John Simkin

In Britain the Dardanelles campaign is generally considered to be a disaster. Churchill was held responsible for it and was moved to the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Unhappy about not having any power to influence the Government's war policy, he rejoined the British Army and commanded a battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers on the Western Front. The best historian I have read on the campaign is by the Australian Charles Bean. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbean.htm

Does it follow from that once you have suffered at the hands of one particular country that you have the moral right to punish all the people from that country? This idea of revenge might satisfy the blood lust of the victims but has nothing to do with justice. For example, some people living in Vichy France collaborated with the authorities in the arrest and deportation of Jews to the concentration camps in Eastern Europe. Would the allies have been right to bomb Vichy as a punishment for this behaviour? Or does this sense of morality only apply to the treatment of people living in Germany and Japan?

I find these comments very disturbing. You seem to be confusing governments with civilians. Did the people living in Hiroshima deserve to suffer the consequences of the atom bomb being dropped on their city? In what way were they guilty of the crimes committed by their government? The same is true of the inhabitants of Frankfurt and Dresden. It seems these people had already suffered enough from having a barbaric government. I do not know what you mean by the comment that revisionism is changing aggressors into victims. In what way were the people of Hiroshima and Dresden aggressors?

A joint report published yesterday by the Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Paediatrics and the Faculty of Public Health, urged the government to put together a coherent strategy to fight the obesity epidemic in Britain. The incidence of obesity in children is growing at an alarming rate. It more than trebled in 6 to 15 year olds from 5% to 16% between 1990 and 2001. Schools have played an important role in this development of obesity. Probably the most important factor in this was the privatisation of the school meals service. In an attempt to maximize profits these companies have encouraged students to buy unhealthy foods in schools. This has been backed up schools providing vending machines in schools selling high-fat and high-sugar snacks. When challenged on this head teachers say they need this income to buy essential things for the school. It would seem everything has its price in 21st century Britain. A recent study of lunch-boxes in West Sussex revealed that over 70% contained a bag of crisps. We now are faced with a generation of parents who see nothing wrong in giving their children rubbish. West Sussex is now developing a scheme where the children are being encouraged to produce their own healthy lunch-boxes. I know some people believe that there is little we can do to reverse the trend in obesity. As educators, we have a responsibility to do what we can to tackle this terrible problem. We need to remind ourselves that schools can make a difference. Look for example how Finland have been able to reverse this trend in obesity in its young people.

Lieutenant Colonel Crispin Black, who was a member of the intelligence assessment staff from 1999-2002, has written an interesting article in today’s Guardian. For example he says: From what came out at the Hutton inquiry I could hardly recognise the organisation I had so recently worked for. Meetings with no minutes, an intelligence analytical group on a highly specialised subject which included unqualified officials in Downing Street but excluded the DIS's lifetime experts (like Dr Brian Jones), vague and unexplained bits of intelligence appearing in the dossier as gospel (notably the 45-minute claim), sloppy use of language, that weird "last call" for intelligence like Henry II raving about Thomas a' Becket - with "who will furnish me with the intelligence I need" substituted for "who will rid me of that turbulent priest". I looked forward to Lord Hutton making some serious suggestions about how to keep the intelligence process free of political manipulation and analysts free from the preparation of propaganda dossiers. I thought he might help explain, too, why the intelligence community had been taken by surprise by the aftermath of victory in Iraq. When the report came I was puzzled at first - serious people seemed to be taking it so seriously. And then everyone started to laugh. Some of the passages - particularly "the possibility cannot be completely ruled out that the desire of the prime minister ... may have subconsciously influenced ... members of the JIC ... consistent with the intelligence available to the JIC" are masterpieces of comic writing. He goes on to explore the fact Blair told the House of Commons that he was unaware at the time of the war debate that the 45-minute piece of intelligence referred only to battlefield rather than strategic weapons. Let me list just some of the procedures which must have been executed incorrectly to allow him (Blair) to be kept in such a state of ignorance at such a crucial time on such a crucial matter when other members of his cabinet (Cook and Hoon) appear to have been in the know. One: neither Cook nor Hoon saw fit to tell the prime minister, for whatever reason. Two: the intelligence was not considered important or accurate enough to explain to him in detail - even though it appears in the September 24 dossier at least three times and in the prime minister's own foreword. Three: Blair had to rely on verbal briefings from the JIC chairman and others, who told him about the 45 minutes bit of the intelligence but omitted to mention that it referred only to battlefield weapons, and neither the prime minister nor any of the brilliant young staff asked the obvious question. Four: the original SIS report mentioned the 45-minute time, but made no attempt to distinguish between strategic and battlefield weapons - even though the service was aware that the report was about battlefield munitions. Five: the prime minister's daily written intelligence brief from the Cabinet Office included the 45 minutes point but not the crucial distinction between battlefield and strategic weapons. And not a single member of the Cabinet Office assessments staff (the most brilliant intelligence analysts in the UK) spotted this or thought it important. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1146236,00.html

