Tony Blair

Or – Tweet this post

31st January 2011

JOHN BARRY – A LION AMONG MERE POPULAR COMPOSERS

Yesterday John Barry, English-born composer of immense repute and amazing legacy (over 80 films) died suddenly at aged 77 of a heart attack.

BORN FREE

Famous for his numerous memorable James Bond films compositions, such as “Goldfinger”, there is one work I consider outstanding, perhaps above all others. With few comparisons for subtlety of meaning and breadth of impact I believe his composition “Born Free” written for the film of the same name about the king of beasts and people who cared for them, close to incomparable.

Simply brilliant. Brilliantly simple. Simply noble.

Written in 1966 in collaboration with equally able British lyricist Don Black, it is a masterpiece. As someone who has dabbled with lyrics in collaboration with A N Other, my question is - which came first - the lyrics or the music? Clearly the title of the film shaped the thoughts of both men.

To take nothing away from this music, nothing at all – I consider it extremely powerful as a composition even in its own right – can you imagine if the words were different from this? Written by today’s “lyricists”? If they had summoned up the pc-correct anthropomorphic “thoughts” of lions? These are the original lyrics and below how I imagine today’s pc anthropomorphs might tackle it:

__________

BORN FREE

Original Lyrics

Born free, as free as the wind blows
As free as the grass grows
Born free to follow your heart

Live free, and beauty surrounds you
The world still astounds you
Each time you look at a star

Stay free, where no walls divide you
You’re free as a roaring tide
So there’s no need to hide

Born free, and life is worth living
But only worth living
Cause you’re born free

__________

Today’s PC/Anthropomorphic Lyrics?

Born Free, as free as a lion roams,
So free in her own home,
Where men are strangers to fear.

Live free, on plains that can hold you,
Where no man enfolds you
You gaze on him from afar.

Stay free, where people can’t get you,
You’re free as a roaring tide
Except you need to hide.

Born free, your life is worth living
But only worth living
Cause I’m not there.

__________

John Barry “Born Free”

Born Free information – From the days when composers composed for popular music and lyricists wrote powerful lyrics. Today’s junk is frankly embarrassing. The music of ‘Born Free’ was written by John Barry, and the lyrics by Don Black. The film ‘Born Free’ was written by Lester Cole, and was released in 1966.

Another Englishman, the late Matt Monro, an amazingly talented British singer on the same plane as Sinatra (Sinatra thought so too) gave the song its popular appeal.

As though it’s written in my DNA I am always moved by lyrics and even spoken words more than by music. That is not to say that some musical compositions do not move me. There is a position widely held among those who understand better than I, that music is of the soul, touching parts nothing else can.

I have seen this on several occasions. I recall sitting with a cellist friend once as we listened to a piece of classical music. It was moving for me. Not the music, but the fact that she had tears rolling down her face. I seldom feel that with music, but I do, often, with words. Perhaps that explains, at least partly, this blog.

Born Free is a rare combination of inspired music AND lyrics.

Not that this is a place for praising British musical talent only. Another of my top-rate modern composers is American John Williams. This piece needs no words – Schindler’s List.

So just to prove myself wrong, on not being moved easily by music, I just listened to (and watched) this -

Schindler’s List – Theme Itzhak Perlman

[This video will open in a new window at the YouTube site]

As soon as it started I felt shivers run down my legs. When the tiny girl crawled away to some sort of temporary safety [1:50] I wanted to pick her up and take her away from that murderous regime. Perhaps my reaction is because we share a collective memory of the holocaust or even of the inspired filming and acting of Schindler’s List. The last minute or so of this video shows some real-life survivors and relatives of the holocaust, who personally were saved or aided by Oskar Schindler, laying stones on his grave.

So, in conclusion, I’d like to thank all the film-makers, composers, musicians, artistes, actors and noble artistic minds with whom it is my privilege to share this earth. The truth-tellers, not the re-writers of history. For them, if there is a hell, I presume there will be a special place in reserve.

ADDENDUM

If you were moved by this excerpt of Schindler’s List, and if not why not, you’re not alone. Tony Blair and his wife found it immensely powerful as he mentions in his memoirs. Here at FT Blogs is a perfect example of the tunnel vision of some in our commentariat regarding Blair and Iraq. I describe it as choosing to learn the wrong lessons:

“At one point Blair launches into a rather long description of a scene in Schindler’s List in which a Nazi camp guard’s girlfriend is a passive observer while he shoots a prisoner. He finishes the story by saying:

She didn’t shoot anyone; she was a bystander. Except she wasn’t. There were no bystanders in that situation. You participate, like it or not…You take sides by inaction as much as by action.

He then goes on:

Not very practical, is it, as a reaction? The trouble is it’s how I feel.

And then, 10 years later, Iraq happened. Should we blame Steven Spielberg?”

And the RIGHT lesson? In the simple terms some seem limited to coping with? We should THANK Steven Spielberg.

__________

RIP, John Barry.

__________

RELATED

John Barry, Wikipedia

__________

ETCETERA

Listen to Mid-East envoy Tony Blair, BBC, on the need for ‘orderly change’ in Egypt, today
Watch Tony Blair on Sky- process towards change in Egypt is inevitable but “must be managed”. Immediate howls of protest, of course, from the usual suspects. Keep telling it like it is, Mr Blair. Today’s political “leaders” and still many in the commentariat have no idea, or more likely not enough nous or guts to join the dots. The fence-sitting from Obama, Cameron and even EU leaders is particularly telling. Again Blair has to step into the vacuum, to warn of others stepping into a vacuum. There will be no true democracy tomorrow in Egypt, even if most of us wish there could be. It is a process, not a rabbit we can pull out of a hat, while magically changing nothing around.

