The BBC Panorama ‘Hatchet Job’

57a3c2930c0debfbeba0ba4ed42deacc_400x400

I want to start by talking about 3 men.

All are connected to Operation Fairbank

The first has been identified online as a ‘rent boy’ and having been ‘trafficked to Amsterdam’

This is completely untrue. He was sexually abused as a young boy but he was never a ‘rent boy’ and he was never ‘trafficked to Amsterdam’ yet still his name is circulated by some making these false and hurtful allegations.

I believe the second man was also sexually abused as a child. He has never spoken to the MSM. “The media aren’t interested in me telling them that what is being said is untrue. That isn’t a story for them and so there is no point.”, he explained to me.

The third man may have been sexually abused as a child but it is impossible to tell because he has been reported in the press as claiming to have been involved in so many paedophilic incidents involving celebrities that are certainly untrue and so it is difficult to know where exactly the truth ends and the sensationalist lies begin.

It’s all very messy isn’t it ?

Now, I genuinely have no idea what BBC Panorama are looking at. I’ve had very limited contact with Alistair Jackson which has been restricted to requests for a few facts (nothing not already published on The Needle). I’ve never talked to him and he has never asked me to ‘debunk’ anything or criticise anyone but about a month ago I was forwarded an email. The email first suggested that BBC Panorama were set to do a “hatchet job” on the Alternative media. It was quite obvious to me that the people involved had had far more contact with Alistair Jackson and this project than I had ever had.

The email urged those within the Alternative Media to not engage with Panorama. It was a rally cry but as the people this message had come from had been in part responsible for much of the disinformation online regarding related subjects, I didn’t feel very inclined to join the fray. Which made it all the more surprising for me when I read the Exaro News story on the same topic. HERE

It is a fairly empty story. I noted, as will others, the trigger’ phrases, ‘BBC Newsnight’ , ‘Jimmy Savile’, ‘debunk’, and ‘David Aaronovitch’ (who incidentally has never heard of the project), ‘Charter Review’. Note also the tried and tested ploy of playing one BBC journalist, who I could name investigating Operation Midland, and other BBC Journalists.

The article is all very clumsy once you know what to look at and the purpose is clear. Exaro don’t want scrutiny of some vocal ‘sources’ and independent analysis of the story and they are hoping to put pressure on the BBC to pull the documentary.

Naturally, observers will ask themselves why that is.

For my part I welcome scrutiny. Truth needs exposing but it never needs defending as it can stand on its own two feet. I look forward to the programme and I’ll freely criticise any assertion I disagree with yet welcome new information and insights.

Capture

Advertisements

62 Comments

Filed under Personal

62 responses to “The BBC Panorama ‘Hatchet Job’

  1. Pingback: The BBC Panorama ‘Hatchet Job’ | Alternative News Network

  2. gw

    Agreed. I must admit it wouldn’t be the first angle that comes to mind though.

    Ultimately something which starts with a conclusion then works backwards is going to encounter problems.

    Seems like the “good eggs” left the Panorama basket some time ago.

    • Hi GW,

      As I said I don’t know very much however I do know that this has been in the pipeline for at least 5 months. I wouldn’t assume that Panorama have started from a particular view point. I suspect they’ve just gone where the evidence has taken them and the project has evolved.

      • gw

        That’s reassuring. I’ll be deliberately vague – some witness – especially one that shares initials with a breakdown cover provider imo need to be exposed as fantasists. I’m aware I may incur some wrath by saying this but quite simply a lot of stuff connected to these investigations just isn’t true.

      • The RAC? (Joking)

        I think you’ve just touched on the thorny issue there.

      • BURSTING THE INFLATED NEEDLEBLAG

        You mean AA ? JUST SAY IT,IDIOT.We know exactly what went on,and who got leaned on vulnerable people to discredit others.We know who paid who who intimidated and threatened who and we know who stood by and did nothing,eh,Gobjam,who moderates all comments to suit his own agenda,while he mouths off his inane disinfo and then the BBC have a good gawp.Pathetic prat.You,Gobjam,are a disgrace to ALL victims and survivors.You don’t represent them.And operation greenlight..what the f*cks that?Childline?Its bollocks,isnt it?Whos behind it?Your pathetic establishment filtering arse and that’s it.