John Birchall is right to suggest that the state of the economy is usually the main factor in deciding general elections. It is also true that governments tend to lose elections than opposition parties actually win them. However, as John points out, there have been several notable occasions when a government has been defeated despite the good state of the economy. In the two cases he mentions it followed a long period of Tory rule. An important factor in this was the public felt the government had developed a sense of arrogance. That it was the party of government. I suspect that at times like this people feel that our democracy is under threat and that it is necessary to oust the government. I believe that a lot of people are feeling the same way about Tony Blair’s government. This is reflected in the polls (one last week showed the majority of people in Britain think Blair should resign as prime minister). Blair will be hoping that the public will eventually forget the Iraq War and concentrate on the economy. With rising house prices, low interest rates, and low unemployment, most people seem fairly happy with the economic situation. However, there is a large group that are not so happy. I am talking about those people who already own their own house, are retired and are living on pensions or/and their investments. For this fast growing group, things are not so good. Brown has been good at controlling the economy to please his target audience. How long will he be able to do this for? Houses are clearly over-priced. Young people on reasonable incomes are finding it impossible to enter the market. History tells us that it is only a matter of time before the price of houses reflects the incomes of house buyers. In other words, we are either going to have wage inflation or a reduction in the price of houses. Of these two options, I think it is likely to be a fall in house prices. In order for realignment to take place, this will mean quite a dramatic fall. The government will be blamed for this and those with negative equity are unlikely to vote New Labour. Even if we do have a fall in house prices or an increase in unemployment rates, I doubt very much whether the British people will elect a Conservative government. A large number of people are aware that Conservative spending plans do not make sense. The British public might find Conservative policies on pensions and higher education appealing but they are unconvinced that they can be paid for without substantial increases in taxation. My guess is that New Labour will win with a dramatically reduced majority. In fact, I believe that they will be forced to form a coalition government. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will demand as the Labour Party demanded in 1940: the resignation of the prime minister.

One of the major changes I have seen since starting teaching in the 1970s is the ability of individual pupils to disrupt the learning of others. The major reason for this is that severely disturbed youngsters are now being taught in mainstream education. We had a case a few years ago of a boy who moved into the area with his mother (as a result of a holiday romance – her husband was in prison at the time). The boy was extremely disruptive in the classroom. An educational psychologist observed his behaviour in the classroom and described the boy as “unteachable”. Yet he remained in that class for the whole year (he was removed the following year for doing something that was so bad I am unable to describe it on this forum). During that year the education of the rest of the class suffered terribly. Some of the more aware middle class parents got their children moved from the class during the first few weeks of the term. When the school put an end to that strategy parents removed their children from the school. This process took away most of the able children in the class. It also reduced the size of the class and these places were now filled by pupils who had been causing problems in other classes. Within a couple of months this so-called mixed ability class had become a class of disaffected young people. Who can say what long-term impact this one pupil had on the education of these students.

