Did the BBC Lie?

[otex]

It certainly seems so

bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/ bit.ly/2bx7v0b

Did the bear shit in the woods?

'Did' sounds like it happened only once.

Maybe I should have called the thread "Did BBC personnel collude in the fabrication of an atrocity, using actors/volunteers and UK military injury simulation techniques, which was then broadcast on the night of the 29 August 2013 UK Commons vote on Syrian intervention, in order to sway public opinion in favour of bombing Damascus" - I think that's only happened once.

For me, it's the total fabrication of the hospital scenes (see from 30:38 here vimeo.com/140567469) which marks this out as historically unique.

Sounds like conspira-bollocks to me. What vested interest did the BBC have in bombing?

'What vested interest did the BBC have in bombing?'

Establishment policy was to push for bombing. BBC pops up with reports at times of important votes.

Rebels were losing. Bombing would have turned the tide, set Assad back and would have helped the Jihadis.

Just the BBC? Not the other channels?

The other channels are usually the same, but the BBC is by far the most important and prestigious channel which is believed to be impartial by the majority of the public, therefore BBC reports are the ones that have most clout whenever an imortant vote is about to take place.

If Farage is about to do well in an election, BBC report pops up to slow him down. If Trump is about to win, BBC has something about Hitler, the 1930s and Trump. Same old.

I'm sorry Claig but you don't have spout a load of conspiracy nonsense.

*half

The BBC is the state broadcaster and as such is liable to be subverted by the security services as and when necessary. *

If you take the time to watch the presentation and read the links above you will see there is, to say the very least, something seriously wrong with Ian Pannell's report.

Furthermore, it appears that one of the actor/volunteers has inadvertently identified herself:
bit.ly/1tFth3F
bit.ly/1O5l4O1

• Seumas Milne, Labour's Executive Director of Strategy and Communications, has written:

"There is no point in romanticizing a BBC golden age. The corporation was always an establishment institution, deeply embedded in the security state and subject to direct government control in an emergency…[with] around 40 percent of the staff… vetted by MI5."

www.theguardian.com/books/2015/feb/27/seumas-milne-on-pinkoes-and-traitors-by-jean-seaton-review-my-father-the-bbc-and-a-very-british-coup

Do you mean that they report on what Trump and Farage have actually said?

'Do you mean that they report on what Trump and Farage have actually said?'

No because that would help Farage and Trump to win an election. The purpose of their reports is the exact opposite.

Of course as a state funded institution it is subject to government control in an emergency. You know, like during the Second World War. Not for every vote the government might lose. The clue is in the fact that whoever is in government complains the BBC is too far the other way to them. Individual problems have had issues but this is a load of tosh akin to Kubrick directing the moon landings.

Claig - it wouldn't. Unless you believe everyone is a misogynistic, homophobic racist.

'Not for every vote the government might lose'

Of course not for every vote such as the pasty tax. But when it comes to war and military strikes, then the BBC follows Establishment policy which is a necessary thing in wars like World War II etc

But Syria isn't comparable to that by a long shot. The BBC employs people who disagreed with this policy.
Farage and Trump don't need any help looking ridiculous by the way. Although at least Farage is intelligent (just repugnant). Trump is just a fool who would have been better off if he'd done nothing with his money.

'But Syria isn't comparable to that by a long shot. The BBC employs people who disagreed with this policy.'

Of course Syria isn't compaprable. Yes, the BBC employees people who disagreed with the policy, just as the House of Commons contained MPs who disagreed with the policy and in the end Cameron lost the vote and we didn't carry out bombing.

So what would be the point of the BBC doing this? This isn't like the Elizabethan era where you commission a performance of a Shakespeare play at the Globe as a signal for your coup.

Have you watched the presentation, Dr Donna? Nothing in there ring any alarm bells, such as the wide discrepancy in accounts of when the incident is supposed to have happened? bit.ly/1k7Q6KU

Also note the links between the "charity" showcased in the report, Hand in Hand for Syria, and the Syrian opposition. The father of one of the Hand in Hand doctors featured in the report, Dr Rola Hallam, is "involved politically" with the opposition Syrian National Council, and the brother of the head of the hospital featured has been photographed bristling with weapons:
off-guardian.org/2016/08/09/hand-in-hand-for-propaganda/
bit.ly/29Kb65r

As for the other British doctor in the report, Saleyha Ahsan - star of BBC1's Trust Me I'm A Doctor, no less - she doesn't seem able to get her story straight:
t.co/aDhDYk04j2
bit.ly/29Kb65r

'So what would be the point of the BBC doing this?'

My guess is that if a government wants to carry out a military strike, a lot of thought will have gone into it first and a lot of important people will have agreed it and bigwigs from around the world will be in agreement etc and therefore they don't want some newly elected MP who has just scraped into office in a by-election somewhere in the sticks who hasn't got a clue about anything except how to fill in an expense form, to mess things up and vote against what everybody important has already agreed. Then up pops the BBC with a timely report so that the newly elected MP is well informed on the matter.

'Also note the links between the "charity" showcased in the report'

I haven't watched it, but I am not surprised that the word 'charity' pops up.

'As for the other British doctor in the report, Saleyha Ahsan - star of BBC1's Trust Me I'm A Doctor, no less'

Are you having a laugh?

Note that the initial report of 29/8/13 was broadcast on the BBC 10 O'clock News, as MPs were voting. The Telegraph’s live reporting of the evening’s events notes (between 22:15 and 22:30):

"As MPs vote, the BBC is playing a report into a horrific incendiary weapon strike on a school near Alleppo. Many children have been badly burnt."
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10275441/Syria-conflict-and-Commons-vote-as-it-happened.html

If it was a propaganda fabrication then the primary target was therefore presumably the viewing public rather than MPs.

The BBC are a biased news source. All sources are biased to an extent, of course, but the BBC isn't even the least biased.

Yes, of course they lied.

One would hope the MP was in the commons not watching the BBC. They have people whose job it is to make MPs tow the party line (far more efficient than making a fake documentary).
The BBC is a news source with a variety of biases (not all of their news and current affairs team think the same way you know). There is far more editorial diversity at the BBC than at most of the country's newspapers.