Egyptian government, Wikipedia – excerpt:
The government of Egypt consists of a semi-presidential republic whereby the president is both head of state and head of government, and of a system dominated by the National Democratic Party. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the People’s Assembly.

Hizb ut-Tahrir turned away from Egypt Embassy protest in London

_______________

Recent comments:

“All countries need a leader who isn’t afraid to fight terrorism. I believe Mr. Blair did a necessary job in helping his allies. Are we all just supposed to lie down and wait for them to come for us, I don’t think so.”

And - “Mr. Blair is one of the finest politicians to have had the privilege of serving the United Kingdom, and Britons are fortunate to have had him as their Prime Minister. Time will show that Mr. Blair’s approach to affairs in the Middle East were and remain correct. From a member of the Commonwealth, thank you, Mr. Blair, for your continued service to legitimate and lasting (and not convenient or politically expedient) freedom.”

AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”

AND – “I am sick and tired of television and radio interviewers asking the same old questions over and over, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, presumably they hope Mr Blair will let slip some secret information which they would then use against him. History will show if the decision was the right one, (I believe it was) but people must accept that Tony Blair is an honourable man, and made his decision based on the known facts and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.”

Tags:Academy Award, anthropomorphic, anthropomorphism, Born Free, Don Black, england, English composer, Goldfinger, James Bond, John Barry, John Barry dies, John Williams, Lester Cole, lyricist, Matt Monro, Robert Harris, Roman Polanski, Schindler's List, Stephen Frears, Steven Spielberg, Tony Blair, youtube
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, Egypt, Major Political Issues, Britain & World, Middle East Envoy Blair, from June 2007, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

“CAIRO! CAIRO! CAIRO!” yell student fees protesters in Manchester

January 29, 2011

Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog

Or – Tweet this post

29th January 2011

As Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak is reported to be in crisis talks, following the demos/riots in many of Egypt’s major cities, what’s happening in Britain?

“CAIRO! CAIRO! CAIRO!” yell the brain-dead, aka infiltrators, aka anarchists…

… some of whom, undoubtedly, are students, of a sort

There were more student demonstrations today against the government’s education cuts. After the last few times when violence marked them, the BBC News Channel was mightily relieved.

It reported that the marches in London and Manchester were peaceful. Odd that. Since at least part of the Manchester march didn’t look all that peaceful to me. If you switched over to Sky News, that is.

But perhaps the BBC were just a little slow on the uptake, as is their wont. [ Trust the BBC (Trust). Eventually? No. Not even eventuallly.]

Sky TV News covers all breaking news far better than does the BBC, in my humble opinion. I think the Beeb takes its leads from them. It is often several minutes later before they “break” news. So if you’re watching BBC News Channel and they say “we have just heard…” flick over to Sky. They will tell you the developing situation.

And even today on the Egypt crisis, Sky is streets ahead on the Egypt and Manchester streets.

Follow Sky’s Tim Marshall here on Twitter

If it’s at all possible, and they can get away with it, the BBC tends to ignore such ~~riots~~, demos or civil disobedience in Britain.

They now have decent Egypt coverage at the BBC News Channel live here. But yesterday, and the THREE days prior, they were very far behind their rivals in the news game.

SKY NEWS IMPRESSIVE

After four worsening days of violence in the largest country in the Middle East, Sky News had assembled an impressive array of contributors, some at home in Britain or linked from the USA. Most in Egypt itself.

They covered Egypt’s riots/demonstrations with due priority. Up-to-the-minute, without umpteen re-runs of earlier interviews.

The BBC were not even in the same business! They preferred to show us re-runs of earlier incidents and snippets of interviews. Especially if the interviews were from people telling us that “see, this has nothing to do with religion!” and “the people are blaming western policy towards their country”.

But today the BBC has caught up. Perhaps tomorrow the BBC will catch up as to why this contagious domino effect is of some significance here in Britain.

Perhaps.

While you’re waiting listen to Tony Blair, on BBC R4′s Friday edition of “Today” on the Egypt situation and the dangers of a vacuum. Yes, I know it’s BBC Radio. Despite my concerns over partiality Radio 4 is still a great channel. But one thing Mr Blair alluded to is not reported anywhere in print, or even quoted by radio or television broadcasters. Can’t imagine why.

I’ll be writing more on this at my new blog – The Feral Press.

_______________

Recent comments:

AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”

Tags:"CAIRO! CAIRO! CAIRO", africa, BBC, BBC Radio4, bring down the government, Cairo, demonstrators, education protests, Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, Justin Webb, liar, Manchester students. demonstrations, nick clegg poster, President Hosni Mubarak, Protest, protesters in Manchester, sky news, Tim Marshall, Today, Tony Blair, twitter, Vice president, yell student fees
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, BBC, Broadcast Outlets & Press, Egypt, Major Political Issues, Britain & World, Press - Truth & Lies, The Independent - Daily Mail - Guardian - British "feral" Press | 1 Comment »

New Blog Launched: ‘The Feral Press’

January 28, 2011

Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog

Or – Tweet this post

28th January 2011

Specially for our beloved and purer than pure press.

It’s called The Feral Press

Didn’t just dream the idea up tonight, in case you’re wondering. The press have been instinctively “feral” for some time – years. A long time before the present phone hacking scandal.

I saw it last week at the Iraq Inquiry when most of them were determined to ignore anyone who didn’t want Tony Blair at the International Court.

Remember during the “Cash for Honours” fiasco when Yates of the Yard found zilch in the end, after “following the evidence”?

Remember the leaks about who was about to be arrested, or questioned the next day? Remember the press tried to say it was Number 10?