BUBL Information Service, based at Strathclyde University Library, is a searchable database of Internet resources of academic relevance. The websites are organized by Dewey Decimal Classification and is browsable by subject or class number. The Sociology main page has eleven main categories: Sociology: General Resources, Societies, Social Interaction, Social Processes, Social Change, Population, Young People, Women, Social Classes, Racial and Ethnic Groups and Culture and Institutions. Each website listed has a brief review with information on the people and organizations that have created the website. http://link.bubl.ac.uk/sociology

An excellent directory that enables the visitor to find paintings being exhibited in 650 museums and art galleries. The Art Guide is organized by artist, by museum and geographical area. The artists are listed in alphabetical order and once you reach their home page, you will be provided with a list of their paintings and the places where they can be seen. Each of the art museums has a list of the main paintings in their collection, contact details and links to other museums in the region. http://www.cogapp.com/uk

The BBC is now providing a series of short online learning courses on French. This includes French Fix (motivational language learning which takes whatever knowledge of French you have and challenges you to improve it on the spot); French Steps (earn how to converse, order in a restaurant and ask for directions in French with this online beginners course that's easy-to-use); Language Gauge (this tool will let you find out how much you know and what's best for you to take your it further; Talk French (a language course for absolute beginners, with video and audio clips and activities to help you learn); The French Experience (a series of multimedia activities for beginners, building on the absolute basics of Talk French, but can be used on its own to learn and practise the language). http://www.bbc.co.uk/learning/courses/#languages

Tornado Project Online is a company that gathers, compiles, and makes tornado information available to weather enthusiasts, the meteorological community and emergency management officials. The company is using its website to share some of this information with the general public. This material appears under several headings including: 'Recent Tornadoes', 'Tornadoes in the Past', 'Storm Chasing', ''Top Tens About Tornadoes', 'Tornado Oddities', 'Tornado Stories', 'Tornado Safety' and 'Myths about Tornado'. http://www.tornadoproject.com/

This section of the Energy Conservation Enhancement Project was originally created for the vocational technical schools in Louisiana. Much of the material contained within is generic in content and may be applied and used by many people throughout the world. Topics include The Pluses and the Minuses, What is Algebra? Algebra: Intergers and Operations, Fractions: The 4 Basic Mathematical Functions, Ratios & Proportions, Perimeter, Volume and Thinking Graphically. http://www.leeric.lsu.edu/bgbb/7/ecep/math/math.htm

A website for image makers and those who teach image making. It offers free seminars on several photographers including Henri Cartier-Bresson, Edward Weston, Eugene Atget, Matthew Brady, Robert Capa, Imogen Cunningham, W. Eugene Smith, Irving Penn, Lisette Model and Margaret Bourke-White. There are also sixteen workshops on subjects such as Photojournalism and Travel Photography. http://www.photo-seminars.com/

This website provides free classical & traditional sheet music, popular and jazz riffs, music lessons and music resources. The material can be accessed by instrument: Guitar (291), Piano (1034), Violin (117), Cello (64), Trumpet (48), Clarinet (76), Saxophone (54), Flute (95), Recorder (47), Oboe (37), Trombone (24). The material is also organized under genres: Classical (1,895), Rock & Pop (113), Film & TV Themes (16), Jazz (24), World (43) and Traditional (201). http://www.8notes.com/

