BBC presenter 'speaking nonsense’ over Megrahi release
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has dismissed as “nonsense” a claim by BBC Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler that the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi may have damaged the case for Scottish independence.
Mr Salmond was appearing on the UK Newsnight programme in order to address attacks from US Senator Robert Menendez. Mr Menendez is one of four senators whose letter to the UK ambassador resulted in the setting up of a Senate Committee hearing into the circumstances leading up to the release.
During the exchanges, broadcast live, Mr Esler appeared to claim that the release had harmed the chances of Scottish independence saying to Mr Salmond: “You would like an independent Scotland, you would like good relations with the United states particularly those 40 million or so who claim some kind of Scottish descent.
“This one case may have blown it”
Mr Salmond ridiculed the suggestion saying:
“I think that’s just such nonsense Gavin, we have good relationships with the United States.”
Mr Salmond underlined the respect that the Scottish government has for all of the victims of Lockerbie who spanned 21 different nationalities. The FM included in that respect the surviving families who themselves were also victims and explained that there were some families in the US who actually agreed with the release.
When asked by Mr Esler whether the Scottish government would be prepared to ‘cooperate’ if senator Menendez were to come to Scotland the First Minister pointed out that the Scottish government were already cooperating where they could and highlighted the refusal of the US and UK administrations to release all documents relating to the case.
Mr Salmond promised that the senator would be extended the courtesy afforded all foreign representatives who visit and revealed that Kenny MacAskill had recently met with a dozen US Congressmen on the subject of Al Megrahi at the request of the American Consul General in Scotland.
However the First Minister made it clear that no Scottish Minister would be compelled to attend - and have judgement passed on them by - a committee controlled by another nation. Mr Salmond highlighted the United States refusal to attend inquiries into the ‘friendly fire’ deaths of UK servicemen, the ‘extraordinary rendition’ where people were spirited through UK airports by the CIA for torture and inquiries into Guantanemo bay.
Mr Esler suggested that US suspicions that the release was related to a BP oil deal were justified saying:
“BP wanted drilling in Libya, Libya wanted Megrahi, You release Megrahi, BP gets drilling rights.”
Mr Esler added:
“There was some lobbying by the LBBC of which BP is a part, you can understand why American senators, meaning no disrespect to the Scottish or British governments think there’s something deeply fishy about this”
This was addressed by Mr Salmond who explained that the lobbying on behalf of LBBC had been carried out by a Tory politician. The request had been rejected out of hand by Kenny MacAskill who had explained firmly to the Tory peer that business interests would play no part in the decision on Mr Megrahi.
The First Minister went on to suggest that if the senator was truly interested in Libyan oil deals negotiated on behalf of BP then the person to ask would be the man who was part of the negotiations - Tony Blair. Mr Salmond explained that the signing of the BP oil deal took place, not as the BBC presenter had suggested after the release of Mr Megrahi, but two years before on the same day that Tony Blair met with Libyan leader Col Gadaffi.
Mr Salmond also highlighted the silence from both the then Westminster opposition and indeed US senators when the SNP exposed Tony Blair’s secret ‘deal in the desert’.
Here is the Newsnight interview:
Dim lights
Embed Embed this video on your site
If you found this article interesting why not make a small contribution in order to help keep the site going - see the paypal button on the right.
|
Help us maintain the site.
- Fury at BBC’s ‘anti-Scottish’ broadcast
- Outraged – by a factor of four.
- No inquiry, no investigation - no charges
- Precious Few Heroes: The case for Scottish independence
- Labour in complete disarray over Megrahi release
- BBC presenter 'speaking nonsense’ over Megrahi release
- How Labour betrayed Scotland
- US senators letter based on 'untrue' Megrahi press reports
- Megrahi, the media and the myths – Part 2: Outrage at the BBC
Comments
At least this went UK wide so maybe someone somewhere outwith the influence of the BBC and Westminster will pick it up.
These presenters call themselves journalists. That's an insult to the profession.
BBC Newsnight, especially, must be reconsidering the merits of using Glenn Campbell for reports.
We all know the BBC will down the SNP at any turn they have no interest in facts thank goodness we have newsnet.
A.S crushed Mr Essler's snipes and left him floundering.
I think they will call glen Campbell back from his sponsored working holiday (skive).
The work he's probably doing is
going around asking questions to senators like..
Scotland says America is shi*, how much does that anger you? and questions to that effect. Sometimes I wonder what he does to create a story. One thing is for sure he is not out there to report back good news for the people of Scotland even if there was.
Make of that what you will.
I watched the FM sook him in and spit him oot in bubbles too!