  3. Myers

    Surprised by your position here Gojam.
    For my part, Aaro fits perfectly the profile of a paid agent of the state working at the heart of the media. We know that these have existed in the past, and it seems absurd to me to assume that the practice no longer continues. I don’t believe a word he says.
    On a level playing field, I would agree that ‘truth does not need defending’, but clearly that is not what we have here: despite everything that has come to pass, the majority of the population still regard the BBC as the authoritative voice on current and political events, and most have not even heard of Exaro news or visited their site. I honestly believe that due to the centralised power still held over information streams, sometimes truth does not prevail (at least in the medium term) and think that a ‘hatchet job’ would be very detrimental to the momentum of the cause; simply because the beeb weilds so much power.
    You seem to hold a view that some of Exaro’s reporting is marred by sensationalist exaggeration and inaccurate stories. They seem robust to me, and I wish there was a neutral forum where disagreements could be aired or worked out- if nothing else then for the likes of me who are not party to a lot of the facts. I understand that the nature of the situation makes this difficult.

  4. dpack

    to debunk bunkum is a noble trade ,to create bunkum or present existing bunkum as truth is not.

    the truth stands scrutiny and is confirmed by additional well tested data,falsehood does not.

    a major problem with establishing truth about these matters is that not all involved wish the truth to be established.

    some dont care what is true so long as they enhance their career or ego and therefore will present the “best story”as truth regardless of the facts or by selecting facts and disregarding others that would prove a “lesser”truth to be the case.

    some are mistaken about(or deliberately mislead by )the data they are aware of and come to incorrect conclusions although genuinely attempting to find the truth.

    there is another problem in that not all who seek to debunk bunkum wish to replace it with truth.

    • Sabre

      http://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/may/27/mondaymediasection.politicsandthemedia

      Sorry Arthur ! Daily Mirror published story about Arthur Scargill paying his mortgage with funds donated by Libya and Soviet miners, while his members were suffering.

      It had to be true, The Daily Mirror is Pro-Trade Unions, alas it wasn’t true.

      • Rolo

        You now know this story is untrue because someone provided evidence for that and proved that it was untrue, if panorama are going to claim that the child sex abuse scandal by the politicians did not happen they will have to provide evidence for this claim and offer proof, or people will not believe it anyway.

      • Sabre

        The problem is that the lumpenproletariat have a nasty habit of taking the output of The BBC and the likes of Panorama as true by default.
        Although, thankfully, more and more people have a healthy distrust of all the Establishment now.

      • Rolo

        @Sabre Yes I see your point although, luckily, as you say more and more people think about what they see in the media now before believing it. We shall see what Panorama have to say if and when the programme comes out.

      • They aren’t going to say there was no abuse at EGH. The Met have already said Cyril Smith was there.

      • Sabre

        I’m content to wait and see, my default position is that they are likely to be ‘running interference’ or providing ‘damage limitation’, time will tell.

  5. duddenhallapproveds

    There is a cover-up going on, but they have got the wrong end of the stick. Recent events have shown that the cover-up is far more complicated than it looks. The police are involved in this, not investigating people they know have names.

  6. A colleague in the same field as me was contacted by the BBC about making a documentary on the subject he specialises in. Great, you might think, only the truth was, in the end, the BBC rejected his proposal as “The conclusions did not meet the criteria the BBC were looking for”. As my colleague pointed out , given they hadn’t actually made the programme yet and their conclusions were merely interim findings based on what they had managed to glean so far and that, they might well change given further investigation. This made no difference whatsoever and my colleague was left with the inescapable conclusion that, the BBC were only interested in making any sort of documentary on his subject which was based on an already decided conclusion and that all investigations should back up that already settled on, agenda. to date, the BBC have yet to offer up any sort of documentary on the subject they approached my friend on. One can only conclude, that is because the “facts” simply aren’t acceptable and no amount of spin can disguise that.

    • Andy Barnett

      Selecting evidence to support an already-decided conclusion is a very human trait (ie. we all do it to some extent). It’s when that practice is performed knowingly in order to achieve a certain end (like a sensational story) that it becomes deception.

      Setting out to test AM stories and debunk them (where they need debunking) is not deceptive, so long as a balanced approach is adopted and evidence is presented fairly. Of course the worry is that they use such debunked stories to suggest that all VIPCSA stories are false. I very much doubt Panorama would employ such poor reasoning and I doubt many people would be convinced if they did.

