry of Defence who, on page 81 of a March 2007 report entitled, "The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036 (Third Edition)", noted what the State considers to be a core threat in the foreseeable future:

The Middle Class Proletariat

The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.

The official story of 7/7 has been used to demonise and dehumanise the Muslim community, in much the same way that the Jewish community was demonised in 1930s Nazi Germany following a similarly questionable and catalysing event, the Reichstag fire, and has proved to be the enabling factor for the rapid and unchallenged institution of more Draconian laws that impose unprecedented restrictions on the civil liberties of everyone. It is worth remembering that the far-reaching scope of the law, "anti-terrorist" or otherwise, is applicable not just to the Muslim community but to each and every one of us and the State has no qualms about using its laws against anyone and everyone from whom it perceives a threat to what State actors refer to as, “our way of life”.

These factors are testimony to just how seriously 7/7 requires honest, principled and open-minded investigation to get to the facts and the truth about what happened. Only the truth will stand up to rigorous investigation and questioning yet, to date, this questioning and investigation has fallen to ordinary members of the public who have taken it upon themselves to do so, ordinary members of the public like J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign.

The July 7th Truth Campaign would be more than happy to participate in any serious programme that honestly examines 7/7 in its correct historical and political context, the government narrative, the lack of evidence to support it, the nonsensical amendments that have been made to the narrative, and the ever increasing list of unanswered questions that engulf the events of 7/7.

However, we do not feel that the Conspiracy Files is the vehicle that will facilitate this, nor will it treat the event or issues arising from it with the level of seriousness that they demand, and nor will it further the cause of the July 7th Truth Campaign’s quest for the truth about what happened on 7th July 2005. As such, the July 7th Truth Campaign has no intention of participating in the proposed episode of the Conspiracy Files and can only hope you will take on board the points we have raised in this communication in consideration of your public service duty to the people of Britain, a people that includes at least 56 families whom, through your continued refusal to honestly address the events of 7/7, you have hitherto failed abysmally.

For truth and justice,
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

26 February 2008

Osama bin London Exclusive - terror training and extremism gets BBC sponsorship

This is a picture of BBC journalist extraordinaire, Nasreen Suleaman. She is the roving BBC reporter who presented a Radio 4, Koran & Country programme 'Biography of a Bomber' in November 2005, which professed to provide an insight into the life of alleged 7/7 bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan. The BBC Koran & Country web site described the programme thusly:
What turns a British-born Muslim into a suicide bomber? Nasreen Suleaman talks to those who knew Mohammad Sidique Khan, the eldest of the July 7 bombers. She tries to unravel the mystery of what turned this well integrated, popular and intelligent young man into a terrorist.
For some reason (take a wild guess) this particular episode of the BBC's Koran & Country series is not available via the BBC web site Listen Again service. Prior to its broadcast Suleaman's show was listed in The Times' Entertainment section:
BIOGRAPHY OF A BOMBER
Nasreen Suleaman has been a journalist with BBC News for 11 years. Here she presents a strong case for being groomed as the service’s next celebrity reporter as she tells the most detailed story I’ve yet heard of a man who, like her, was born in Britain to Pakistani parents and brought up in Yorkshire. On July 7, though, Mohammad Sidique Khan and three other men caught a train to London, where they blew themselves and 52 innocent people to bits. Why? It is a question asked a thousand times ever since — and Suleaman goes a long way towards answering it.
So the myth goes. Maybe The Times journalist listened to a different show to the one that was broadcast.

During the Radio 4 'documentary' about Mohammed Sidique Khan, Suleaman claimed that Khan had been paintballing and that paintballing was, "for some, a guerrilla warfare like activity." Note Suleaman's violent and graphic portrayal of paintballing. Paintballing features again in the continuing story of Ms Suleaman -- and the man now known as Usama bin London -- only with a slightly different spin from Suleaman.

Last Wednesday, a Muslim man, Mohammed Hamid, was convicted for apparently organising "al-Qaida style training camps" across Britain. Although nobody has been allowed to know about the conviction until now, owing to extended "reporting restrictions" that are counter to the public interest and any notions of justice that might once have existed. Let's face it, when was the last time you read or heard about the case for the defence in any 'terror' trial that you weren't physically present at? Plenty of coverage of the case for the prosecution, plenty of coverage about the 'evil terrorists' and all their evil terrorist ways and precisely no coverage at all for the defence. Hamid's co-defendant, Mousa Brown, made this point during the trial, a comment which has been interpreted in customarily incensed and emotive terms by the BBC as an, "attack" on journalists.

