|
Lady Di, Martin Bashir, and the BBC. Are we bothered?
|
The woman was a pain in the butt when she was alive and now her son and her ghost have picked up the torch.
Imagine a publicity hound dying to prevent someone to take her picture.
Kind of sums it up.
|
It was all 25+ years ago.
She wanted to get her side out; it was a competition for who got the gig rather than a scoop won by investigative legwork.
Bashir was, it turned out, a rogue employee prepared to break the rules to get the gig.
When he was rumbled the BBC brass were insufficiently curious and he got off the hook. They were more bothered about their own reputation with a Tory Government that was instinctively anti BBC.
Came back to light via her Brother.
The Dyson report is here: downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/reports/dyson-report-20-may-21.pdf I'm still working my way through it but it's clear Lord Dyson took a dim view of Bashir.
All sorts like Charles Moore and that Wilson bloke are using it to beat the BBC. I suspect the government will too but it was all 25+ years ago.
|
What a miserable life to be born into or to marry into when you're too young to understand the consequences.
I feel sorry for Harry, he is clearly unsuited to life as a royal and he is equally damned if he goes or he stays. I'm glad I'm a nobody.
|
>>he is clearly unsuited to life as a royal and he is equally damned if he goes or he stays.
For him, as for his Mother, that may well be true. But playing the media game is a choice.
|
>I feel sorry for Harry,..
I'm sick and tired of Harry.
The whinging little turd claims he wants privacy and then organises a televised bitching session with Opra. He claims he wants to step back from The Firm and then tries his best to cash-in on the "Sussex" title. Well, I've got a tip for him.
If you want privacy, STFU and keep your head down until you're no longer newsworthy.
|
>>Bashir was, it turned out, a rogue employee prepared to break the rules to get the gig.
I can't really get excited about Bashir's villainy, though I don't doubt it for a moment. He might have inappropriately got the gig for himself, but I'm sure she was going to give the interview to someone at some point.
|
>> I can't really get excited about Bashir's villainy, though I don't doubt it for a
>> moment. He might have inappropriately got the gig for himself, but I'm sure she was
>> going to give the interview to someone at some point.
Absolutely. If the villain wasn't Bashir it would have been another reporter/organisation.
The bit that might disturb is the extent to which his lies about Jephson/Aylard abetted Diana's paranoia and whether that influenced her behaviour in getting involved with Dodi Fayed and what that eventually led too.
|
>> The bit that might disturb is the extent to which his lies about Jephson/Aylard abetted Diana's
>> paranoia and whether that influenced her behaviour in getting involved with Dodi Fayed and
>> what that eventually led too.
Well, I kind of agree that there is responsibility for others, but I think that's going much further than I would. I tend to think that we should be prepared to show a standard level of responsibility for the impacts of our behaviour, but a standard level, not an infinitely variable level covering absolutely anything which might happen however out of the norm.
So toying with her paranoia, ok I think that's out of order. But tying that to Dodi Fayed and her eventual and ridiculous death further down the line is a step too far.
Let us remember, in a 24 hour period she went from using publicity to trying to out run photographs using a speeding limo and a drunk driver. That's pretty extreme and far too distant and out of the norm to expect out of public responsibility.
|
Listening to LBC yesterday I got the impression that the majority of presenters/callers expect there to be several prosecutions to follow with someone ending up doing jail time.
Also any callers expressing the views the same as here were quickly shot down.
|
>> Listening to LBC yesterday I got the impression that the majority of presenters/callers expect there
>> to be several prosecutions to follow with someone ending up doing jail time.
>>
>> Also any callers expressing the views the same as here were quickly shot down.
James O'Brian was really sounding off. I put it down to point scoring.
The fuss over this silly trivial business is ridiculous.
|
>> Listening to LBC yesterday I got the impression that the majority of presenters/callers expect there
>> to be several prosecutions to follow with someone ending up doing jail time.
Several people, including Earl Spencer as well vox pops on TV/Radio have suggested that Bashir, and maybe others, should face criminal charges and, by extension, be locked up.
It's difficult to see their being sufficient prima facie evidence of blackmail at all although fraud might just be possible.
The other difficulty will be proving the offence or whether prosecution is in the public interest. Bashir is understood to be in v poor health following a bad bout of Covid and that too may play into the equation.
|
>> So toying with her paranoia, ok I think that's out of order. But tying that
>> to Dodi Fayed and her eventual and ridiculous death further down the line is a
>> step too far.
I've no strong view either way. I didn't follow her life though her death was more difficult to avoid.
Prince William seems to make a connection.
Her former protection officer Ken Wharfe was on the radio this morning. He talked of her isolation and suspicion verging on paranoia of anything to do with her husband's family. This extended to refusing 'official' security and either tripping around alone or relying on other private provision, including that of the Fayeds.
I'm still working my way through Lord Dyson's report. So far he's very heavily favouring Earl Spencer; if anything new comes to light regarding the Earl's involvement it could be the report's Achilles Heel.
|
>> I didn't follow her life though her death was more difficult to avoid.
