Humble pie for Beeb

Ian Lucas

The BBC is apologising tonight.

In March I urged them to ‘Tweak up the sensitivity levels BBC Wales. Apologise now. You will have to do so eventually.’

The BBC did not warn my good friend Ian Lucas that derogatory remarks about him were about to be broadcast. Nor did they invite him to refute them. But they did issue a press release before the broadcast in which the accusations were quoted. Ian Lucas rang BBC Wales and reasonably demanded that the programme should not be broadcast.

BBC Wales refused. They offered him an interview on the radio the following morning. Rightly he said ‘no’. The damage would have already been done. The radio audience is different to the television one and Ian would have been placed on the defensive against totally fictitious claims.

Having had some experience of how messy libel suits are, even when you are entirely in the right, I can understand Ian’s reluctance to sue.� I urged him to do so at the time but he was well aware of the pitfalls.

Questions remain. Why did BBC lawyers allow the broadcast to take place? Why did they not apologise when the police did?

Ian said today� “It is disappointing that it took so long for this decision to be reached, but I am very glad it has. This whole sorry affair need never have happened if BBC Wales had bothered to check their facts in the first place – something which is at the core of responsible journalism.

“Having pursued the complaint with BBC Wales, it is clear that the decision to broadcast without seeking my comments was accepted by staff at a very high level of the organisation.

“I sincerely hope BBC Wales will learn some lessons from this affair.”�

And so say all of us.

Cyfeillgarwch

Welsh-speaking Wales is a small intimate country.

Three groups of people joined my family and myself when we having some food on a bench in the open air on the Maes at the Eisteddfod yesterday. Each of them started to chat and in minutes we found that we had friends and interests in common.

First Minister Rhodri Morgan dressed in jeans was pushing one of his grandchildren in a pushchair around the Maes on Sunday. There are not many countries where their most prominent politician would be so informally available to all.

A complete stranger approached John Osmond and myself when we chatting about whether the Valleys needed an elected mayor. He told me that he had read my book Baglu ‘Mlaen some years ago when he was on holidays in Brittany. He took time off to try to lay a few flowers on the grave of a member of my immediate family who is buried in the cemetery at Malestroit. Her story is told in the book. What a kind act.

I had a good chat with former Assembly Minister Alan Pugh who is blooming in his new job in Snowdonia. It’s great pleasure to be approached by strangers who have seen my face on the box and feel like a chat. No nonsense about formal introductions. It does not happen in England with the same warmth and friendliness.

Not so much a country, more a large extended family.

Dore Leppard

What EDM persuaded great journalist Ben Goldacre (below) to say “Parliament congratulating bloggers while castigating the media? It’s like a dream come true. I’m going to put on some Def Leppard and punch the air.”

It was about the so called-Dyslexia cure Dore. Now the splendid Welsh Language current affairs programme Taro Naw is preparing a programme on the debacle.

It was convenient to do an interview on the Maes yesterday as my contribution. One of the questions was how could we argue against the value of Dore for dyslexic children if parents notice an improvement.

This is not unusual even when medicine and treatment are inert. Placebos have a great record in curing illnesses. Nature and the human body are marvellous at improving health.

Dore expanded rapidly with a treatment that cost £2,000 and had not been subjected to rigorous scientific appraisal. They have gone through the� financial hoop. Ben Goldacre wrote, “The media repeatedly promoted Dore through uncritical anecdotal promotion using someone who was paid to promote the company, and others, despite repeated rulings from regulators and a gigantic chorus of academics pointing out that the evidence for the “miracle cure” was rubbish.”

I have written today to the following shows asking them to make amends for the harm they did in promoting Dore. They include the Jeremy Vine Show, Channel Five News, Radio Five Live, BBC London, ITV Central, ITV Yorkshire, the Daily Mail, the Daily Record, and Scotland on Sunday, Tonight with Trevor McDonald and You and Yours.

Their research was shoddy and they should start to tell the truth about Dore. There are rumours that it will re-appear as a new company.

Tory puzzle

The person who dammed devolution in 1990s was Glyn Davies. He later came to love the assembly. If he beats Lembit and gets to Westminster, will his views match the anti-Assembly Conservative MPs or the pro-Assembly Conservative AMs? Tough call.