Ever since the establishment of the Geneva Convention in 1864 attempts have been made to make warfare more "humane". This has focused on issues concerning the way you treat captured soldiers and the relationship between the combatants and the civilian population. The development of weapon carrying aircraft has caused particular problems. Governments have always justified this by insisting that these weapons are only used against military targets. In recent wars governments have tried to give the impression that new technology enables us to be so precise in our targeting that civilians are rarely killed. This is why there was such a fuss about the use of cluster bombs during the recent Iraq War. These are weapons that targets civilians. As a result I believe that the people who authorized the use of such weapons are war criminals. In the early stages of the Second World War the Luftwaffe used bombing raids to terrorise civilian populations into surrender. At this time the British government considered this strategy to be a war crime and insisted on following a policy of attacking military targets only. However, night-time raids dramatically reduced accuracy and it became impossible for pilots to concentrate on bombing military targets. In 1941 Charles Portal, head of RAF Bomber Command, argued for a change of policy. He advocated that entire cities and towns should be bombed. Portal claimed that this would quickly bring about the collapse of civilian morale in Germany. When Air Marshall Arthur Harris became head of RAF Bomber Command in February 1942, he introduced a policy of area bombing (known in Germany as terror bombing) where entire cities and towns were targeted. In the later stages of the war the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force developed a new strategy that involved the creation of firestorms. This was achieved by dropping incendiary bombs, filled with highly combustible chemicals such as magnesium, phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), in clusters over a specific target. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire. The most notable examples of this tactic being used was in Hamburg (August, 1943), Dresden (February, 1945) and Tokyo (March 1945). In my opinion the creation of firestorms is a war crime. The whole idea of this strategy is to terrorize and kill civilians. It is my strong belief that the people responsible for ordering such raids should have been charged with war crimes.

Probably the first example of suicide bombers was the non-Muslim Japanese. During the Second World War kamikaze pilots acted as "human missiles" by flying their planes, heavily laden with explosives, directly into enemy warships. It could be argued that the Jewish terrorist, Aharon Abramovitch, was also a suicide bomber. He was one of the Jewish terrorists who blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946. However, it is possible he was just an ordinary terrorist and was killed trying to escape from the building. Anyway, he was one of the 91 people (28 Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and 5 others) who was found in the rubble afterwards.

I have always considered the bombing of Dresden on 13th February 1945, a war crime. For example, here is an internal RAF memo circulated in January, 1945. “Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.” The main reason for the destruction of this medieval city was as a warning to the advancing Red Army (also one of the main motivations behind the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan). To their credit, some RAF aircrews did not follow instructions during the raid. Churchill, being an historian, became concerned about how these firestorms would be seen during the post-war period. On 28th March, 1945, Churchill wrote to Bomber Harris: “It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing material out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction.” After the war some British historians were highly critical of the attack on Dresden. As it was clearly a terror attack on a civilian population some have described it as a war crime. Although terror bombing was Churchill’s policy, Harris took the blame and was not given the honours that men of equivalent rank were given. Harris was so bitter about this he emigrated to South Africa. A couple of years ago I produced a web page on the bombing of Dresden. In fact, if you type in the word “bombing of Dresden” in Google it come up 1st out of 27,400 pages. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm I have not passed moral judgment on the bombing in the narrative. However, I have received several hostile emails for my choice of documents to illustrate the event. In recent years there has been attempts to defend the terror bombing of Germany. This has culminated in a new book by Frederick Taylor. This is part of a review that appeared in Saturday’s Guardian by Michael Burleigh, one of a new generation of right-wing, nationalistic British historians. Attempts to treat the bombing of Dresden as a war crime perpetrated against the innocent inhabitants of a historical cultural centre of no industrial or military significance began two days after the attack. This was the handiwork of the Nazi propaganda supremo Goebbels, whose "spin doctors" exaggerated the city's population by a factor of four to support the wild claim that two million refugees from the east had been caught by the raids, and who doctored the number of corpses publicly burned (with the help of the SS who had some experience of these tasks) by adding an extra nought to the actual figure of 6,856.... Frederick Taylor's well-researched and unpretentious book is a robust defence of the Dresden raids that counters recent attempts to recast the nation that gave the world Auschwitz as the second world war's principal victims, attempts that stretch back to the time of Goebbels. They continue in the form of criminalizing RAF Bomber Command's supremo Bert "Bomber" Harris for a high-level strategy that was largely designed to show Stalin that his western allies were actually fighting if not in, then at least above, Nazi Germany... Taylor skilfully interweaves various personal accounts of the impact of the raids on the permanent or temporary population of Dresden, including its slave-labour force. But the main thrust of his book is to defend a mission that was merely successful rather than exceptional. It came at the conclusion of a long war that, while generally brutalizing and dulling moral sensitivities, also had clear enough justification in the fight between good and evil. What do people think? Was it a war crime or have we been victims of Nazi propaganda?