I remember it well.

They’re lying b*s*a*d* and they were covering one another’s backs, as the Police trousered the press’s dollar.

I hate to be a suspicious conspiracy theorist type, but, well… just following the evidence.

_______________

RELATED

1. Cash for Honours Police Inquiry Nonsense

Innocent – Blair & Colleagues – Honours Inquiry
- CPS – Cash For Honours Decision 20th July 2007
- Police Overkill?

2. Press Bias/Brainwashing: ref Blair, BBC apologies, “Control Orders”, Iraq Inquiry

_______________

Recent comments:

AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”

Tags:feral beasts, International Court, Iraq, Iraq inquiry, iraq war, mobile phones, phone hacking, police inquiry, prime minister, the feral press, the MET, Tony Blair
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, BBC, Broadcast Outlets & Press, British Politics, British Prime Minister, Iraq inquiry, Labour party leadership, Major Political Issues, Britain & World, Press - Truth & Lies, The Independent - Daily Mail - Guardian - British "feral" Press | 3 Comments »

Blair (the 5% man with 100% responsibility) in the ‘dock’ at the Iraq Inquiry

January 26, 2011

Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog

Or – Tweet this post

26th January 2011

See: BBC apologises yet again, but this time you won’t be hearing about it

I said at the weekend that I had plenty to report on The Iraq Inquiry. And I have…

In a lonely place? A telling picture of Tony Blair, deep in thought, and ready to swallow 'the inquisition's' worst. Arriving at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, 21st January, for his second evidence session to the Iraq Inquiry

INTERNAL EXILE?

So much to talk about it’s not easy to know where to start. But believe me I have much more to write than just thanking a greased lightning political internal exile (Apologies. That last link refers to suspected terrorists under ‘control orders’.)

Still, there are certain similarities, I can hear sharp-tongues say. I agree. There certainly are. They have internal exile in common.

However, our former Prime Minister and the control order holders are not “internally exiled” for the same reasons. Tony Blair, it would seem, when he lands back on these shores, is in some sort of semi-exile at home. When did YOU last hear of him attending a public event here in Britain? Think about it.

He is more or less exiled to protect him from anti-Iraq war know-alls and would-be terrorists.

The latter of the “exiles”, the would-be terrorists, are semi-exiled in their homes to prevent them from being hailed as heroes by the brain-dead.

Only a small degree of difference in their situations, some might suggest.

Such is Britain today, and it isn’t always a pretty sight. As Russia recovers from a terror attack from Islamist fundamentalists, as Egypt and Lebanon have riots on the streets over democracy or the lack of – what, apart from the economy, does the average Brit have on his/her mind? This, of course! The important stuff.

But I have far more to write about than my quick tour around my day out in Westminster among the sane few and the rabid fewer still. Bear with me. It might even be worth it.

NEVER MIND THE FACTS – LOOK AT THE NUMBERS!

You’ve probably seen some of the televised coverage of the main Chilcot event of the year last Friday. You may even have had your mind illuminated by the BBC 24′s report on Friday when FOUR were interviewed who were AGAINST Tony Blair’s actions and only ONE was interviewed from the opposing side. That’s 80% against Blair’s decision c/w 20% for. The numbers don’t get a lot better for Blair in fair-play Britain.

But our beloved BBC will argue that this shows no hint of bias on their part, you can bet your bottom ~~dollar~~ line. I missed the James Landale wind-up – the operative word – as I was at the Inquiry. Oddly enough not one pressman or woman sought the thoughts of a mere Blair supporter in attendance. They only seemed interested in the thoughts of bereaved families of deceased soldiers. Can’t imagine why.

Presumably they think that no-one else in Britain has an opinion on Iraq worth seeking. But there we go. That’s called freedom of the press.

They’re free to interview who they like. We’re free to read all about it. And so it goes.

You may even have read the ~~news~~viewspaper’s reports. Or if you are a real glutton for “truth-finding” you may have watched the video or even scanned through the transcript of Mr Blair’s evidence.

But I wonder if you have read his pre-hearing statement, which he sent to the Inquiry panel on 14th January 2011 ? If not here it is (26 pgs).

This is a taster -

Blair: “Of course, as with everything else, the bulk of planning would be done in the U.S. who were going to provide over 95% of the assets for the operation.”

At times he must wonder how come he, part of the remaining 5 percent, is the only leader being subjected to this inquisitorial style of questioning over his decisions and actions.

The answer’s simple: he’s British.

Whatever else we Brits are good at we’re particularly good at besmirching our own. And in Tony Blair’s case we’ve got our punishment in early, just in case. Before the verdict, as it were. Even before the trial. Even before any charges have been laid, come to think of. But we needn’t let such trifles worry or distract us.

Thus, after more than three and a half years, this man is still in internal exile… or haven’t you noticed? Or, more likely – don’t you give a damn?

IS IT TIME TO STOP THIS CRUEL, RELENTLESS PURSUIT …

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair arrives at the Iraq Inquiry at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. Photograph: Getty Images.

… OF JUST ONE MAN?

I think so. It’s well over time.