      I’d suggest that a bit of debunking would be a good thing, even if it does offend a few people who are wedded to the ‘truths’ they read in the media. What matters is that those with access to direct evidence are taking this seriously (Police, IPCC) and do believe there is something real to be investigated.

  7. The BBC threatening people forcing them to appear with the purposes of stitching them up is impartiality and fairness?

    Maybe the Saville report troubles them
    They want to get their shot in first

    • I’m not aware of anyone being ‘forced’ to appear. I’m not aware that anyone has been threatened.

      Have you been threatened or forced Bob ?

      • BURSTING THE INFLATED NEEDLEBLAG

        youre not very open-minded are you,Gobjam?Deluded,in fact,we would say.And worse.A disservice to all victims and survivors,You don’t represent them youre a BBC/Establishment sock puppet

  8. If this was not serious i would think you were having a laugh. Here is the fact – the BBC have done next to NOTHING exposing VIP child abuse. First they should devote some serious airtime to that. After that they can. air stories debunking some of the stories out there. Until they start covering and exposing VIP child abuse. – any story they do debunking that abuse is de facto biased.

    Gojam i am shocked you even wrote this piece. The BBC does not need your help defending its right to air a certain story, but i bet the love the division you are creating

    • How on earth is Gojam creating division?
      As he rightly said the truth will stand up to scrutiny and if he disagrees with what the programme concludes he will say so.
      Ropey stories do not do the anti-CSA cause any favours but diminish it. Too many take too much at face value when just a smattering of research reveals how little credibility they have.
      I for one welcome this programme.

      • even if the whole game plan was to discredit
        survivors and campaigners and fix the outcome of certain enquiries
        Yeah you would love that

      • Because I’m sure YOU wouldn’t want to ‘fix’ any outcomes.

        Have you ever considered that you and your friends might have done more than most to discredit survivors and campaigners ?

        No chance because you’re not open minded enough.

      • Haha what a pathetic joke you have become
        You never came out and told us who you were fronting for did you. ?

      • Speaking of the ropey, how are you bobchewie?

    • dpack

      it could be considered that this situation is similar to a classic magician’s act with genuine members of the audience on the stage and the stooges in the crowd(or vice versa or both in both positions),they are all part of the act and in this case there is an added complication that it is possible that important elements of both parties do not know their own or the other parties true roles in the act.

      my suspicious mind would consider the bbc as the ministry of truth since the time of brendan bracken and exaro as the recent creation of an ex director of the british syrian society ltd (other notable historical and current directors include david steel ,heniker’s son in law and a couple of said family members) .pendry also has potential family links via his uncle who seems to have been close to some well known names.
      my instinct is both organizations should be treated with caution although individuals employed within them may be of good intent.

      in the msm and alternative media there are the good ,the bad and the totally deluded .
      the truth is what continues to fit all the well tested data rather than what one wishes to believe or what one is told to believe especially if that is at odds with the data and may be intended as an aunt sally or a cause of division.

    • My point is the BBC have done NOTHING to expose VIP abuse of children. Now they are going to give some serious airtime to undermining claims and of course they will be totally unbiased given their track record.

      I agree that the truth should ought but the BBC is not the place for that and it should raise everyone’s alarm that they are devoting resources to debunking and not also exposing VIP abuse. Why Gojam is defending the BBC under the guise of “truth” makes no sense to me as the BBC can not be-trusted. Their track record shows that. On the other hand Exaro have done great work exposing this and yet Gojam thinks their motives are dubious when calling out the BBC. They might be, but unlike the BBC they have a record of trying to unearth this stuff.

      • BBC done nothing ?

        Newsnight had a pretty big story just last week.

      • Your ‘literal’ response to what i said speaks volumes.

        The BBC have given the size of their resources done a fair bit exposing VIP child abuse, so it is only fair and right they now expose those that are not telling the truth .

        Think many here are questioning why you are defending the indefensible. your ‘truth’ reason is a joke when the BBC is the vehicle.

      • Andy Barnett

        It really isn’t correct the talk about the BBC as if it acts with one mind. Journalists clearly have some degree of freedom and many of them can be trusted, even if their bosses can’t.

  9. Why is that I can only see “Leading CSA Campaigners” telling us who the “Leading CSA Campaigners” to be debunked are?
    Where’s the other sources online? Seriously?
    Maybe I’m not looking hard enough.