Me neither. In fact I was in a bar in Miami when reports of her death came up on a TV and that was about the extent of my awareness, I was far more interested in the company I was keeping.
But you made me think perhaps I should have paid a bit more attention so I read this...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales
Dear God, what a soap opera. I know it's Wikipedia but what an appalling disaster of a life.
Perhaps you're right and MB et al should take more of a slap than I had thought for manipulating a clearly disturbed/ill person.
As for sympathy for MB now because he is ill, wouldn't that reflect even more on the [lack of] sympathy he had for Diana when she was clearly not well?
|
|
Earl Spencer carries most of the responsibility, his care and guidance was appalling. And someone needs to slap him and show him how to spell the name of his estate (or how to pronounce it properly)
|
..and her parents, incl. stepmother.
I'd reserve staking to an anthill and being covered in treacle to that delight which is Paul Burrell. Nasty little man.
|
|
Oddly, I'd forgotten about him. When I briefly worked as an NHS driver, one of my delivery routes was to Farndon near Wrexham (or near Chester if you're posh) were Burrell has an antique shop, we'd occasionally see him standing outside it.
|
There are no redeeming individuals involved.
Diana - naive and foolish but wanted to be queen, then angry and bonking away from home, interview was purely manipulative, drunk driver no seatbelt (sad)
Charles - weak, never really wanted her in the first place, gave into family pressure, bonking Camilla
Bashir - fraudulent opportunist
The Lord - either dishonest or incompetent (or both)
Harry - clearly emotional issues following mum's death, should avoid the media unless he wants to be part of the circus, rather inadequate
Meghan - a bit like Diana - attention seeking with chip on shoulder, no wonder Harry married her
The only ones who emerge wirth some dignity are William and the Queen.
|
>>The only ones who emerge wirth some dignity are William and the Queen
Yes, I do rather admire the way that William is managing the situation now and The Queen then.
|
|
William would do better to keep his mouth shut and allow Harry to be the one who looks foolish.
|
>> William would do better to keep his mouth shut and allow Harry to be the
>> one who looks foolish.
I disagree. I thought this was excellent, well presented and heartfelt. I also think that was he said was genuine, valid and should be heeded.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/21/prince-william-as-personal-as-the-public-has-ever-seen-in-diana-remarks
If he had said nothing, then that too would have been seen as a message, and probably an inappropriate loosening of the noose.
Far better than his knuckle head brother has managed.
|
"Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said the inquiry's "devastating" findings into the "unfounded and wrong" actions of senior figures at the BBC meant the government would have to consider whether the corporation's governance should be reformed."
Oh I do hope so.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 23 May 21 at 02:13
|
>> Oddly, I'd forgotten about him. When I briefly worked as an NHS driver, one of
>> my delivery routes was to Farndon near Wrexham (or near Chester if you're posh) were
>> Burrell has an antique shop, we'd occasionally see him standing outside it.
My daughter's in laws are at Gresford. We've been by Burrell's shop a few times while visting.
|
Having watched the recent Panorama on this, it was clearly some mixture of
scandalous cover up
incompetence
negligence
in BBC management following the actions of a dishonest journalist (Bashir).
The whistle was blown by more than one person and the final blocker seems to have been Tony Hall.
I don't think it's about the governance structure it's about dishonesty by individuals, and it's very unfortunate timing, coming when there is every sign that the government seems to want to control the BBC which remains probably the most honest news broker in the world, although this wasn't specifically about news.
|
>> Having watched the recent Panorama on this, it was clearly some mixture of
>> scandalous cover up
>> incompetence
>> negligence
>> in BBC management following the actions of a dishonest journalist (Bashir).
However, in the grand scheme of things, it was all of little or no consequence.
|
>> However, in the grand scheme of things, it was all of little or no consequence.
Diana-wise, yes. Didn't Max Hastings say he'd interviewed her a year earlier and she had said much the same things?
It's about trust in the BBC, maybe even the survival of the BBC in anything like its present form.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 23 May 21 at 10:54
|
>> This is actually horrendous.
>>
>> www.bbc.com/news/uk-56680229
>>
Agree.
I wonder if it can be considered criminal? We would certainly refer altered bank statements to the police if they were being used as part of a loan application.
Fraud by false representation.
Just shows that even venerable institutions cannot always be trusted.
|
Interesting what it says about rivalries within the Panorama team and also about the approach of the Mail on Sunday when it thought it was onto the story.
I'm adding 'Journalistic Ethics' to my collection of oxymorons.
|
|
According to the Telegraph today, "Martin Bashir has not been sacked by the BBC and is still being paid".
|
>> According to the Telegraph today, "Martin Bashir has not been sacked by the BBC and
>> is still being paid".
As I understand it he's resigned and will presumably be serving his notice on gardening leave. Given he jumped to avoid being pushed I doubt that trying to sanction him now would be practical.
He's now 58 so, assuming the BBC pension age is the usual public sector figure of 60, he'll get a pension in January 2023. He can probably claim it now if he accepts an actuarial reduction.
|
And the Telegraph also goes on to explain....
