Prince Harry not to serve in Iraq

The BBC News website is reporting that Prince Harry will not be serving in Iraq after all. The website claims that sources close to the BBC have indicated that the British General Sir Richard Dannatt has confirmed the decision not to send the prince into battle.

According to Paul Adams, who is one of the BBC's defence correspondents, the decision will have been made in light of the reports that insurgents had planned to target the Prince.

Now is it only me or does this not state the obvious? Of course the Prince would be targeted! Just like every other soldier who wears the British uniform.

If this story turns out to be true then, like the Prince probably would be himself, I would be disgusted. How can we send our soldiers into harms way then not afford the same 'privilege' to the Prince, who is a serving soldier?

This level of duplicity once again shows that when it comes to decisions such as these, our country's leadership seems to lack backbone. We dither and lack the common sense to follow through the actions which are needed as consequence of earlier decisions.

One in, all in. One out, all out. Thats what I would say and what kind of message does this send to families of those who have been killed in Iraq. For that matter, what kind of message does this send to families of those who are yet to be killed in Iraq also?

Why don't we send Tony Blair instead? I believe he's free after June the 27th.

Duplicity?

It seems the Iraqi authorities are trying to find out who recorded the execution of Saddam Hussein on a mobile phone before posting it online. 'Amazingly' it appears that the actual footage of his execution is causing 'tension' in the country.



When the authorities released a muted version which fails to tell the whole story, they hoped it would make everyone think that Saddam's execution was somehow a dignified affair, maybe even graceful. The ex-President accepting his lot and finally bowing out while the USA look on with glee. Instead, the actuality of his execution shows that no matter how deplorable he was: nothing appears to have changed.



The death penalty is savage and inhumane and even if Saddam was 'hung by his own petard' (he built those gallows), no one should be fooled into thinking that there are not stll bloodthirsty individuals running Iraq.



Then, right on cue, to comment on this state-sanctioned-killing, steps the UK heavyweight, deputy PM 'two-jabs' Prescott, who (in between state sanctioned croquet) has this to say...



In a BBC interview, UK Deputy Prime Minister John
Prescott called it "deplorable" and "totally unacceptable" that video
clips of the execution had surfaced on the internet.

Mr Prescott is in charge while Prime Minister Tony Blair is on holiday.

"I think the manner was quite deplorable really," he
said. "I don't think one can endorse in any way that, whatever your
views about capital punishment.

"Frankly, to get the kind of recorded messages coming
out is totally unacceptable, and I think whoever was involved and
responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves."





Tut tut!!! it appears that Mr Prescott's concern does not center on the act itself, rather the recording of it! Am I the only person to feel slightly disgusted at this level of duplicity? How can we ever hope to encourage democracy around the world when really we are only operating superficially at best? We say one thing yet do another.



Sure I can write a blog and protest 'electronically' but my country and its leaders really do need to either keep quiet on this issue or be very careful what they are saying... How about this...



"I'm really disgusted with what this person has done. Its unacceptable that a state-sanctioned-murder was recorded and shown publicly.



We wanted Saddam dead (although officially we cant say that), and we hoped that the matter would disappear from the international conscience, once the tamed down version of Saddam's murder had been released. We had a suspicion that it may cause a few hundred deaths, but we thought it was a price worth paying. but now the truth is out?...



Its disgusting that someone recorded this event of brutality and then had the cheek to actually show everyday people what a shambolic, debased act it actually was... Shame on them! They will have blood on their hands!"



... My advice in this situation? Maybe Saddam should not have been killed in the first place?

powered by performancing firefox

The BBC comment of their coverage of Saddam's execution

The BBC have made public, the reasoning behind their recent broadcasts concerning the execution of Saddam Hussein.

This post by Kevin Backhurst who is the controller for BBC News 24, explains what the BBC decided to show and why.

