4. BBC CAMPAIGN MOVES TO BBC TRUST APPEAL: YOU CAN EASILY HELP
The BBC has to adhere to a ‘Royal Charter’ of being fair, balanced, impartial, and accurate in its reporting. If it fails to do this then there is a formal complaints process which must be adhered to. Over the past few months four individuals, including Civil Rights lawyer Paul Warburton’, have been challenging the BBC over its coverage of 9/11, with support from Michael Meacher MP.
The complaints have now moved through to the top levels of the BBC complaints process. We want to meet face to face with the BBC Trustees to discuss their concerns and to get the BBC to provide more balanced and accurate coverage of the issue of 9/11. We need you to email your support. Something along the line of the following would be fine. A letter would count for more but the email address is
BBC Trustees
Editorial Standards Committee
180 Great Portland Street
London W1W 5QZ
ref CT 1200078
Dear BBC Trust
I have read that the BBC has received a number of complaints recently about the biased and inaccurate coverage of 9/11 which seems to be in breach of the BBC’s Royal Charter. The individuals, including Paul Warburton, who have made these complaints are requesting the opportunity to meet with the Editorial Standards Committee to discuss these issues. I fully support the very valid issues that they have raised and I believe the BBC Trust should agree to meet with them and discuss their concerns.
Yours sincerely
Please do this straight away as the time limit for this particular complaint runs out mid next week.
BBC Trustees
Editorial Standards Committee
180 Great Portland Street
London W1W 5QZ
ref CT 1200078
Dear BBC Trust
I have read that the BBC has received a number of complaints recently about the biased and inaccurate coverage of 9/11 which seems to be in breach of the BBC’s Royal Charter. The individuals, including Paul Warburton, who have made these complaints are requesting the opportunity to meet with the Editorial Standards Committee to discuss these issues. I fully support the very valid issues that they have raised and I believe the BBC Trust should agree to meet with them and discuss their concerns.
I am particularly concerned about the "journalism" of Mike Rudin vis the Conspiracy Files.
Only this week I watched this video of his 2011 interview with Dr Neils Harrit in Denmark:
I have studied the events of 9/11 for many years now. I have read virtually every book that has been written, every film that has been made and the vast majority of media reportage on the subject.
I consider myself to be very well versed in the official narrative and alternative narratives surrounding the event.
Mike Rudin is the epitome of the cabal of journalists who continue to obfuscate, misrepresent and damage the efforts of many independent people and groups who are campaigning for an independent investigation of the 9/11 crime.
It is my considered opinion that Mr Rudin's efforts are clearly designed to pervert the truth rather than to fairly and objectively report it.
I would suggest that Mr Rudin is in breach of the BBC Charter and does nothing to enhance the reputation for integrity at the BBC, on the contrary, his reportage is more akin to deliberate propaganda.
I urge the Trust to meet with the representatives who seek to address this editorial bias within the BBC.
Yours sincerely
Mark Gobell
Link _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
I forwarded my BBC email vis Rudin to Dr Neils Harrit suggesting he write to them too:
Here's his reply:
Quote:
Hi Mark
Wonderful!!
Great reading.
Unfortunately, our thoughts these days are totally zoomed in on our own National Danish Radio, where we have an infight going with the board and top CEOs.
By a blunder, they admitted that they did not have any proof of al-Queda's guilt - and the trap snapped.
I simply do not have the time as I give priority to our local front.
It seems a sign-of-the-times, that it is ripe for parallel campaigns in both our countries.
Please, send our regards and thanks to everyone in your squadron.
Niels
I like the use of "squadron" lots ...
I was heartily pleased when watching the video to hear Dr Harrit's logic vis Ambassador Frank X Taylor's presentation to the NATO Atlantic Council prior to the commencement of the doublespeak bombing campaign of Afghanistan on 7th Oct 2001 called "Operation Enduring Freedom".