"Davie [Current DG] told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4: “Martin Bashir offered his resignation prior to us seeing the Dyson report. I think there were three reasons why I accepted the resignation.
“The first was there were very significant medical care issues, which, you know, in terms of Martin Bashir as a staff member, regardless of all the situation around it, is a factor.
“The second is it allowed a clean break with no pay-off, which I thought was in the licence fee-payers’ interest to make sure that there was a clean process.
“The third was there was no restraint in us getting to the truth. This was not an honourable discharge.”"
|
>>
>> I'm adding 'Journalistic Ethics' to my collection of oxymorons.
>>
I think you're a couple of hundred years late?
:-)
|
Will anyone believe the BBC when they say:
- we've thoroughly investigated
- the bad apples have all been exorcised
- it's all history
- the BBC has changed
FWIW - I won't. The issue will be different, but the bahaviours remain the same.
|
>> FWIW - I won't. The issue will be different, but the bahaviours remain the same.
How would you know that?
Do you meant the behaviour of reporters or the management and supervisory set up?
It's pretty clear that Bashir's behaviour was egregiously repugnant but that, having aired the scoop of the century the relevant departments acted to protect their 'property' rather than allow it to be demolished.
There have been two restructures since the Diana interview and the earthquake following Lord Hutton's report too. It's now under the wing of Offcom.
I have an open mind but I cannot believe they would do the same thing again.
There may though be other historic 'crimes' to be exposed.
|
|
You talk as though it's an institutional pattern of behaviour Terry - I don't believe it is but I'd be happy to be corrected.
|
The Diana episode is not the first time the BBC have been found wanting in a major way.
All large complex organisations will do things that are occassionally ill-judged - including the BBC.
Examples of subsequent major failures:
- the Hutton enquiry lead to the resignation of Gavin Davies and Greg Dyke (director general)
- the disgusting antics of Jimmy Saville went unchallenged for decades
To assume all is now well and will be so in the future, I would judge, to be naive.
Last edited by: Terry on Tue 25 May 21 at 18:15
|
>> Examples of subsequent major failures:
>>
>> - the Hutton enquiry lead to the resignation of Gavin Davies and Greg Dyke (director
>> general)
>> - the disgusting antics of Jimmy Saville went unchallenged for decades
>>
>> To assume all is now well and will be so in the future, I would
>> judge, to be naive.
The Hutton Report led to significant change. Whether it was a whitewash is another question. The reaction in the Mail etc is is quite amusing because they could not compute whether to cheer on the criticism of the BBC or damn it as clearing another Bete Noir Alastair Campbell.
Savile was a national celebrity, charity working God and friend of Mrs Thatcher. You cannot blame his antics on the Corporation or certainly not the Corporation alone.
|
>>
>>
>> Savile was a national celebrity, charity working God and friend of Mrs Thatcher. You cannot
>> blame his antics on the Corporation or certainly not the Corporation alone.
>>
No, but everyone who mattered at the BBC knew full well about what he was up to. Johnny Rotten outed him in a BBC interview years before Savile died but the clip was canned. Skinner and Badiel made a Jimmy Savile type gesture during a reference to underage sex on one of their shows and when Children in Need was launched the program flatly refused to have Savile anywhere near it.
The BBC must carry most of the blame for what he was able to get away with for years.
|
At a senior level the BBC is not concerned with the truth or the welfare of anybody. It cares only about what it believes people should think and see and will admit only what it is forced to, sanctimoniously and self-righteously burying everything else convinced of it's own superior attitudes. The BBC believes it is a step above and is the only true guardian of morality and standards.
Journalists being journalists simply play the system, as they do anywhere.
That said, I think the BBC mostly does not lie. You just have to be very aware of the agendas and attitudes behind the presentation.
A PBS is very important, we just have one that isn't very good any more.
|
>> At a senior level the BBC is not concerned with the truth or the welfare
>> of anybody. It cares only about what it believes people should think and see and
>> will admit only what it is forced to, sanctimoniously and self-righteously burying everything else convinced
>> of it's own superior attitudes. The BBC believes it is a step above and is
>> the only true guardian of morality and standards.
The legacy of Reith lives on...... :-)
|
The ‘Reithian principles’—to inform, educate and entertain—are widely understood and recognised as a distillation of the BBC’s mission and as such are embedded in the BBC Royal Charter.
From 2006...
1.Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
2.Promoting education and learning;
3.Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
4.Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
5.Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
6.In promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services.
None of which seems to cover forging bank statements or harboring paedophiles.
|
|
Sounds a bit "band wagon-y".
|
>> Sounds a bit "band wagon-y".
MAybe but the 'Babes in the Wood' have been back in the news in the last week or so following the conviction of the perpetrator's then partner for perjury/perverting the course of justice.
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/R-v-Johnson-Sentencing-Remarks-UPDATED.pdf
The facts are set out in the judge's remarks; truly awful and with DNA advances at the centre of the inquiry.
|
Truly, truly awful and one cannot imagine the agony and pain that has gone on for many years.
However, I'm all for Bashir taking a slapping, but I'm not sure this is one of the sticks to use.
|
Di BBC & MB - No FM2R