  10. “Those people named” “the word on twitter” Who is pushing these names other than one of the names?

  11. I think you’ve misunderstood me. I started my first question with “Why”.
    I know who they are, what I’m asking of you & anyone else who may be reading this is –
    Why are we only getting the names of those to be debunked from one of those to be debunked? How do they know? Can those names be confirmed from elsewhere? If not, that’s clearly cause for concern.

  12. @ AB, i have read your many tweets and posts and think you are a good guy, and I am not accusing the BBC of speaking with one mind. However, the fact is that one mind does decide at the BBC if certain types of stories ever see the light of day. People working at the BBC know this. very few would risk their jobs to push a story that their boss does not want to air.

  13. Abby

    Scrutiny can only be a good thing. Blaggers and frauds need to be exposed before they totally undermine genuine victims.

    • Yes because we all know there are so many ” fake victims ‘ aren’t there. how does it go? ” compo claiming so called ‘ victims ‘ all trying to destroy the reputations of senior people…. Think I know that off by heart now

    • brendan o neill

      Yes scrutiny is good but do you believe the BBC are the right people to do it after saville?

  14. Bob, you too missed my question & jumped to a conclusion. I don’t know the BBC lied to these “Leading CSA Campaigners” because I only have the word of one of these “Leading CSA Campaigners” that that is what has happened, thus my initial request for further information. If they were interviewed I’d be more interested in the reasons for choosing them.
    I agree, we need more scrutiny. I don’t trust 1/2 of the BBC to do that though.

    • You answered your own question there why those victims were chosen
      Vulnerable easy to lie to. Offers of money
      It’s fairly straightforward really

    • Anon

      Reading this long thread this morning reminds me of the anecdote where at a Campaign meeting everyone turned out to be a Secret Police Agent intent on spying on all of the other participants.

      Focus on the matter in hand and stop slagging each other off otherwise people will draw their own (possibly mistaken) conclusions.

      Confusion and divide-and-rule appear to be the order of the day. This needs to be avoided.

  15. 70sgirl

    Too late for that. Too many ‘campaigners’ have spent a couple of years slagging each other off. And some of these ‘campaigners’ ARE frauds and do need exposing. Some of Exaro’s stories are preposterous, and are leading people to dismiss those in similar vein out of hand.
    RJ Bilton: don’t give up, I get what you mean and I’m sure others do too.

  16. dpack

    for 2 and a bit years i have been trying to sort the truth from a world of smoke and mirrors,some times this is fairly easy because the illusion is badly constructed or it may be possible to examine the stage from a different perspective and see the mechanism and more rarely even see the magician or their assistants making adjustments.
    at other times it is difficult to establish that there is an illusion and almost impossible to establish the truth.

  17. Sabre

    Everyone should watch the programme if and when it airs.
    Make sure that you watch it very very carefully.

    Panorama invariably has a dog in the fight http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/21766/Panorama+parrots+Israel’s+propaganda

  18. Sabre

    An example to illustrate a point re Panorama ( WIA too), John Ware re Colin Wallace and Fred Holroyd.
    Ware had at one time or another worked for both of the State stooges (Panorama and WIA) if anyone has access to Robin Ramsay’s Lobster magazine they could do worse than research Ware.

    Wallace and to some extent Holroyd links right back round to State dirty tricks including undermining democratically elected Governments and Kincora ( back to square one almost).

    The fact that Ware is no longer on the Panorama team is beside the point.
    Panorama run interference for spooks while appearing to be anti establishment.

    • dpack

      brendan bracken would be proud of his legacy .
      he was quite an operator and would probably have found great amusement in the counterpoint of fictions being true and truths being fiction and presenting both to create an illusion .

  19. mirrormanuncut

    i know some former exaro people.
    people should not assume that everybody there holds the same view.
    as with the bbc there is a diversity of opinion about some of these matters.

    • I don’t assume that.

      I’m not going to disrespect good journalists for poor editorial decisions in the past and now

      • dpack

        i assume that there are persons of integrity associated with many organizations that also include those with less wholesome intent.
        in many ways a general bias towards truth and decency is valuable to those who would deceive on specific occasions (or as a general theme by a combination of truth,confusion and very specific falsehood)as prominent individuals with integrity will give the organization as a whole an appearance of credibility and therefore makes the “lies”easier to believe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s