To be continued …

_______________

Recent comments:

AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”

Tags:100% responsibility, 100% responsibility) in the dock, 5% man, BBC bias, brain dead, in the dock, Iraq, Iraq inquiry, iraq war, James Landale, London, prime minister, Saddam Hussein, Tony Blair, we all know don't we
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, BBC, Broadcast Outlets & Press, British Politics, British Prime Minister, Iraq, Iraq inquiry, Law - British Domestic & International, Major Political Issues, Britain & World, Press - Truth & Lies, Terrorism, The Independent - Daily Mail - Guardian - British "feral" Press | 4 Comments »

BBC apologises yet again, but this time you won’t be hearing about it

January 25, 2011

Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
Current Latest Page
All Contents of Site – Index
Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

25th January 2011

Link to this post: BBC apologises yet again but this time you won’t be hearing about it

This seems to be the sorry season

for poor old Aunty Beeb

First, there was Alan Yentob’s expressing the BBC’s regrets after an employment tribunal had upheld 53-year-old Miriam O’Reilly’s appeal against being moved from the popular Countryfile show. Then there were their abasing responses to the public uproar about some particularly nasty turns in the plotlines of two of their favourite soaps, EastEnders and The Archers.

Acres of press space have been devoted to these stories.

What you won’t be getting is any sort of coverage of the BBC’s latest apology, made public today (you can read the BBC’s findings here but you need to scroll down to page 3 for the summary and to page 36 for the full findings). Guess why? Because the name Blair is associated with it.

As I reported here last November [BBC’s Iraq Inquiry Coverage (& Impartiality Rules) Under Scrutiny], a contributor to this site has followed up the successful part of his complaint about the inaccuracy of remarks made by the BBC’ commentator, Laura Kuenssberg, during a report on Tony Blair’s last appearance at the Iraq inquiry with an appeal to the BBC Trust about the unsuccessful part of the complaint relating to bias.

In their response to this appeal the BBC have apologised for the way the BBC News Channel team had defended Ms Kuenssberg’s erroneous reference to Sir Christopher Meyer’s testimony indicating that a deal to take this country to war had been done “in blood” at Crawford. Their dismissal of the complaint was on the grounds that she was only saying what Sir Christopher had really meant and that this was how the rest of the media had reported the story.

After the complainant had pointed out that impartial reporting should not be about reading people’s minds and taking their cue from what the rest of the (largely anti-Blair) media were saying on this matter, the BBC Trust agreed that the initial response of the BBC team had been “below the standards expected of the BBC”. They also noted that “the news team involved had, as part of the appeal process, now accepted that there had been an error and had apologised “.

Bias charge rejected (of course) but complaints can work behind the scenes – up to a point.

In typical fashion the BBC Trust could not bring themselves to admit that the Kuenssberg comments and the way they had been conveyed might have given the impression of bias on this issue.

They concluded in their weasel-worded way that “there was no evidence to suggest that the result of the inaccuracy was to promote the view of the ‘anti-war faction ‘ “, even though the complaint was not about the BBC promoting anti-war views but about the inaccuracy chiming with the version of the story put out by the anti-war brigade.

Likewise they agreed with the BBC that the ‘BLiar’ placards backdrop to Laura Kuenssberg’s observations had simply been included for “newsworthiness” reasons, notwithstanding the complainants argument that this background subliminally biased the viewing public against what Blair was reported to have said, and that the protest could have been covered in another part of the programme, with balancing interviews.

However, as I have noted elsewhere, Ms Kuenssberg was much more circumspect in her reporting of what Tony Blair said this time round and conducted her interview against the background of the Conference Centre with not a protester in sight.

Which goes to show that complaints to the BBC can be effective even if they and their watchdog are so reluctant to admit their bias on this issue.

UPDATE: That last sentence was written before my attention was drawn to the BBC’s summing up of Blair’s appearance at the Inquiry just before he left the scene. Apparently this contained five brief interviews, the first with an angry bereaved woman who had yelled “too late” after Mr Blair expressed his regrets, the second with BBC commentator James Lansdale who dwelt on the emotional reaction to what Blair had said in the inquiry room, quoting exactly what had been shouted out, the third with Ming Campbell MP, one of the main critics of the war, picking the legal case for war to pieces, the fourth with the journalist John Kampfner, another passionate critic of the war demolishing Mr Blair’s testimony in general and finally with John McTernan, a former Blair adviser putting the other side of the story.

Four anti-Blair interviews to one pro-Blair interview. Such is the BBC’s idea of balanced coverage of the days events. That is why I have added “up to a point” at the end of the sub-title to this section.

Do not trust the BBC Trust

I set out here an exclusive insight into how the BBC Trust have concealed the illogical reasoning of their findings on this case from the public. The draft summary of the BBC Trust findings (which is the part that most visitors the BBC Trust’s findings web site turn to) was put to the person who informed me of this complaint for comment as follows:

_____

“The complainant alleged that a BBC News Channel report on evidence given to the Chilcot Inquiry was inaccurate and that the inaccuracy had demonstrated bias against Tony Blair. The complainant also said that the piece was biased in the way it had filmed to include shots of anti-Blair protesters. The Editorial Complaints Unit (Stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process) upheld the complaint of inaccuracy but did not uphold the complaint of bias. The complainant appealed to the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust regarding the alleged breach of impartiality and also complained about the response from BBC News to his complaint at Stage 1 of the complaints process, which he said was further evidence of bias.

.The Committee concluded:

• that the entire report and not just the offending sentence had to be taken into account when considering impartiality.

• that the report had covered Mr Blair’s own testimony, and Mr Blair’s position had been made very clear.

• that there was no evidence to suggest that the result of the inaccuracy was to promote the view of the “anti-war” faction.

• that the one inaccuracy had not led to a breach of the obligation for due impartiality.

• that the increased presence of protesters outside the hearing on the day of Mr Blair’s evidence was a news event and it was for the BBC to decide whether and how it covered this news event.

• that showing split-screen footage of anti-Blair protesters was not an endorsement of the anti-war view and was not a breach of the impartiality guidelines.

• that the BBC’s initial response to the complaint had been below the standard expected and the BBC should have acknowledged the mistake immediately.

