Latest Complaint to BBC

Justin · Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:08 am Post subject: Latest Complaint to BBC

Hi everyone,

I've just sent this to Helen Boaden at the BBC - let's see how she responds to this one. Something tells me that they must be squirming now.

andrewwatson · Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:50 pm Post subject:

Excellent post, and a good follow up to Andrew Johnson's brave letter.

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject:

I just spoke to Justin and am glad he sent this info to Helen Boaden - I didn't - but I did send it to a host of other mainstream media addresses, ready for them to disparage or ignore - or am I being too judgemental?!?

brian · Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject:

Well done Justin, Andrew has hopefully started a landslide.

An interesting couple of articles in Mondays Guardian Media which shows the concern being caused by bloggers. The inclusion of gatekeepers in the title speaks volumes.

Consumers show gatekeepers the door

Guardian, Monday March 20 2006
John Naughton
http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,1735152,00.html

We're all reporters in the digital democracy

Guardian, Monday March 20 2006
Emily Bell

- one of the most profound changes taking place in the mainstream media is the part played in it by the audience.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,1735153,00.html

Justin · Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: Reply from BBC

Not a very satisfactory reply from Helen Boaden - surely, as we are discussing the War on Terror all of the time, we have never been away from the key event that triggered it. My reply will be off soon - can I invite more of you to do the same

Justin · Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject: Response to Helen Boaden

My response has just gone. Her e-mail address, by the way, if you would like to back me up is:

HelenBoaden.Complaints@bbc.co.uk

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject:

Justin,

I was just about to post the response here. One thought I had is that they are either doing a co-ordinated semi-fobbing off, or they are starting to take us slightly more seriously - (i.e. the reference to passing the info on to researchers).

They have not replied to any specific points of evidence, so I am now going to post the matter to some legal forums for reaction there (and mainly to expose the issue anyway).

Cheers

Andrew

Justin · Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: Further letter to Helen Boaden

I just sent this as a direct follow up to my last:

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:16 am Post subject:

Justin,

I received a paper letter today, returning my ST-911 DVD I sent to them. It's basically another brush off, with only a slight amount of comment not being "swept aside". Will post here shortly. In the meantime, I sent her this in response to her last:
====

Dear Ms Boaden,

Thank you for your response to my recent message, and for passing my correspondence on to your Analysis and Research Department. I trust they will pursue the issues concerned with due care and vigour, especially in the light of a recent development which I know Justin Walker advised you of, and one which I sent to a number of media/news e-mail addresses.

Our Scholars group (www.st911.org) welcomes and, indeed, invites consultation and the process of research is an ongoing one. Following comments and information and links posted in our Scholars forum, I have composed 2 pages which should be of significant interest to your Analysis and Research department. They only take 3 or 4 minutes to review.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/LandmarkDemolition.htm

In the absence of an appropriate presentation by the BBC of any of this evidence, I am still exploring legal avenues so that the issue of impartiality can be properly and fairly reviewed and acted on, as I have previously stated.

Yours

Andrew Johnson

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:48 am Post subject:

This postal response came with the returned ST911 DVD I sent them. This is a terrible response, apart from the "circulation throughout the corporation" - but this is meaningless really.

Text is:

Our Ref 12684466
17 March 2006

Dear Mr Johnson

Thank you for your further correspondence concerning BBC News. Your letter was received by BBC Information on 2 March and I would like to apologise for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response, and it is a matter of regret to us that you have had to wait on this occasion.

I appreciate that you continue to hold strong views about the balance of the BBC's reporting of events on 9/11. However, I can only reiterate the comments made to you previously by my colleagues. The BBC has spent a significant amount of time covering these issues and has provided fair, factual and impartial reports.

Nevertheless, I will ensure your comments are once again registered for the benefit of BBC management and for circulation throughout the Corporation. Please also find enclosed the DVD which you sent with your letter.

Thank you once again for taking the time to contact the BBC.

Yours sincerely

Alison Duncan
BBC Information
Enc

Justin · Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject:

I've just receive this from David Icke who used to work with BBC News when he was a sports commentator:

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject:

Well, at least we have documented here that David Icke is right...