So deeply immersed in terrorism and terrorist training activity were Hamid and his fellow defendants that the Guardian reports, "The jury heard no evidence of weapons or explosives – the prosecution relied on MI5 surveillance tapes and recordings made by an undercover police officer." MI5 recordings of people speaking are now 'terrorism', at least if you happen to be Muslim, or some other perceived enemy of the State. All of which is rather unlike the U-SUK warmongering efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan which are, of course, peacekeeping missions -- bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to those that never asked for it to be delivered, especially not via bombs, butchery and genocide -- that don't involve any terrorism, nor the world's most dangerous weapons in the hands of the most highly trained terror-mongers.

The accused in the Mohammed Hamid 'Usama bin London' trial had no weapons, no explosives, no money and no terrorist abilities whatsoever, unless you count wielding twigs, rolling around in the mud, somersaults, pole-vaulting and cutting up a melon, in advance of eating the melon, as the acts of hardcore Jihadi terrorists.

Harking back to Nasreen Suleaman, the "journalist with BBC News for 11 years" who, according to someone at The Times, "presents a strong case for being groomed as the service's next celebrity reporter". In her apparent 11, by now 13, years with BBC News, Suleaman seems to have done precious little in the way of reporting. In fact, even the most objective analysis of Suleaman's reportage could not fail to discover that she has done little else other than a provide a small but crucial bit of coverage in relation to two recent major terrorist attacks on Western soil. First up is her reporting on Zacarias Moussaui, who remains the only person ever to be convicted in connection with the events of 11th September 2001 (despite many of the alleged hijackers still being alive). Second up is Suleaman's profiling of Mohammed Sidique Khan, one of four people against whom not a shred of admissable evidence has been presented in connection with the events of 7th July 2005.

In a radical departure from her staple fare, Suleaman has also contributed to the ongoing and entirely baseless demonisation of the 21st century's new Jews, Muslims, while superficially appearing to do the exact opposite. Prior to Biography of Bomber, Suleaman worked on a BBC television documentary called "Don't Panic I'm Islamic", which was shown in June 2005, a month before the Islamic panic began to be manufactured from thin air in earnest. The documentary featured none other than Mohammed Hamid, the man who jokingly referred to himself as Usama bin London.

During filming, Nasreen Suleaman -- who later the same year described paintballing as "a guerrilla warfare like activity" -- and the BBC team filmed Hamid and a group of others as they went paintballing. In fact, it was at the behest of Nasreen Suleaman herself, and the BBC who stumped up the funds for the trip, that Hamid and fellow defendants Muhammad al-Figari (who claimed he had drifted into crime after becoming a chauffeur under contract to the BBC, supplying clients with drugs and "female partners") and Mousa Brown went paintballing at the Delta Force centre in Tonbridge, Kent in February 2005. Mousa Brown went on to have an interesting tale to tell of how MI5 tried to recruit him and now appears to be saying that they failed, yet he was the only defendant acquitted. Hamid, however, was paid £300 by the BBC to take part in the documentary and said he wold use the funds to pay fines he had incurred as a result of a previous misdemeanour - that noble and long-standing duty of the working classes, antagonising the police.



Such was the involvement between Suleaman, the BBC and Hamid & Co., that Suleaman was called to give evidence during Hamid's trial. The Times reported:
Ms Suleaman told the court that Mr Hamid was keen to appear in the programme. She said: “He was so up for it. We took the decision that paintballing would be a fun way of introducing him.

“There are many, many British Muslims that I know who for the past 15 or 20 years have been going paintballing. It’s a harmless enough activity. I don’t think there is any suggestion, or ever has been, that it’s a terrorist training activity.”
On 17th November 2005 Ms Suleaman claimed in her Radio 4 'documentary' that paintballing is "for some, a guerilla warfare like activity". Yet two years later she is happy to state, under oath, that paintballing is "harmless", "fun" and not "terrorist training activity", which smacks a little of disingenuousness at the very least, if not perjury.