• that the complainant had been justified in bringing the initial response to the attention of the BBC Trust but that the subsequent apology and explanation had resolved the matter.

• that there was no evidence to indicate a lack of due impartiality in the elements of the complaint taken either individually or in totality.

The complaint was not upheld with regard to impartiality and was resolved with regard to accountability.”

_____

My informant was dissatisfied with the way his complaint had been presented in this section of the findings because

1) he did not think the first sentence sufficiently represented this part of his complaint since it did not explain why he thought the inaccuracy could be interpreted as bias and suggested the following amended version

“The complainant alleged that a BBC News Channel report on evidence given to the Chilcot Inquiry was inaccurate and that since the inaccuracy chimed with the version of the story conveyed by the anti-war lobby the inaccuracy had also demonstrated bias.“

2) he did not think that the second sentence describing his objections to how the interview had been transmitted, properly represented what he had said about this in his complaint. He was not objecting to shots of the protesters being included but to the fact that these were used as a constant backdrop to the interview when the protest could have been (and was in fact) covered elsewhere in the programme with balancing interviews. He therefore wanted this sentence to be amended along the following lines:

“The complainant also said that the piece was biased since it had been presented almost exclusively against a backdrop of anti-Blair protesters when a more neutral background could have been used , leaving coverage of the protest for another part of the programme with balancing interviews.”

3) he did not think the last sentence sufficiently represented his appeal to the Editorial Standards Committee since there was no mention of his response in that submission to the key counter-argument to his complaint, i.e. that Blair’s position was covered in the interview so the coverage was balanced. The complainant regarded his response to this counter-argument as important because the Committee had used it to justify their “not upheld” verdict. He thought this omission could be easily remedied by amending the first part of this sentence as follows (the amendment is in bold lettering):

“The complainant appealed to the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust regarding the alleged breach of impartiality, emphasising that the report’s coverage of Blair’s position did not nullify the bias charge since this was presented against the backdrop of those BLiar placards.”

_____

The amendments were rejected by the BBC Trust, except for a minor change to the second sentence, referring to “the way [the piece] had used shots of anti-Blair protesters” instead of “the way [the piece] had been filmed to include shots of anti-Blair protesters.”

It was my informant’s view that “this was because the amendments would clearly show how the reasoning of the Committee’s findings bore little relation to the precise nature of his complaint. The idea is to keep the description of complaints as vague as possible so visitors to the site will concentrate on the conclusions of the Committee whether or not they relate to the exact nature of the complaint, and will take their reading no further”.

And after reading about how the BBC Trust refused to accept these perfectly reasonable amendments who could disagree?

RELATED – BBC Political Bias

_______________

Recent comments:

AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”

Tags:2010, 2011, Alan Yentob, appeal, Aunty Beeb, BBC, BBC apologises, BBC bias, BBC Trust, Christopher Meyer, Countryfile, eastenders, John Kampfner, John McTernan, Laura Kuenssberg, Ming Campbell, Miriam O'Reilly, sorry haven't a clue, sorry season, The Archers, Tony Blair, you won't hear about it
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, BBC, Broadcast Outlets & Press, British Prime Minister, Iraq, Iraq inquiry, Law - British Domestic & International, Major Political Issues, Britain & World, Press - Truth & Lies, The Independent - Daily Mail - Guardian - British "feral" Press | 3 Comments »

BBC reporter on Control Orders: “And BOTH were cleared”

January 24, 2011

Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog

Or – Tweet this post

24th January 2011

The BBC’s Home Affairs correspondent, Danny Shaw said:

“Only two … have been prosecuted … and BOTH were cleared”

I was just waiting for the “So there!”

I really don’t have time to post on this, but I thought you should know how the liberal-loving and freedom-adoring British media brainwashes the gullible, in an indirect, subtle way, of course.

I was listening to the BBC Radio4 PM news headlines at 5:00 until 6:00pm. I should make it clear that I am a big fan of Radio 4. In fact it’s probably the only radio station I listen to, for all its faults. BUT …

After going through the two-minute headlines with such as the horrendous terrorist attack on a Moscow airport, mention was made of (Tony Blair’s) Control Orders.

“Control Orders” as was; who knows what they’ll be called when the Con-Dems David Cameron and Nick Clegg put their determined Liberal ~~Conservative~~ stamp on them?

More points from Mr Shaw’s report here:

Only eight suspects are presently subject to control orders
Two of these, “AY” and “AM” are (allegedly) linked to the 2006 transatlantic airlines plot (of up to ten aeroplanes on their way to North America)
One of these, “AY”, was described by a High court judge as a committed Islamist extremist
The judge said “AY” would represent a risk to the public if free from control orders. Material indicated this
Another suspect “AM” was said by a judge to be prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives
Eighteen months ago “AM” was put under control orders due to what the judge described as an “overwhelming case” against him
Two others on control orders travelled to Pakistan for terrorism-related reasons
Another, “BX”, came to Britain from Somalia. He worked in the UK as a train conductor, and has been attending a terror-training camp, and has links with Al Qaeda in East Africa

ALL ALLEGEDLY OF COURSE!

Bob Quick, a former Chief Inspector, said that these are (Islamist fundamentalist) individuals in respect of whom there is real anxiety, but no obvious routes to conviction. [Especially given our high hurdles of legal proof, which as we know, or if we don't we should, attracts characters from all over the world, since they know that in Britain they can get away with murder, and/or the incitement of murder.]

These 8 control-ordered individual are under 16 hours curfew, with electronic tagging. Limits on where they can go and use of mobile phones and the internet.
Already 3 of these 8 have breached their control orders. Two face trial this year. One has been jailed for 15 months for breaches.
One former “controlee” says that it is “psychological torture”

You might conclude that 8 out of a population of over 60 million isn’t exactly clamping down on OUR human and civil rights. But no, this is the BBC. They now hand some airtime to a solicitor who acts on behalf of some of these men. These men – suspected of planning to blow you and me to Kingdom Come.

PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE & BURKHAS TO BED

Solicitor Imran Khan says that the “internal exile” is the toughest condition.

What, with “internal exile” and “psychological torture”, life is tough for these poor suspected terrorists. Just as well they’re not living in – er – just about any other land in this world.

Still, it seems the sweethearts can’t have a normal life with their families, and some of their wives even have to wear their burkhas to bed, ready for the next night-time raid from our dreadful Police! How disGRACEFUL!

But good to know that the man who was once under control orders knows how to press the right buttons – “TORTURE!” – he says. That’ll have the luvvies up in arms.

Today was meant to be the day when this government was coming up with its plans for their replacement. To be blunt I haven’t checked. But I think they may be panicking now they’ve realised that Control Orders – BLAIR’S Control Orders – are actually as good as it gets. So, after this realisation how will the present Liberal-Conservative government deal with their confused and confusing position(s)?

Word is that the day-time curfews may go.

What!? No nasty night raids from the nasty Police? Does that mean those burkhas will still be on show for 24 hours a day? How demeaning.

EXILE

According to Mr Khan, “internal exile” is what most is “most intrusive”.

Yes, please STOP that immediately.

EXTERNAL exile is the answer.

NOTE: “Internal exile” should sound familiar to a certain Mr T Blair. Most of us can’t remember when we last saw him out and about, free to roam safely, in his own country. (The Iraq Inquiry excepted, of course. And with dozens of police officers on duty, and his resembling greased lightning, [pic here] that hardly counts as FREE! Join the dots, folks.)

REMINDER – “What we’ve found is that two of the eight controlees have been prosecuted for terrorism offences and BOTH (the announcer’s emphasis of voice not my keystrokes) were cleared.”

We got the message from the biased BBC: Blair’s Control Orders are unnecessary.

So, go on – Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron – DON’T JUST TALK big to the liberal intelligentsia. Scrap them. Entirely. No messing about.

Then make sure you keep us all safe without them. And if we find that we are NOT safe without them, DON’T BLAME TONY BLAIR.

MORE ABOUT CONTROL ORDERS

Control orders were set up by Tony Blair in 2005 in order to keep an eye on suspected terrorists or would-be terrorists for whom insufficient evidence is either obtainable or useable in our courts. The British public were and probably still are largely supportive of these orders, just as they are regarding CCTV cameras, and even detaining suspected terrorists for long periods. (Blair originally wanted 90 days detention without charge. He was defeated in parliament on this. Then 42 days was mooted, and 28 finally settled on. Now it is to be reduced to 14 days, on the naive basis that in the past 28 days has not been needed.)

There are only a very few people held under these orders. They restrict and keep tabs on the movements of those on whom they are placed, but these people are still free to get out and about, within certain geographic limits and for limited hours per day.

Also see here- Wikipedia

And by the way …

From the same news report on PM from Wyre Davies, we had a reasonably well-balanced report on the Wikileaks report on the Palestinians “agreement” to concede land to the Israelis. It was part of the negotiations, incomplete, therefore rejected.

But later, on the Six O’Clock News, if I recall correctly, another BBC reporter was airing the bias. This time against Israel, that other bete noire of the Beeb.

The seemingly biased towards Palestinian cause (aka BBC employee) Jeremy Bowen says: (paraphrased, I haven’t the direct quote to hand) -

“This shows that the Israelis cannot be trusted”

Unfortunately, I have to say that this shows that the BBC cannot be trusted.

RELATED

Shift this AQ suspect to the USA ASAP, before he gets on to his favourite Human Rights lawyer. British, of course.

_______________

Recent comments:

AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”

Tags:BBC, BBC Radio4, bob quick, Control order, control orders, Danny Shaw, Danny Shaw. Eddie Mair, David Cameron, Jeremy Bowen, liberal democrats, Liberal-Conservative, Moscow, nick clegg, PM programme, psychological torture, terrorist attack Russia, Tony Blair, Wyre Davies
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, BBC, Broadcast Outlets & Press, British Conservative Party, British Politics, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, opposition Conservative Party Leader, Free Speech, Human Rights and HR Act, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Law - British Domestic & International, Major Political Issues, Britain & World, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats, Press - Truth & Lies, Religion & Religious Issues in Politics, Terrorism, The Independent - Daily Mail - Guardian - British "feral" Press | 2 Comments »

Ignore this, please: Blair Supporter’s Thoughts on TB’s 2nd appearance at the Iraq Inquiry

January 24, 2011

Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog

Or – Tweet this post

24th January 2011

TONY BLAIR AT THE IRAQ INQUIRY

What? You mean you’re actually reading this stuff? All this ~~self~~-Blair-serving nonsense? I suppose you’re sharp enough to see past the bias, lies and agenda. Impeccably trained by our press, literati and intelligentsia you are well up to picking out the juicy bits and running with them? But of course.

As if, eh?

Big Ben, at 8:40am, Friday 21st January 2011

I WAS THERE. WERE YOU?

So here’s my take on the day, for what it’s worth.

(Apologies for the quality of some of the pictures)

When I emerged from the Tube at Westminster ready for the Inquiry I realised I’d forgotten my watch. What time was it? It didn’t take long to find out.

I had plenty of time to walk the few hundred yards to the QEII Conference Centre. Looking at some of the architecture of our ancient capital I was once more astounded by its beauty, as I always am. A conversation about this and British culture itself followed later in a sanity break when I met a man who said he used to be a Lib Dem, but was no more. He told me that Blair’s Britain was now a far better place than it had been before he took over as PM in 1997.