I am gonna pursue the impartiality angle anyway. We now have some reponses and letters to hopefully at least get others (along with the 9-11 evidence itself) engaged - but again it seems almost futile due to the corruption in the legal system and that a judgement will eventually be made by erm... ahem... a judge....

But should this discourage us?

I am gonna have a go

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject:

Am about to post this response:
===========
Ref: 12684466, Scholars for 911 Truth

Dear Ms Duncan,

Thank you for your response dated 17th March 2006. I am extremely disappointed with the tone and content of your response but, alas, not particularly surprised. The DVD I sent was meant for you to view and watch at your leisure. Its return makes me think you are not interested in studying any evidence or taking the issue seriously. Whatever coverage you have given the issue in the past is almost entirely irrelevant. “News” by definition is “new stories” – which is what I have been advising you of. Again, I am extremely disappointed at the simplistic level at which your response was pitched.
I will therefore just say that if you decide to correct this serious breach of impartiality, which I have documented carefully, I am available for interview or comment, usually at short notice, or I can probably contact the founder members of Scholars for 911 Truth, should you wish to interview them.

If you don’t change your mind, then you can expect the record of communications I have kept to be used in the legal case which I will now be pursuing with some energy and with the resources and time I have available. Your attitude and action now seems to indicate this is the only redress I have to progress this matter in the right direction.

It may take some time, but I can assure you the BBC will be focusing attention on this matter in the manner it deserves, as I have already said. The group of people I am part of, and other people who share our position, will not be marginalized, ignored or brushed aside by another group of people who choose to ignore evidence and make sweeping generalised statements based on past history and baseless opinions.

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Johnson

Justin · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:38 am Post subject:

Andrew, your response is spot on - let's see what the reply is.

Justin

Justin · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:55 am Post subject:

Hi all,

Poor Helen Boaden, but I've sent this to keep the pressure up:

andrewwatson · Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:13 am Post subject:

Justin and Andrew,

Helen Boaden has another email to read this morning - from me.

I will post the reply.

andrewwatson

After reading all your excellent letters , Helen Boaden, who may in fact be merely one of the numerous 'researchers' in the Corporation, appears to have only a tenuous grasp of the reality of the subject she is writing about.

Dear Andrew Lowe Watson,

Thanks for your email.

For several months we have had an
experienced producer investigating these issues. He is well aware of
all the angles that you have raised and has viewed the DVDs that have
been produced in support of the claims made by you and your
colleagues. He has also, incidentally, spoken to a
(non-European/non-US journalist) source who was in the Pentagon at
the time that building was hit who has confirmed, categorically, that
a plane (as alleged by the US
authorities) caused the devastation there. Investigations continue.

As you will appreciate, our organisation receives many suggestions for

story coverage and is also asked to look into very many allegations of

the most serious nature. It is not responsible journalism, nor is it
even possible, to report every call for every inquiry made by every
individual, whether a celebrity or not, about issues where credible
evidence is hard or even impossible to verify. But please be assured
that the BBC strives to report impartially in order to bring
evidence-based journalism to our audiences.

In addition, you may be interested in reading the transcript from from
last night's Ten O'Clock News about the trial of Zacarius Moussaoui,
accused in connection with 9/11:

GAVIN HEWITT
"Zacarias Moussaoui, the only man accused in connection with the 9/11
attacks, arrived in court today in Virginia. For the first time he took
the witness stand in his own defence and what he had to say stunned the
courtroom, including revealing a British link to the plot. Moussaoui
said that he knew that the Twin Towers in Manhattan were to be hit. But
he didn't know the detail.
He was arrested the month before. But he told the court today that he
had bought a radio in prison so he could listen to the attacks.

AMERICAN REPORTER
It's just collapsed, we don't know who was inside.