His logic, allied to that provided by Dr Ray Griffin in his essay, is that the evidence for OBL's guilt in the 9/11 crime is still classified.
I have been following the exact same course in my efforts here on The Guardian's CIF (Comment is Free) section.
Bringing to the attention of The Guardian's readers that the evidence presented by Frank Taylor that persuaded Robertson to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty is still classified and will remain so for 30 years.
I have emails here from the UK Ministry of Defence who said that they do not have a copy of Frank Taylor's presentation, and suggested I contact the Foreign Office (UK Gov). The Foreign Office also said no and suggest I contact NATO. NATO said I couldn't see it for 30 years. I received an acknowledgement of my FOI request to the US State Department but no further responses. I have all the emails here.
My tactic to the naysayers after providing evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is deeply flawed, has been disowned by both of it's co-chairs and many of it's officers and uses "confessional evidence" from KSM extracted by torture, is therefore:
Quote:
"If the evidence that so convinced Lord Robertson & NATO was strong enough to go to war, surely it was strong enough to persuade the Taliban to hand OBL over as they had offered three times and thereby secure the peace."
and
"If the evidence is still classified then how are you convinced of OBL's guilt in the 9/11 crime, given that nobody in the outside world has even seen it ?"
It works quite well I've found ...
. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Last edited by Mark Gobell on Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:55 pm; edited 12 times in total
I have read that the BBC has received a number of complaints recently about the biased and inaccurate coverage of 9/11 which seems to be in breach of the BBC’s Royal Charter. The individuals, including Paul Warburton, who have made these complaints are requesting the opportunity to meet with the Editorial Standards Committee to discuss these issues. I fully support the very valid issues that they have raised and I believe the BBC Trust should agree to meet with them and discuss their concerns.
I will add that I am disgusted with the way in which the Neils Harrit/ Mike Rudin interview has been carried out, very reminiscent of an interrogation in which the interrogator tries to psychologically crack a defendant.
In short I have long lost my Trust in the institution.
Yours sincerely
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
BBC Trustees
Editorial Standards Committee
180 Great Portland Street
London W1W 5QZ
ref CT 1200078
Dear BBC Trust
I have read that the BBC has received a number of complaints recently about the biased and inaccurate coverage of 9/11 which seems to be in breach of the BBC’s Royal Charter.
I have written several times directly to the BBC about unfair coverage by the BBC, particularly by Mike Rudin who took over dealing with 9/11 issues from Richard Porter after he controversially changed a BBC web page over the the fact that the BBC initially identified some of the supposed 9/11 hijackers as still being alive.
There are many other mysteries where the BBC was intimately involved with telling or retelling the official story of 9/11 which were covered by TV "Conspiracy" documentaries and blogs fronted by Mike Rudin. I have participated in many of these blogs written by Mr Rudin.
Mr Rudin starts off portraying himself as a victim, when in fact he actually cannot really defend his arguments in support of the official 9/11 story. There was over 5000 comments to this blog and the official story supporters could not in any of their posts come with a single piece of convincing evidence to support the official story. Yet there are hundreds of real facts that dispute the official story leading to the conclusion that indeed there is something fundamentally wrong and not being discussed adequately.
The errors in the official account of the skyscraper collapses is supported by 1600+ named architects and engineers who are willing to put their professional reputation on the line at www.ae911truth.org . As well as tens of thousands of other thoughtful people including firemen, military staff, ex-secret service staff, scientists, broadcasters, actors and artists, even some politicians, that are standing up and saying the official story does not make sense.
They base their assessment on real evidence: office fires do not melt (or soften steel), if the building did collapse it would do so unevenly and not blow up - like what we saw with the twin towers - and WTC7 falling in freefall, there would not be molten steel leaking from the sides of the building (clearly observable), or found afterwards at GZ and evidenced by official dust and metal surveys. Independent scientists (For example, Prof Neil Harrit) have established military grade nano-material-based explosives within the dust (nanothermite) and this is independently verified by medical surveys of GZ workers who have found to have nano-materials in their lungs.