The tale of Mohammed Hamid and Nasreen Suleaman features yet another intriguing twist. Following the non-events of the no-bombs 'bombers' of 21st July 2005, Hamid recognised two of the suspects, Muktar Ibrahim Said and Hussain Osman (aka Rome-Runner Hamdi Isaac) and contacted Suleaman to tell her as much. Suleaman said that she informed "senior BBC managers" of the contact but was not told to approach the police with this information. Suleaman told the court, “I got the sense that he was already talking to the police. I referred it to my immediate boss at the BBC. I wasn’t told that there was an obligation. In fact it was referred above her as well. It was such a big story.” She added: “I don’t think it’s my obligation to tell another adult that he should go to the police.”

Of course, there's nothing odd about that. Why would Suleaman report to the police that someone she had taken on "guerrilla warfare like" training just happens to know a couple of bombers who didn't have any bombs. Nothing odd at all, except when you consider the case of the 21/7 no-bombs bombers. Following the non-events of 21st July 2005, when nobody was killed or injured, the accused, their wives, girlfriends, relatives and associates were all rounded up and locked up -- in much the opposite way that absolutely nobody was rounded up after 7/7 -- and many have since been charged with various misdemeanours, all now considerered terrorism, including, "withholding information and assisting an offender", amongst other things.

Armed with this information, one might be tempted to ask why Nasreen Suleaman and "senior BBC managers" aren't being charged with "withholding information and assisting an offender" and, further, why they aren't also being charged with financing terrorists by paying for the "guerrilla warfare like" training activity of paintballing and donating £300 to Mohammed 'Usama bin London' Hamid, now a convicted terrorist for having done precisely nothing that could be constituted as terrorism.

Technically, both the BBC and Nasreen Suleaman are, -- much like a certain disturbingly regular consultant to the BBC, Mr Peter Power, who happens to be getting upset about his own errant behaviour -- bang to rights.



--
Note: This article was originally going to finish with a different ending but, given the current climate, an editorial decision was taken that it was probably best not mention Nasreen Suleaman's work alongside FCO representatives because, as William Ehrman, Director General of the FCO wrote:
"Dealing with Islamist extremism, the messages are more complex, the constituencies we would aim at are more difficult to identify, and greater damage could be done to the overall effort if links back to UK or US sources were revealed."
Also omitted from this article, a link to a rather contrived and badly managed interview with Nasreen Suleaman plugging Biography of a Bomber and a link to Gonzo Terrorism. Watch out in Nas's interview clip, yet again, for the standard practice of showing CCTV footage from 28 June 2005 as the voiceover talks of 7th July, some 9 days after the footage being shown and from which no CCTV footage has ever been released.

Finally, a clip of Mohammed Hamid and his thoughts on the events of 11th September 2001 was omitted from the above article, just in case anyone was left with the impression that questioning official doctrine might be hazardous to one's health and liberty.



"No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance." -- Alan Bullock

07 January 2008

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign January 2008 Update

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign have issued a January 2008 update. If you read nothing else linked from the email, the J7 response to the BBC is a must read:
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign January 2008 Update

Greetings from J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign,

It’s the start of the New Year and time for a long overdue J7 update. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your continued support and to wish all J7 supporters a very happy Gregorian Calendar New Year and all the best for 2008.

In the J7 New Year round-up: J7 turns down the offer of a BBC ‘documentary’; Gordon Brown again refuses a public inquiry into 7/7; Peter Power breaks his silence; J7 reject and dismiss a new 7/7 film by someone who claims to be the new messiah; a review of Daniel Oba Chike’s book and J7 launch an updated and redesigned flyer.


J7 & BBC2’s CONSPIRACY FILES
=================================================================
Shortly after the second anniversary of 7/7, the July 7th Truth Campaign was approached by representatives of the BBC and asked to participate in a forthcoming 7/7 documentary. Nearly six months later, the BBC revealed that the ‘documentary’ in question was an episode of the BBC’s risible Conspiracy Files series. Having seen each of the previous four episodes of the formulaic Conspiracy Files, J7ers were unanimously against participating in the show. J7 put together a detailed response to the BBC declining to participate in the programme and explaining our reasons why. Much of the response, while specifically addressed to the BBC, is equally applicable to all broadcast and print media. Read the full J7 response to the BBC here:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-refuse-bbc-conspiracy-files-offer.html


THE STATE REFUSES 7/7 PUBLIC INQUIRY – YET AGAIN
=================================================================
A year long petition on the Downing Street web site calling for a 7/7 Public Inquiry has closed and received a response from the government that has, once again, refused an inquiry. J7 has always stated that any public inquiry must be held outside of the Inquiries Act 2005 and, despite the inquiry petition making no mention of the Inquiries Act, the demands of the petition were, unsurprisingly, still refused. The inquiry petition was widely publicised online and in various mainstream media outlets, yet was only signed by a paltry 525 people, clearly demonstrating the British public’s complete lack of faith in a state-run public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.