HEWITT
On September 11th, four planes were
hijacked, two were flown into the Twin
Towers, one into the Pentagon, and the
fourth crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.
Moussaoui admitted today that he was
supposed to fly a fifth plane. Then his own defence lawyer asked him
whether he had been a part of the September 11th plot.
'Yes', Moussaoui replied, 'I was supposed to pilot a plane to hit the
White House'. His lawyer then asked him 'Who told him to fly the plane
into the Presidential mansion?', 'Osama Bin Laden' Moussaoui replied
quietly. Then unexpectedly he revealed a British connection to the
attacks: 'One other of my crew was Richard Reid' said Moussaoui. Richard
Reid was a British militant, who later became known as the shoe bomber.
Three months after 9/11 he was detained in the United States having
tried to detonate a bomb in his shoe on a TransAtlantic flight. It had
been known that Moussaoui had visited Britain and attended the Finsbury
Park Mosque. Only today was it suggested that Richard Reid, a British
citizen, was involved in the September 11th plot. In this court house
today Zacarias Moussaoui appeared calm, as he said he had rejoiced at
the attacks which killed 3,000 people. He faces the death penalty if
found guilty."

Yours sincerely,

Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News

My reply:

Dear Helen Boaden Complaints,

Thank you for your reply.

For several months we have had an

experienced producer investigating these issues. He is well aware of
all the angles that you have raised and has viewed the DVDs that have
been produced in support of the claims made by you and your
colleagues.

Great! What is his conclusion?

He has also, incidentally, spoken to a
(non-European/non-US journalist) source who was in the Pentagon at
the time that building was hit who has confirmed, categorically, that
a plane (as alleged by the US
authorities) caused the devastation there.

Does he consider this one source to be sufficient evidence? I would be more impressed if the government released the footage from the surveillance cameras that they confiscated before anyone could look at it. What does that show, do you think? A Boeing 757? Then why not release it?

Investigations continue.

Good.

As you will appreciate, our organisation receives many suggestions for

story coverage and is also asked to look into very many allegations o

the most serious nature. It is not responsible journalism, nor is it
even possible, to report every call for every inquiry made by every
individual, whether a celebrity or not, about issues where credible
evidence is hard or even impossible to verify.

you know surely that he is only the latest in a long line of leading public figures. to question the official story.
But please be assured
that the BBC strives to report impartially in order to bring
evidence-based journalism to our audiences.

Such as this?

http://www.team-terror.net/mike/wtc-7.gif

Yours sincerely

Andrew Lowe Watson

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject:

Andrew,

Good work - I also had the same response from her and sent her the following:

====
Dear Ms Boaden,

Thanks for the comments you forwarded - it seems we have got your attention. I read the comments (unattributed). This in no way addresses the issues I raised. Whomever wrote it simply has a different view of what "responsible journalism" is to those of us in the 9/11 Truth movement. The trial of Moussaoui is at best a mis-direction and at worst is a travesty and a set-up. I found an interesting quote from the Judge in the case - "In all the years I've been on the bench, I have never seen such an egregious violation of a rule on witnesses," and described the situation as a "significant error by the government affecting the . . . integrity of the criminal justice system of the United States in the context of a death case." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui). I wonder if the BBC reported that one.

The comments you forwarded make no specific reference to any of the 9/11 evidence I raise, such as what happened to WTC7 and the likely use of Thermite in the demolition of WTC 1 & 2 (and the comments are therefore largely irrelevant to what I said). Neither do they address the formation of our Scholar's Group - which is easy for anyone to check out. The formation of this group deserves a 20-minute bulletin (at least) on Newsnight. One of the key issues is whether you agree with the Scholar's Press Release(s) or not, or the evidence we present, you must cover it - because you are supposed to be impartial. (Additionally, of course I wouldn't expect news teams to cover a story about "my pet newt" just because I told them it was important.)

As you will therefore appreciate, the response you sent in no way satisfies the issues that I/we have raised, which means I will continue to investigate getting legal assistance over the issue of the BBC's serious breach of its own charter on impartiality. As I said before, the only way to stop this will be to make a broadcast.

In my view, it is now time to decide whether one serves the needs of one's job and institution/organisation one works for, or whether you look at the plain truth and decide how you might address it. (This truth, in elements of the evidence I mentioned above, is based on 300-year old laws of physics, so it is easy to substantiate it).

As we in the 9/11 Truth movement see it, there isn't a lot of time to make a decision - especially as the pressure seems to be increasing for more and more security measures as well as the state giving itself more unchecked power through the LLR bill. We have seen the writing on the wall, most of the media (including the BBC) seem to be saying (at least in regular bulletins) "Nothing to see here, folks!". Weren't you shocked, a while ago, when someone was actually arrested for reading out a list of names of dead people? I was. What, indeed, has this country come to?