A picture I took of the Palace of Westminster, Houses of Parliament, 21st January 2011. Elegant still, but a far poorer place without Tony Blair.

“TONY BLAIR- WAR CRIMINAL”

As I approached the QEII Conference Centre I expected to hear the usual suspects yelling the usual lies.

SILENCE

I wondered for a moment if they’d forgotten. How COULD they. Here was the “greatest war criminal” of the century – yes, I know it’s only started, but hang about a bit, Blair’ll be the worst, sorry … greatest!

The so-called WC was in the QEII Centre already, beating his enemies for early rising, and they were still lying in bed! Fair enough. They lie everywhere else. But how could they let the side down?

A few dozen protesters gathered outside the QEII Centre. Dedicated to the cause of giving themselves laryngitis and the rest of us a pain in the neck

They were in fact there, if you looked hard enough.

Corralled in their multitudes on the pavement behind a fence to the left of the Centre, this time there were far fewer of them. I guessed somewhere between 40 and 50. At best, as the day progressed and they started to wake up, perhaps a quarter or a third of last year’s couple of hundred. They soon let us hear their megaphoned voices of moral rectitude, international law, right and justice, lies and all the usual righteous wrongness.

INSIDE THE ~~INQUISITION ROOM~~ CONFERENCE HALL

Back to the important business: Mr Blair’s evidence.

__________

[As an aside to this, there is a BIG QUESTION. No, not that one. That's a stupid question, and proved so in the debate today. The Big Question I refer to has a BIG ANSWER too.

The big question is just how a former Prime Minister of this country, who, in the opinion of many at home and abroad served his country with unusual distinction, inspired dedication and determined commitment for a decade, finds himself standing so low (allegedly) in the court of public opinion.

Some time ago, before the Chilcot Inquiry started, as the present hounding of Tony Blair moved into top gear, I described the process as 'The Trial of Tony Blair'. I blogged on that concept regularly (list here)

Nothing that has happened since then makes me feel that his hounding and 'trialing' has actually eased up. If anything it is getting worse. And its proponents, who mostly deserve sidelining as misguided, embittered or hypocritical are even seen as entirely balanced and reasonable people. Their demands for a war crimes trial are now demands to which the BBC has given air-time, and therefore credibility.

Bit by eventual bit, the idea takes root that Tony Blair is the great Houdini of our times. The Pimpernel. We know he exists, but - now we see him, now we don't. And we know he did something (wrong), but Houdini-Pimpernel is invariably off before we can hold him to account.

The pre-judgement on Blair over Iraq is 'guilty as charged'. The pre-judging is largely if not wholly press-inspired and liberal intelligentsia-led.

No matter how ignorant, misguided, misled or simply wrong that "public opinion", the willing gullible swallow it. We are led to believe that this man, our former great and good prime minister, was as bad as - no, worse than Saddam Hussein.

So the BIG ANSWER to the Big Question is - the press. How else do we know anything about anything? More on this at a new blog which I intend to start soon.]

__________

ARRIVED AND LEFT THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR

Tony Blair, the man some say "doesn't care" arrives in contemplative demeanour at the Chilcot Inquiry, 21st Jan 2011

Last year Mr Blair came in through a back entrance, even though he arrived just after 7:00am. This year, arriving just before 8:00am, he came through the front door.

I know these little things can sound inconsequential. They’re not. He was there and no doubt reading through his notes when I arrived before 9am. And outside the yellers yelled and the placards waved.

SO HOW DID HE DO?

In my opinion, and that is all I have – like the rest of us – an opinion, Tony Blair did very well.

WAS HE NERVOUS?

He didn’t seem at all nervous, as some said he seemed at the start last time. For what it’s worth I didn’t think he seemed all that nervous last time either. I was also there then [See "I was a witness"]. But let’s get this one clear: he was nervous. Inside, if he didn’t show it. Who wouldn’t be?

I have read his memoirs and was surprised at how “scared ” he admits to having been on several occasions throughout his life as a barrister and as a politician. In his last PMQs speech to parliament he said, memorably, of Prime Minister’s Questions – “From first to last I always feared it”. This is not a man detached from normal human emotions. Not some ham actor playing a pleasant part, while in reality an inhuman monstrosity. Nor is he someone who at the behest or under the influence of A N Other became an unfeeling monster after 9/11, hardening still as his embattled leadership continued and eventually waned.

We really need to get a grip on this tendency to puerile fantasy.

I noticed he spoke rather quickly at the start of his evidence session. I put this down to his being ready to get on with it, though nerves may well have been part of it. But he was ready for it, and never crumbled under questioning.

This session had no lunch break, but there were two ten-minute breaks only. It ended at exactly 2:00pm, as scheduled.

At a 10 minute break in the proceedings Tony Blair seemed to be in no rush to get off for a comfort break or a coffee.

Same as last time I only got a ticket for the Additional Hearing Room, a 5th Floor room, smaller than last time. Some might say “why bother to go”. You can see it all on TV anyway.

But you need to be there, in the vicinity, to get the full atmosphere. I was glad I went, not least because I met other Blair supporters, one of whom, a pint-sized young lady, took on a chanting placard waver and “Tony Blair War Criminal” stuck needler with – “He’s not a War Criminal”.

I missed this as I was inside at the time. But good on her.

Various groups of protesters with varying causes. United on the day in the cause of getting "Tony Blair War Criminal" to The Hague

These chanters and wavers of various assorted interests need to be held to account for spreading their LIES as truths.