The now-closed inquiry petition can be viewed here:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Bombings/?ref=bombings

The government’s response to the petition is here:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page14132.asp

Meanwhile, the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE petition continues to go from strength to strength and has been signed by almost 1900 people. If you haven’t signed the J7 petition yet, please do so here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth/


7/7 TERROR REHEARSAL MAN PETER POWER BREAKS HIS SILENCE
=================================================================
For only the second time in two and half a years the Managing Director of Visor Consultants, Peter Power, has broken his silence about the exercise he was running the day of 7th July 2005. The latest comment comes after Peter Power was briefly confronted in a hotel lobby by a group called We Are Change and, for some hitherto unknown reason, rather than contacting We Are Change directly, Peter Power chose instead to leave a comment on the J7 web site. You can read the updated Terror Rehearsal article, which includes a link to the We Are Change video and Peter Power’s latest comment here:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html


J7 REBUT AND REJECT NEW FILM – 7/7 RIPPLE EFFECT
=================================================================
A video was released on 5th November 2007 entitled '7/7 Ripple Effect' which appeared via a website called JforJustice. Both the video and website are authored by Muad'Dib (the name of a fictional character from Frank Herbert's Dune) who believes he is the Sheffield-born messiah and demands 'that he be acknowledged as the Rightful British-Israel King.' He also appears to hold rather offensive, anti-Muslim views and the film is littered with unsubstantiated speculation in a manner not entirely dissimilar to the official Home Office narrative. Find out more:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-justice-77-ripple-effect.html


J7 BOOK REVIEW: THE 4TH BOMB
=================================================================
A number of books have been released by people connected, or claiming to be connected with the events of 7/7, and J7 will be reviewing as many of these as possible. The first review has gone live on the main J7 web site and is a review of Daniel Oba Chike’s book, The 4th Bomb. Read the review here:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-book-review-daniel-obachike-the-fourth-bomb.html


J7 FLYER UPDATED AND REDESIGNED
=================================================================
The July 7th Truth Campaign flyer has been updated, redesigned (by a proper designer!) and re-published and printed copies are available on request for anyone that wishes to distribute them at meetings, protests and gatherings. As ever, copies of the new flyer can be viewed online and print-quality PDFs can also be downloaded.

View the flyer online:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-truth-campaign-flyer.html

Download Black & White PDF:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/pdf/j7.flyer-v4.0-bw.pdf

Download Red & Black PDF:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/pdf/j7.flyer-v4.0-rw.pdf


J7 EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT AND SOLIDARITY
=================================================================
Today, 7th January 2007, would have been the 30th birthday of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was extra-judicially executed by two unnamed State marksmen in July 2005. Our thoughts are with the de Menezes family and J7 supports the quest for justice of the Jean Charles de Menezes family campaign (http://justice4jean.com). J7 also supports the cause of the National Campaign Against Anti Terror Powers.


That’s about all for now. J7 will be in touch again soon and, if all goes according to plan, 2008 will be the year that sees the start of more regular updates from the J7 team.

In solidarity, for truth and justice,
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Team
--
Web: http://julyseventh.co.uk/
Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth
Forum: http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh
MySpace: http://myspace.com/j7truth
Email: julyseventh@fastmail.net

---===[ Message Ends ]==---

28 February 2007

Jane Standley, Jane Stanley, Richard Porter, BBC World News, Saloman Brothers, 47 WTC7 Stor(e)ys & the number 23

As regular readers will know, The Antagonist doesn't have a huge amount of time for the pursuit of 11/9 truth in the UK as, simply put, 11/9 is an issue to which the American people need to find some solutions. Furthermore, we have far more pressing issues of domestic terrorism in the UK to deal with. However, where 11/9 can be of use to anyone anywhere other than America is as an event that informs and advises, and from which lessons can be learned.