Thanks for contacting me and for reading this message.

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Johnson
Scholars For 9-11 Truth (www.st911.org)
British 9-11 Truth Campaign (www.nineeleven.co.uk)

Justin · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject:

Well done to you both. I'm sleeping on my response for Helen Boaden - watch out for it tomorrow!

Justin

andrewwatson · Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject:

Excellent as always, Andrew.

I find it rather worrying that the Head of News for the British Broadcasting Corporation, a name which once (rightly or wrongly) stood the world over for integrity and quality, should have only the sketchiest grasp of the facts in this, one of the key stories of the modern age, and what is worse should be prepared to accept as evidence that which is merely uncorroborated hearsay.

Justin · Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:13 am Post subject:

I had a good night's sleep - well five hours as I stayed up to listen to Alex Jones on Talksport. Here's my latest response to Helen:

is · Minor Poster Joined: 31 Mar 2006 Posts: 43

Like you guys, i have definately smelt a brushing aside of the recent events concerning the revealing of the 9/11 truth in the american media and being completely IGNORED by the british media, apart from Hyde at the guardian, who, of course, hasnt helped a thing.

One thing that I think they cannot justify ignoring, though, is the cnn online poll, put forth on showbiz tonight, which has showed that 84% of 50,000 americans thought 9/11 to be a cover up.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28321

That is huge. It matters for something, regardless of what you make of the conspiricy theory. And there is absolutley no good reason for the BBC not to make a mention of it anywhere.

It is very very worrying that this momentous statistic is being COMPLETELY ignored by the mainstream media. Do a search on google news. Only finge/alternative sites have covered the very important fact that a huge number of people believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I cant even find a reference of it on CNN/Showbiz tonight website (I hope someone can prove me wrong, and show me an actual link which proves that these people did take part in this survey)

There has definately been a cover up. If this Helen woman should answer anything, it should be why this statistic has not, at least, been referenced or mentioned by the BBC.

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject:

In response to the letter I received from Alison Duncan (where my ST911 DVD was returned), I posted this response (mail again). I then received another postal response as shown below.
====
Ref: 12684466, Scholars for 911 Truth

Dear Ms Duncan,

Thank you for your response dated 17th March 2006. I am extremely disappointed with the tone and content of your response but, alas, not particularly surprised. The DVD I sent was meant for you to view and watch at your leisure. Its return makes me think you are not interested in studying any evidence or taking the issue seriously. Whatever coverage you have given the issue in the past is almost entirely irrelevant. “News” by definition is “new stories” – which is what I have been advising you of. Again, I am extremely disappointed at the simplistic level at which your response was pitched.

I will therefore just say that if you decide to correct this serious breach of impartiality, which I have documented carefully, I am available for interview or comment, usually at short notice, or I can probably contact the founder members of Scholars for 911 Truth, should you wish to interview them.

If you don’t change your mind, then you can expect the record of communications I have kept to be used in the legal case which I will now be pursuing with some energy and with the resources and time I have available. Your attitude and action now seems to indicate this is the only redress I have to progress this matter in the right direction.

It may take some time, but I can assure you the BBC will be focusing attention on this matter in the manner it deserves, as I have already said. The group of people I am part of, and other people who share our position, will not be marginalized, ignored or brushed aside by another group of people who choose to ignore evidence and make sweeping generalised statements based on past history and baseless opinions.

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Johnson

Member of Scholars For 911 Truth
www.st911.org

======================
Response:

andrewwatson · Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:03 pm Post subject:

Andrew - I am trying to think how we can best help your battering-ram attack on fortress BBC. I suppose there are two ways: by adding our voices and increasing the pressure, or by attacking on another front. In this case it is not boiling oil they are pouring on us but soft slimy soap.

hampton · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:10 am Post subject: protest outside bbc

we must protest outside bbc/media buildings.

see how quick the police turn up.

the bbc has mentioned "911 conspiracy theories held by a very few people" after the latest release of pentagon video. this was on 10 o'clock news + news 24 i think, but not on newsnight.

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Campaigning	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1