And we Blair supporters are the only ones willing to make them accountable. The press won’t. Unlike their treatment of Blair, the press seldom question their positions. They fail to even investigate their political roots and their various groups’ membership.

I also met members of bereaved families. Their anger is easier to understand and accept. However I do not believe that their anger is shared by all family members of deceased soldiers. In fact I KNOW that anger isn’t shared by all of them.

You may notice something here at the biased BBC’s report on the death of the 100th solder in Iraq, January 2006. The BBC article does not mention anything about “a disgrace” from the proud parents of the soldier whose death headlines the article. But they still manage to criticise Blair by using the unhappy comment of a mother who DID complain about her son’s death, the 99th, as it happened a day earlier.

The Additional Viewing Room had probably less than 100 people present. Last year there were four or five times that number. Take from that what you will.

As to the questioning by Chilcot’s panel and Mr Blair’s answers, and my own reservations, including unanswered queries to the Inquiry itself, there is more to say.

To be continued …

_______________

Recent comments:

AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”

Tags:Big Answer, big ben, Blair Supporter's Thoughts, Ignore this, Iraq, Iraq inquiry, iraq war, John Chilcot, media bias, parliament, pictures, please, Prime Minister's Questions, QEII Conference Centre, Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Saddam Hussein, TB's 2nd appearance at the Iraq Inquiry, the press, Tony Blair, war crimes, war criminal
Posted in 1. Tony Blair, BBC, Broadcast Outlets & Press, Blair Supporter's Favourites, British Politics, British Prime Minister, Iran, Iraq, Iraq inquiry, Legacy of Tony Blair, Major Political Issues, Britain & World, Middle East - Countries/Issues, President George Bush, Press - Truth & Lies, Terrorism, The Independent - Daily Mail - Guardian - British "feral" Press | 6 Comments »

The BIG (biased) Question – War Crimes & ‘The Downing Street One’

January 23, 2011

Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog

Or – Tweet this post

Shortlink for this post – http://wp.me/p1KI1-h07

UPDATE: Watch the entire programme here (available for 7 days from today) My quick thoughts: Cristina Odone is a lying idiot, who can’t even get her facts over Tony Blair & God straight. And, Ms Odone, we DON’T “all view” Iraq as an “unjust war”. Tim Cross was knowledgeable and gave the best responses in support of Blair. Lance Price was almost as good, and Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet and journalist Kenan Malik spoke like reasonable people should. One/Nil to Blair.

23rd January 2011

THE BIG BIASED QUESTION AGAINST THE DOWNING STREET ONE

John Rentoul has this on A [BIG] Biased Question [Also copied below] The sexed-up picture below is pure imagination, suitable for the sexed-up question.

Clearly assuming that this sort of question cannot be debated in our ill-informed, legally ignorant public forum, with anything approaching sufficient legal knowledge or personal detachment, Rentoul has other holes to pick with it.

The main one being that it is being asked at all

It is insulting, derogatory and highly offensive.
It is a leading question.
But by posing it people are being led to accept the question is reasonable.
The unreasonable question, with its assumptions of balance, breaks the BBC’s Charter of Impartiality.

Here is Rentoul’s article:

____________________

The BBC series The Big Questions is re-asking number 180 in my series of Questions to Which the Answer is No tomorrow:

Should Tony Blair stand trial for war crimes?

Another step down the slope. In the past I have objected to studio guests on the BBC casually misusing such language to mean “I disagree with the war”. Now the BBC itself has forgotten that “war crime” actually means something, including:

murder, ill treatment … of civilian population … plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

As there is no prospect of Mr Blair being so charged, the question is leading, rhetorical and offensive. By asking it, the BBC implies that reasonable people might take a view on either side of the question when this is not the case. To ask this question, rather than something like “Was it right to invade Iraq?”, seems to me to breach the Corporation’s Charter obligation of impartiality.

____________________

I commented at Rentoul’s. Since my comments have a habit of being moderated out when people find them unconscionable, aka inarguable, I’d better paste them here. Some in response to others.

“Are you on the Big Questions defending ‘The Downing Street One’, then John? I do hope so.”

_____

bob idle

2 hours ago

“Everyone knows that the destruction and devastation done to Iraqi cities, towns, and villages (in fact the entire war on Iraq) was NOT justified by military necessity.

Therefore a war crime was obviously committed.”

_____

Replying to bob idle

BlairSupporter

@ bob idle -

‘Here we go again – “Everyone knows”.

Question: If everyone knows, why hasn’t Mr Blair been charged?
Answer: Because no-one really knows.
Not even JR or me. But I have this sneaking feeling that somewhere along the charge line on any of the breakages of international law, “intent” comes into the picture, as it does in murder c/w manslaughter.’

_____

BlairSupporter

“I suppose we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be accused of splitting hairs in order to confuse here, John.

I think the BBC question is badly phrased. Actually I agree with you that it shouldn’t be phrased at all, for the reasons that you provide (unreasonable question – leading, rhetorical and offensive.) And of course the people who accuse TB of “war crimes” and the like are the same people who never accuse Ahmadinejad or Mugabe or others of similar ilk of being ever so slightly off the rails in how they treat even their OWN people. Instead they accuse said gentlemen of being used and abused by us nasty westerners.

But my main point here is that the BBC’s leading question should have referred to “international crimes”. That way it covers all possibilities.

And you know how it goes – if the BBC still want to “get Blair” which they clearly still do, they need to cast that net as widely as possible.

They STILL won’t catch him in their fishing expedition, even if they do cast widely. Why? Because Blair does not swim in such murky waters as do his enemies.

To mix metaphors, if the cap fits, little fishes, wear it. You’re already wearing anyway.”

_______________