This is a common tactic employed by extremist groups. It is a way of organizing attacks on those who seek to bring an end to racial conflict. For several years my website on Black Civil Rights has been targeted by America’s white racist community. Their main strategy is to post details of your work on sympathetic websites. This results in an avalanche of vicious emails. Ironically, these links help your ranking in second-generation search-engines such as Google. For example, my page on the Ku Klux Klan appears higher than that the official KKK website. They complain that Google is part of a left-wing conspiracy, not realising that it is there own tactics that has contributed to this situation. For those who would like to read an objective history of the Palestinian Question I would suggest this United Nations website. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

I assume this is a criticism of those who opposed Austen’s ideas. I am surprised you are so supportive of his racist views on the Arab race. If that is what you think, argue your case. I am sure several us will only be too willing to counteract your arguments. You are wrong to suggest that Austen was speaking from firsthand experience: “When reading through different debates I do feel that for many of us the debates are just “playing with words”. On the other hand for people like Austen it’s a matter of the truth. Matter of life and death.” Austen actually lives in the United States. It is true that Austen was well informed about the historical and legal rights of the Jews in the Middle East. What he completely lacked was any sense of empathy for the plight of the Arabs.

I started a strand on another forum of my top 20 albums. Once again only men contributed. At the time I thought it was something to do with men’s interest in lists. I am surprised by this one. From my experience, women are always better at remembering the words of songs.

The following was written by Janis Ian when she was in her late teens. Unfortunately, her creativity went into decline after this bright start. I learned the truth at seventeen: that love was meant for beauty queens and high school girls with clear skinned smiles who married young and then retired. (At Seventeen) You might be interested in the rest of the song. Could be used in the classroom. I LEARNED THE TRUTH AT SEVENTEEN THAT LOVE WAS MEANT FOR BEAUTY QUEENS AND HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS WITH CLEAR SKINNED SMILES WHO MARRIED YOUNG AND THEN RETIRED THE VALENTINES I NEVER KNEW THE FRIDAY NIGHT CHARADES OF YOUTH WERE SPENT ON ONE MORE BEAUTIFUL AT SEVENTEEN I LEARNED THE TRUTH AND THOSE OF US WITH RAVAGED FACES LACKING IN THE SOCIAL GRACES DESPERATELY REMAINED AT HOME INVENTING LOVERS ON THE PHONE WHO CALLED TO SAY - COME DANCE WITH ME AND MURMURED VAGUE OBSCENITIES IT ISN'T ALL IT SEEMS AT SEVENTEEN A BROWN EYED GIRL IN HAND ME DOWNS WHOSE NAME I NEVER COULD PRONOUNCE SAID - PITY PLEASE THE ONES WHO SERVE THEY ONLY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE THE RICH RELATIONED HOMETOWN QUEEN MARRIES INTO WHAT SHE NEEDS WITH A GUARANTEE OF COMPANY AND HAVEN FOR THE ELDERLY SO REMEMBER THOSE WHO WIN THE GAME LOSE THE LOVE THEY SOUGHT TO GAIN IN DEBENTURES OF QUALITY AND DUBIOUS INTEGRITY THEIR SMALL-TOWN EYES WILL GAPE AT YOU IN DULL SURPRISE WHEN PAYMENT DUE EXCEEDS ACCOUNTS RECEIVED AT SEVENTEEN TO THOSE OF US WHO KNEW THE PAIN OF VALENTINES THAT NEVER CAME AND THOSE WHOSE NAMES WERE NEVER CALLED WHEN CHOOSING SIDES FOR BASKETBALL IT WAS LONG AGO AND FAR AWAY THE WORLD WAS YOUNGER THAN TODAY WHEN DREAMS WERE ALL THEY GAVE FOR FREE TO UGLY DUCKLING GIRLS LIKE ME WE ALL PLAY THE GAME, AND WHEN WE DARE WE CHEAT OURSELVES AT SOLITAIRE INVENTING LOVERS ON THE PHONE REPENTING OTHER LIVES UNKNOWN THAT CALL AND SAY - COME ON, DANCE WITH ME AND MURMUR VAGUE OBSCENITIES AT UGLY GIRLS LIKE ME, AT SEVENTEEN