Comments

[Tony]

Paul, what is going on at Northern Rock? Is the £3bn taxpayers money being written off by converting it into equity to keep the bank afloat? Why is the bank being shielded from the results of its crazy business model? And why are tax payers picking up the tab again?

[paulflynn]

I'ts tina. There is no alternative in this situation. It has always been the choice between a bad decision and a catastrophic one. Nationalisation or a run on banks?.

I'm keeping optimistic with the early repayment.

[Huw O'Sullivan]

The outright opposition changing to support once in place is typically tory and should be trusted as all tories should be trusted, not at all.
Any tory is a member of party not unlike "New Labour" a parasitic opportunistic organism.
They will say whatever they think will play well and seem to believe in nothing other than the privilege of the well to do.

It is terrible to hear many fools, talking about switching to vote Tory, a week may be a long time in politics but apparently it takes just over a decade for people to forget what the tories are.

Such a shame that old labour has vanished, then at least there would be a choice. With Tories or New Labour, policies will be much the same but style will be different, much as the system works in the US.

As for me Paul, you know where I stand, I will not vote for a party that waged aggressive war, nor would I ever vote for the party that gave them their full support despite their being no evidence convincing or otherwise supporting a case for war.
As far as I am concerned the country would be better off if New Labour and the Tories merged and a new party, genuinely left wing, formed.

Improvements in health care funding and fiddling about at the edges of social issues will never make up for the lives ruined and lost in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[paulflynn]

Thanks Huw.

Old, Classic, Real Labour is still alive and voting. There were 16 Tories who voted against the Iraq War and 139 Labour. At least 50 other Labour MPs abstained or voted in favour reluctantly after being conned by the whips.

One of my main motivations that keep me fired up is that I was the only MP who made a speech in the Commons against the Helmand incursion. My first allies in opposing this disaster were all from the Labour ranks. I have no doubt which party will challenge other futile military gestures n future.

[Huw O'Sullivan]

Hmm Paul, not quite sure what to say about the 50 easily conned Labour MP's, not sure they can be counted as a plus for anyone.

I think it is a pity that the 139 who voted against the war with Iraq should have made more of an issue of it. It was and is I believe to big a wrong, to vote against it but continue to remain in the party/ government that commits that wrong and live with it.
But of course not all who voted against it voted against it for the same reasons.
Some did not have a problem with the act but with the timing or the manner of the act.
For myself I need to see stronger opposition to the concepts, execution and of course more relevant right now the continuation of what I can only see as a crime of the higher orders of magnitude.

Of course there are those who argue that a crime is not a crime unless the perpetrator is punished in some way by the properly appointed authority.
Tricky when the criminals have the power to veto what comes before the proper authority.

[PaulFlynn]

Huw, All the 50 signed motions or EDMs opposing the war. The whips worked on them with the argument about WMD and the imminent threat to our soldiers in Cyprus. The political blackmaail was that if Tony Blair lost the vote, he would resign and there would be a General Election. Some MPs are daunted at the prospect of the oncoming P45s. Other genuinely believed in M15 and were convinced that they could not be wrong on WMD.

Nearly all of them now feel cheated and fooled on the most important vote of their political lives. If the 50 had voted against, British troops would not have gone to Iraq. Quite a thought.

[paulflynn]

Why deceive yourselves about possible concessions? Nothing will change until 2010 - and probably not then.
The parliament vote was a free one for all parties. There were no party whips and members of all parties voted for and against. In those circumstances a majority of 200 is a very large one indeed.

The chances of that decision being reversed is nil. The chances of an amendment is slight now. By 2010 the public would be even more used to smoke free pubic places. Public opinion would not support any change in 2010. I am convincd that the ban is irreversible.

The evidence of the popularity of the ban is everywhere from smokers and nonsmokers. Stop talking only to one another in your group. Views have hardened in favour of the ban.

Smoking yobs who threw a middle aged lady off a station platform are not winning friend for your cause.