On that basis, here's some thoughts on Richard Porter's (head of BBC World news) considered response to the questions that surround how BBC World News managed to report the collapse of the Saloman Brothers WTC7 building almost half an hour before it happened, complete with rolling footage of the 'collapsed' WTC7 building still standing in the background. Porter quoted, responses follow:
Part of the conspiracy?
Richard Porter
27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Not true, merely one interpretation of what happened. The programme was under an hour long and a large portion of the programme was dedicated to utter nonsense including looking around Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer's homes, talking about Dylan Avery's first Radio Shack laptop on which the film Loose Change was born, along with a good unhealthy dose of anti-semitic nonsense to which nobody with any credibility gives any credence, none of which have anything much to do with the events of 11/9, how they happened or who made them happen. The final product is hardly what anyone would call a balanced piece of investigative journalism that 'addressed' alternatives to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position.

While some people may be using the footage to suggest that the BBC were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience, the point is irrelevant. What is relevant is the simple fact that BBC World News was reporting the collapse of a building that hadn't collapsed, hadn't been hit by a plane and that didn't collapse until half an hour after BBC World said it had, while the building was fully visible in the report about its collapse.


So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

Press releases and scripts are irrelevant. If nobody fed BBC World the news about a collapsed WTC7, where did the news come from before the event happened? Who came up with the idea of announcing a building that was still standing had collapsed? Jane Standley? A BBC World source? Another news wire? Where was the notion born prior to the event happening? Is the ridiculousness of a BBC World reporter describing an event that hadn't happened somehow lost on Mr Porter? Was it a guess? A premonition? A bit of avant-garde reporting from 23 minutes into the future, going three minutes better than the favoured technique of Network 23's Edison Carter? Was it a first hand account? From a blind man, maybe?

Simply: What was the source for the BBC World News report that WTC7 had collapsed?
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

No such use of the terms "apparently", "it's reported" or "we're hearing" were used in connection with the reported collapse of the uncollapsed WTC7 building. Even the caption stated the building had collapsed. Past tense. But, if BBC World checked and double checked the information they were receiving, as Mr Porter tells us, this means there will be an audit trail leading directly back to the original source of the information about the collapsed building that was still standing. Then again, if the BBC "no longer have the original tapes" of "the day that changed the world", perhaps not.
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Maybe Jane Standley could use her high-speed BBC Internet connection to have a little dig around the web and see for herself what she said even though she can't quite recall now. Despite efforts to 'pull' copies of the video, it can still be found. The core issue here is not what Jane Standley said, but as highlighted above, the source of the information that gave rise to her fabricated report about an event that hadn't happened. It's not as if there weren't plenty of other 9/11 spectaculars upon which to report - say, for example, how two 110 storey steel and concrete buildings had been pulverised into what Jane Standley calls "snow" after having reportedly been hit by a couple of lightweight aluminium planes.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

No further comment required. Oh, fuck it.... why not - the day that changed the world, the new Pearl Harbour, the attack on America, not one but four hijacked planes and the BBC has lost the tapes? For the record, the BBC's own policy statement on archiving material requires the retention of, "Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output - one to be stored on a separate site as a master". Some going to lose both copies.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Of course it was an error. What a great line to end on -- especially given his job title -- an offhand comment from a YouTube video. Shouldn't a little more be expected from the BBC than a trashy anonymous quote in response to serious questions about the provenance of the information that led to BBC World's amazing foresight with regard to their reporting of the collapse of WTC7, 23 minutes before it did?
Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

Oh dear.

On the subject of the BBC's Conspiracy Files addressing of 11/9, it should be noted that the series producer for the Conspiracy Files, Mike Rudin, openly admitted about his research into the mysterious death of Diana, "I was right away impressed with just how little I knew". In what other profession is it possible to openly admit one's ignorance, much less how impressed one is by one's own ignorance, and still manage to hold down the job?

For the beleaguered BBC journalist floundering away in similar ignorance, The Antagonist recommends you take the time to watch one or two of your own TV series -- series from back in the day when the BBC wasn't afear'd to do something that vaguely resembled proper investigative journalism --and get up to speed on something that closer resembles the nature of the real world in which you live.

The story of the 23-minutes premature announcement of WTC7's collapse -- the original source for which is still unknown -- continues....