Here are some good first lines from Don Mclean, one of the best songwriters over the last 30 years. I have chosen these because of what follows these excellent introductions: It started out quite simply, as complex things can do, a set of sad transparencies till no one could see through (The Pride Parade) A long, long time ago I can still remember how that music used to make me smile (American Pie) No days you can borrow, no time you can buy. No trust in tomorrow. It's a lie. (Dreidel) I coulda been almost anything I put my mind to be but a cowboy’s life was the only life for me. (Bronco Bill’s Lament) I feel the trembling tingle of a sleepless night (Empty Chairs)

Newsletter 5 Membership We now have 376 members. Reading the biographies section it seems we now have members from Britain (65), France (11), Spain (7), USA (7), Sweden (5), Netherlands (5), Canada (4), Australia (4), Greece (3), Italy (3), Finland (2), China (1), Brazil (1), Denmark (1), Belgium (1), Germany (1), Poland (1), Serbia (1), Belarus (1), Israel (1), South Korea (1), Sudan (1), Ireland (1) and Austria (1). If you have not done so, please post your biography on the forum. This enables us to find out where our members are coming from. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=189 Attack on Education Forum You might have had difficulty getting onto the website on Thursday. Apparently an individual was using software to bring our website down. This resulted in this person using 98% of our current bandwidth usage (approx 9GB so far this month) and was causing excessive loads on our server. Andy Walker was able to track this down to a secondary school. This information has been supplied to the head teacher concerned and hopefully he will find the person who has taken a dislike to our forum. Email Notification The Education Forum can notify you when a new reply is added to a topic. Many users find this useful to keep up to date on topics without the need to view the board to check for new messages. The best way to do this is to click the ‘Track This Topic’ link at the top of the topic that you wish to track. Another possibility is from the E-Mail settings section of your User CP (My Controls) check the 'Enable Email Notification by default?' option, this will automatically subscribe you to any topic that you make a reply to. Cookie Usuage Using cookies is optional, but strongly recommended. Cookies are used to track topics, showing you which topics have new replies since your last visit and to automatically log you in when you return. You can clear the cookies at any time by clicking on the link found at the bottom of the main board page (the first page you see when returning to the board). Debates At the moment, the following issues provide opportunities for good debate. I would welcome your contributions to these and other debates taking place on the forum. What is the Value of Homework? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=330 Government E-Learning Strategy http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=115 New Methods of Assessment http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=193 Secondary Cover Supervisors http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=346 Biased Reporting on the Hutton Report http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=341 BBC in Crisis http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=315 Best First Line in Popular Music? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=325 Holocaust: A Different Perspective http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=311 Nationalism and History Teaching http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=44 Do Politicians Still Resign? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=283 Blended Learning http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=246 Do We Live in a Democracy? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=243

Reading the biographies section it seems we now have members from Britain (65), France (11), USA (8), Spain (7), Sweden (5), Netherlands (5), Canada (4), Australia (4), Greece (3), Italy (3), Finland (2), Brazil (2), China (1), Denmark (1), Belgium (1), Germany (1), Poland (1), Serbia (1), Belarus (1), Israel (1), South Korea (1), Sudan (1), Ireland (1) and Austria (1). http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=189