Explosives would also explain the many thousand of bone fragments and indeed numerous missing bodies from the event. A quarter of all the people that died that day do not have any remains recovered at all.
There are many other fact-based reasons to suspect foul play beyond those above which seem to be only explained coherently by a planned "New Pearl Harbor".
I understand that Paul Warburton, has made similar complaints about BBC editorial bias and is requesting the opportunity to meet with the Editorial Standards Committee. I believe the BBC Trust should agree to meet with him and his their concerns.
I have read that the BBC has received a number of complaints recently about the biased and inaccurate coverage of 9/11 which seems to be in breach of the BBC’s Royal Charter. The individuals, including Paul Warburton, who have made these complaints are requesting the opportunity to meet with the Editorial Standards Committee to discuss these issues. I fully support the very valid issues that they have raised and I believe the BBC Trust should agree to meet with them and discuss their concerns.
I am very distressed by all of this.
I am particularly distressed by all of the mockery of 911 dissenters that is encouraged within the humourous and dramatic fields I have noticed over the years.
The result is ostracism for dissenters. Not nice. Very wearing indeed I assure you.
I can hardly write about it at all, it cause me much grief, angina, nausea and dislocation to feel so betrayed by your institution. Most frightening is to hear truth campaigners referred to amongst a generality of dangerous activists.
Yours sincerely
Sent.
Just now. I'm sorry. I'm always bloody late. That's the truth of it. A bit slow. Worried about the long term repercussions too.
Scaredy cat.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:27 pm Post subject:
Aye me a bit late also.. My offering
Dear BBC Trust
I have read that the BBC has received a number of complaints recently about the biased and inaccurate coverage of 9/11 which seems to be in breach of the BBC’s Royal Charter. The individuals, including Paul Warburton, who have made these complaints are requesting the opportunity to meet with the Editorial Standards Committee to discuss these issues. I fully support the very valid issues that they have raised and I believe the BBC Trust should agree to meet with them and discuss their concerns.
As a former member of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and with some knowledge in fire protection of steel framed structures I do find it rather unfair that in all of the coverage concerning 9/11 I have yet to see the testimonies of the brave US firefighters who actually witnessed the presence of molten steel during the clear up process. This starkly contradicts the US National Institute of Standards and Technology response that there was no evidence for molten steel. This piece of evidence is highly significant because normal office fires cannot melt steel and as has been evidenced by others this melting of steel along with the manner of collapse was most likely due to some form of explosive materials commonly used within the Demolition Industry. I prefer to listen to the testimonies of firefighters amidst the rubble rather than some scientist stuck in an office.
yours sincerely _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Urgent responses needed to BBC proposals to
"Blacklist any complainant based on subjective and ill-defined criteria. This criteria includes 'misconceived', 'repetitious' or 'otherwise vexatious' complaints."
Consultation closes this Monday.
Quote:
The BBC has put forward proposals which could, potentially, block supporters of Palestine from making complaints about its coverage of the occupation.
In a document currently out for consultation, the BBC proposes to:
Blacklist any complainant based on subjective and ill-defined criteria. This criteria includes 'misconceived', 'repetitious' or 'otherwise vexatious' complaints.
It also includes complainants who complain regularly but are judged by the BBC to 'have no reasonable prospect of success'. As the BBC acts as judge and jury on any complaints made against it, this is a particularly contradictory situation
Anyone whom the BBC deems to fit the above criteria could find themselves locked out of the complaints process for a period of up to two years, with the BBC ignoring all complaints from this person.
This is a profoundly undemocratic move and will give the organisation total control over whose opinions it is willing to listen to and whose concerns it chooses to ignore. It is a huge step towards the total censorship of voices the BBC does not want to hear, and further removes it from the scrutiny and accountability of licence-fee payers.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