The tightrope for any state broadcaster is very narrow to tread. The Corporation's mandate is to record and report events from around the world, but this must be done appropriately. Any BBC Journalist in NCA must follow editorial policy. It outlines how news events should be reported. In most cases the rules are easy to follow but in some cases, the lines become blurry. So what is appropriate or inappropriate?

This is a very complex issue with pro's and cons (see my last post regarding media coverage), censoring any news item for whatever reason can either damage accuracy or even misrepresent events or individuals.

Previously I pointed out that when governments or authorities censor news, we may be forgiven for being a little skeptical as to why but when the censoring is applied by the broadcaster and not faceless men in grey suits, it becomes a whole different issue.

What if the news wasn't 'sanitised' or cut? What if it was shown, warts and all? We may connect more powerfully with what's happening. For example, over 75% of Americans support capital punishment, but I wonder if the figure would quite as high if they were televised? Once we see events in full or once we see the uncut aftermath. It can be particularly powerful.

Now were back to that fine line. If we did show the real carnage of war or suicide bombings, we would upset many people. How would bereaved relatives feel? How would we feel?

I think a case could be made for a more 'hardcore' news but I'm not sure how it should be made or by whom. Millions of 'non-newsy' viewers will have tuned in to see the recent footage from Iraq, but the modus-operandi for news organisations should never be sensationalism or macabre-ism, even if these would pull in the most viewers.

____________________________________

Firstly, may I congratulate the BBC on providing tasteful, decent yet comprehensive coverage of Saddam's execution.

These are incredibly delicate days at the moment. The way in which the worldwide media cover this issue could set the public mood in the region for the coming days and months.

The BBC have reported accurately and appropriately and as such, the editorial decisions taken have upheld the corporations reputation for authoritative reporting.

I posted on this blog earlier. I commented then, that the single stories in themselves, point to much wider issues in general. It's this 'bigger picture' which must be considered by the news editors as I personally think that the real questions and issues have yet to be asked and examined.

Islamic Martyr?

Saddam Hussein has lost his 'appeal', he will be executed at some point during the next four weeks.

I am concerned that the Iraqi government (fully supported by the USA and the UK) will do nothing more than make things worse by taking the life of yet another human being in this so-called-war on terror.

Saddam may be guilty of war crime but how does anyone benefit from his death? How can anyone from these so-called 'civilised' countries, continue to bay for his blood?

Saddam will be murdered under the law, his execution will be fully condoned by the UK, a nation which supposedly objects to capital punishment and the fundamentalists will now have a new face for their battle of hatred. Thousands more will die under the name of Saddam, both in Iraq and probably the USA and the UK too.

I am sick of duplicitous governments talking justice and democracy whilst overthrowing regimes and executing their leaders. Its not good enough to claim the moral high-ground and then execute a man. They may try to say this is an Iraqi decision but they are fooling nobody.

Come on Tony... If we don't support the death penalty here in the UK then why don't you speak out about this and try to get the sentence commuted to life? I don't think this will happen but lets not be too surprised when the troubles in Iraq deepen. With Saddam's death, the Iraqi's, Americans and Brits have signed thousands of other death warrants too.

Al Jazeera - International news channel launches

Al Jazeera news has begun to broadcast internationally, in English. Its Arabic sister channel has often found itself in the middle of controversy and George Bush even threatened to bomb its headquarters, but what can it bring to the news table?

The channel has enjoyed a positive launch with many well known broadcasters swelling the ranks. Ex BBC, Ex CNN and other familiar names have relocated to work out of the channels HQ at Doha, making Al Jazeera the first International news channel to broadcast from the middle east.

As I watched the opening minutes of the very first broadcast, I was reminded what a large part the media plays in international affairs. There will be some who may question the impartiality of the channel but I think that its better to have more voices commenting on international affairs rather than fewer. I look forward to seeing how they choose to report some of the events that happen right on their very doorstep and which them all the best for the future and for their safety.

You can watch the opening few minutes from Al Jazeera's opening broadcast below.