No offence taken. I will try to explain my by analysing the article in detail. (1) The British Broadcasting Corporation was forced to pay up for its blatant anti-Americanism before and during the Iraq war. A frothing at the mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest. The British government did try to portray those who were opposed to the war as being anti-American. It is based on the idea that when you criticise the policy decision of the Bush administration you are really expressing an anti-American view. This is not an argument that many people in Britain take seriously. Although, many, including myself, would argue that many people who took an anti-war view were partly influenced by their perceptions of Bush. Many people who have watched Bush over the last couple of years have been concerned about the intellectual capability of the man. In Britain, we always insist of being governed by intelligent people. It makes us feel a little bit safer. As far as I am aware the government (or anyone else for that matter) did not accuse the BBC of being anti-American. However, the government did try to give the idea that those who were against the war were pro-German and pro-French. I found this the most repulsive of all the methods employed by the government and the Sun newspaper. It is a worrying trend that the party with a long tradition of internationalism should have leaders willing to exploit the deep-seated prejudices of its people. It is just further evidence that Britain is currently being governed by a group of unprincipled people. (2) The BBC - the "Beeb" - was one of the worst offenders in the British press because it felt entitled to not only pillory Americans and George W Bush, but it felt entitled to lie. And when caught lying, it felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives. To start with the BBC is not part of the press as it does not publish newspapers. The BBC or its journalists were not caught lying. In fact, Hutton did not accuse anyone of lying. What he did was to judge that one part of one broadcast could not be backed up by the evidence. Nor could it because it was based on speculation about what someone knew. What Gilligan was criticised for was his comment that Blair/Campbell included the 45 minute claim in the dossier knowing it was untrue. We now know it was untrue but it has been impossible to discover that it was known to be untrue. (In fact, according to a comment made by Blair in the House of Commons it seems he did not know enough about the 45 minute claim to know whether it was true or not. As a result he is now being described as either a xxxx or an incompetent prime minister.) We know the rest of the story was true and that this information came from David Kelly. The reason for this is that Kelly also spoke to another BBC journalist, Susan Watts. She taped the interview and this shows that Kelly did say these things to her, although some aspects of his comments she did not use in her broadcast. One of the key points of the story was that the 45 minute claim was based on a single source. Not only do we now know that it was not only a single source, it was a highly unreliable source. Even the person who gave the information to the security services admitted they did not whether it was true and expected that the information to be checked out. It is this kind of information that has persuaded a large percentage of the population that the claim was inserted knowing it was untrue. However, as the government did not keep minutes of these meetings, it is impossible to prove. It of course raises questions about why minutes were not made during these meetings. Blair of course has learnt from history. We would not know about how Johnson organised the cover-up of the Kennedy assassination or how Nixon lied about Watergate, if it was not for them taping their conversations. Blair, like all modern political leaders, is very careful about the evidence he leaves behind. Ironically, Gilligan was criticised for using a single-source (Kelly) for his story. Yet, the story was itself about a single-source. It seems that it is acceptable for a government to use a single-source to justify an invasion of another country, but it is not acceptable to use a single-source to criticise that decision. (3) The incident involved the reporter Andrew Gilligan who made a fool of himself in Baghdad when the American invasion actually arrived in the Iraqi capital. Gilligan, pro-Iraqi and anti-American, insisted on the air that the Iraqi army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military. Video from our own Greg Kelly of the American army moving through Baghdad at will put the light to that. I know nothing about this story. It was definitely not mentioned in the Hutton Inquiry. However, there is no evidence that Gilligan is pro-Iraqi. However, he is anti-Blair. Blair is usually attacked by those considered to be left of centre. Gilligan attacks Blair from the right. In reality, he is anti-European and pro-American. In this case, in order to get at Blair, he had to attack his pro-Americanism. (4) After the war, back in London, Gilligan got a guy named David Kelly to tell him a few things about pre-war assessments on Iraq's weapons programmes. And Gilligan exaggerated about what Kelly had told him. As I have said earlier, we do not know whether he exaggerated the evidence