[Huw O'Sullivan]

Paul I know there were a few votes before the war, but the actual vote for the declaration of war was 254 labour for and 84 labour against, you Paul were and it does you credit one of the 84.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=118

Unfortunately the vote was carried 412 to 149
Plaid voted against
SNP voted against
Lib Dems voted against.

The Tories in their natural jingoistic fervour only had 2 who voted against so as a party are even more contemptible than New Labour (no surprise there).
The Unionists of the 6 counties of Ulster that are within the UK , always and forever doomed to support the inexcusable due to the seriously warped vision they have of themselves, voted fully in favour.

It was democracy at its worst.
Which is when people are being manipulated by semi truth and outright lies from their own representatives but choose not to bring their critical faculties to bear.

It struck me as astounding at the time that people who generally and often without reason will distrust the government or politicians in general with regards to the cost of postage stamps or the train timetables or any other minor and often unimportant non issues; would give their unquestioning support when faced with the drumbeat of war.
Presumably they believed that something that would cost the lives of many was too important for politicians to play political games with, the naivety is appalling and the abuse of their trust despicable.
No politician can dream to excuse themselves by claiming naivety on this, if they are that naive they should not be in politics.

Even at that point though, the populace, the electorate could on some levels disclaim responsibility as they had not had the opportunity to vote on it themselves.
Then came the next general election and while New Labour lost seats, they retained power. In part due to those Labour MP's who were on one level or another opposed to the war not withdrawing their support utterly from those who had conned, connived and colluded to produce an appearance of a case for war where none existed.

Those who actually voted against the war of course deserve credit for their courage and conviction at the time, I will never be able to understand though, why they could go so far but no further.

We are all sullied by this aggressive, disastrous war, we all bear responsibility for it and every month, day, hour it continues buries us deeper in debt and dishonour.
To my mind there is blood on all our hands due to our inaction and the duplicity of a relatively small number of people. Until we face up to our responsibilities and ensure those who led this crime face the consequences under international law we cannot begin to move on.
In reality the option is not there for us to declare Tony Blair-like that we shall just draw a line under it and discount it from then on.

I am sorry I am sure I seem as repetitive and pointless on this issue as the ardent anti ban smokers seem to be on theirs but the many thousands and potentially millions of lives that I share in the responsibility for destroying, the families that I share in responsibility for devastating, do not sit easy with me.

This is the work of evil men, not just, perhaps surprisingly, the acts themselves but how they drag everyone else down into the same latrine they have made their home.

The western world in its entirety then managed to heap on further insult to their many victimes by appointing the British lead criminal and warbringer as middle eastern "peace" envoy.
If not for Kissinger before him, satire would have been declared dead then.

I want the Iraqi's to have peace and a chance at a decent life. For that reason I would like all fighting to stop.
But I fear that if the American's get control of the oil as they wish and get to keep their permanent military bases as they wish and get to run Iraq from their enormous "embassy" as they wish, then there would be nothing to dissuade them trying to do the same trick again in every other country they turn their greedy eyes on.
The UN cannot stop them, the EU will not stop them, the British would help them, even "neutral" Ireland will allow them to transport their troops and armaments through them. So what is the point.

We declared at Nuremberg that the crime Blair and Bush et al are guilty of is the worst that there is, aggressive war. I guess we only meant that for our enemies and in that case, trying to defend yourself against us is also the worst crime that there is.

It is a pity that I cannot stop believing that the law applies to us all or it applies to no one. We are not exempt because we are the "good guys". We are certainly not exempt when we are not the good guys and we most definitely are not.

I am lucky I am not religious as if there were a hell I know we would all find ourselves there because of this and there would be no excuses and no get outs because of our chosen naivety,wilful ignorance or stubborn stupidity.

My views on this are probably too extreme, my attitude too unbending. So perhaps I am myself doomed to make a fool of myself decrying reasonable actions as the work of evil men, Perhaps my belief that having a vote in a democracy means you share in the responsibility for the actions of the government you pay taxes to, perhaps that attitude is ludicrous. I try and try but simply cannot see it any other way.
This is about as wrong as it gets short of having an extermination policy for an entire race of people but measuring evil only by the extremes of Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia is perhaps setting the bar far too low.