provided by Kelly. Hutton believed the government rather than Gilligan. However, polls show the vast majority of the British public think the report was a whitewash (one poll suggests 91% think it was a whitewash). They might not believe Gilligan, but they definitely don’t believe Blair. (The Hutton Report has proved to be disastrous for Blair’s own poll-ratings). (5) Kelly committed suicide over the story and the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie and exaggerate, because, well, the BBC knew the war was wrong and anything it could say to underscore that point had to be right. We do not know why Kelly committed suicide. The BBC story may well have played its part. So also would have the means that the government used to out his name. Probably the most important factor was that he was under pressure to tell a story before a parliamentary committee that was untrue. That pressure took the form of threats about prosecution and the loss of pension rights. It could be argued that the government was right to do this. However, it definitely had a bearing on his decision to take his own life. (6) The British government investigation slammed the BBC on Wednesday and a Beeb exec resigned to show they got it. But they don't. So the next time you hear the BBC bragging about how much superior the Brits are at delivering the news than Americans who wear flags in their lapels, remember it was the Beeb caught lying. The style of this journalism is completely alien to television broadcasting in Britain. It is very similar to something you would read in the Sun newspaper. That is not surprising as both organizations are owned by the same man: Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch was the world’s main cheerleader for the Iraq war. Every one of his 239 newspapers argued for the war. He even gave an interview explaining his policy. His view was the war would result in lower oil prices. This would then stimulate the economy and cause an increase in share-prices. He was right of course about the economic benefits of the war. The Sun is Britain’s most popular newspaper. For many years it was a fervent supporter of the Conservative Party. This is not surprising considering the right-wing views of its owner. On several occasions the Sun boasted that it was a major factor in deciding these elections. After one election it had the headline “The Sun Won It”. Just before the 1997 General Election a meeting took place between Blair and Murdoch. After this date the Sun switched to being a New Labour supporter. We do not know what was said at this meeting (no minutes were taken). What we do know is that for the last six years the newspaper has provided loyal support to the party. It was of course the only newspaper that believed the Hutton Report. In fact, the newspaper’s political editor said it was the report he would have written. It was quite a surprise that an apparently pro-European should be supported by a leading anti-European. It does not seem to caused any problems. Although Blair still makes pro-European speeches, he does not take any actions to support these views. Murdoch has been very happy with the government’s tax policies. For years he has paid very little tax in Britain. He is strongly opposed to any policies that would change this situation. This is a key issue for Murdoch. Two weeks ago the Murdoch owned, Sunday Times, included a article about a list of right-wing industrialists who are the main financiers of the New Labour Party. It claimed that these men would withdraw their support of the party if Gordon Brown became the leader. This was based on the idea that Brown was really a supporter of progressive taxation. At the moment he is being controlled by Blair, but if he left, Brown would return to his original socialist beliefs. Murdoch’s main concern is about government regulation of the media industry. It is very important that the government does not do anything to interfere with his business interests. His primary concern is with his ability to make money from subscription television stations. This is being put at threat by the decision of the BBC to provide free digital stations. He sees this development as a serious threat to his long-term business plan. Murdoch therefore wants the BBC to be privatised. As he rightly points out, he cannot compete with a free service. At the moment the only area he wins in is in areas where the BBC is excluded (for example, live Premiership football games). His ultimate nightmare is that taxpayers money will be used to buy up the rights of Premiership games for showing on the BBC. Will Blair give Murdoch what he wants? Will he privatise the BBC and C4. I am fairly confident that he will in time privatise C4 (probably to help pay for higher education). However, the BBC is another matter. It is considered a national treasure. What is significant is that the three BBC governors who insisted on the resignation of Greg Dyke are also the three governors in favour of privatisation. Blair will obviously use the Hutton Report to strengthen the position of those in support of this policy. I doubt very much if he will be willing to take on his party and public opinion in order to privatise the BBC. But that is what I thought about Top Up Fees. For an article about Fox Television see the following: http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html