I found his attitude to the " more in sorrow than in anger " senator , sycophanticlly irritating in marked contrast at his attempt to Paxman the FM.
I have to agree , it is time for the SNP to deploy big guns at the " impartial" BBBC to the point where they walk out of interviews leaving interviewer bereft of target and behaving like a gasping fish.
Nothing worse than being told to " fill in" for several minutes!
Strike that, thats how Mr Paxman got his reputation ( which he obviously believes) of being a hard interviewr.
Now he is just an arrogant,ignora nt interviewer - awonderful example of this can be found on youtube during his belittle and sneer at the Welsh phase!
http://www.scottishleftreview.org/li/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=330&Itemid=1
It made very interesting reading. It is rare to see well written pieces on the future of Scottish politics, and how the SNP can drive the agenda forward.
I do hope more people in the SNP read it.
I actually agree with the author. Attack IS the best form of defence. Just ask Labour.
That would be helpful
Unfortunately, for the majority of the country who do not know of life outside of the tabloids and the BBC the work that AS and the SNP are doing to defend us is going unnoticed and thats unfortunate given the implications it could have on the future of the nation (in terms of public opinion around the SNP and the long term goal of independence).
My mischievous side thinks it's getting to the stage where denting our relationship with the US a little might be worth it given what is essentially an attempt at bullying from their side (and our own frickin 'elected' UK government) which we are thus far standing up well to.
Regardless of the non-story behind their claims, I find it Hypocritical in the extreme for them to even raise the issue of "Blood for Oil".
Weapons of Mass Destruction anyone??
How many Scots have died so far fighting their war that was started under false pretences? Can we get some Senators over to Holyrood to answer questions on that? Who thinks they'd decline the invite?
Also jaw dropped when Essler came out with the 'damage Independence' remark, must be struggling now to try and fine an angle. Hasnt Essler got form as regards the SNP?
It was disgraceful actually how he kept going around on the same theme. It now places Esller in the 'not to be trusted if he said the sky was blue' listing
Also jaw dropped when Essler came out with the 'damage Independence' remark"
You answered part of the question yourself.
The "damaging Independence" question revealed part of the real agenda. If you think about it for a moment, Scottish Independence actually has sweet FA to do with this case. I hope that the Americans cottoned on to this underlying game plan from the British media.
If they want to turn it into the Independence case, then given recent events (the extent of misreporting by the Scottish/British media and British Prime minister's performance) alone make the case for Scotland's Independence.
That's great for people like us who are interested enough in politics to watch Newsnight Scotland at 11pm or whenever.
What's the viewing figures though? I'll bet they're not high. Not as high as the number watching the biased coverage on Reporting Scotland at 6.30pm. Not as high as the number of people who read the lies and spin in the Daily Record or The Sun throughout the day (maybe more than read the failing Herald and Scotsman though!)
There is little merit in preaching to the converted - what has to be done is to have SNP big-hitters (and unfortunately there aren't that many) making sure they get on to the mainstream media and making the case - whether it's on Megrahi or school closures, or minimum pricing. If they can't get on, that fact has to be exposed by other means - during FMQs for example.
I'm unconvinced by the suggestion that "walking out" of interviews is helpful. On the rare occasions when this has happened it tends to reflect badly on the politician - we know who came off best between Robin Day and John Nott for example. In fact I can't think of a politician who has had his or her reputation enhanced by walking out, even in the face of extreme provocation.
Just my tuppence worth.
BBC World News on BBC4 at 7pm is fine. No issues there. But I think that the BBC need to sit up and take notice if somebody like me will actively choose to watch Al-Jazeera, CNN or Russia Today at 6-30 than the efforts of "Jocks - Know Your Place" AKA "Reporting Northern Britain."
The BBC's news filtering will over time cease to be of much point as the internet and satellite news channels gradually weaken their grip on the minds of viewers at home.
In fact, in many countries (including the US in my opinion) the close ties between the two is a negative.
Of course I regard that as utter nonsense. I consider Murphy's desire to bring religion into everything as a retrograde if not cynical step.
I have a couple of questions. Would the union end if Westminster split Scotland and kept a part under Westminster's control?
Has anyone heard anything on this before?
Menendez keeps going on about the Trefgarne letter but never mentions the MacAskill reply, as Salmond pointed out. You can see this same happening on some US news sites, as mentioned in other comments on here.
Now it could be the case that Menendez is focusing more on the UK Westminster side with regards to oil and trade here - and the Scottish side is all above board and more a side issue. He knows there is two sides and said so himself.
This seems to be more the line. It makes no sense though as they won't get Blair, so cannot figure it out.
And re: independence damaged. By the same theory, isn't the union damaged? This is all happening in the union. He's asking about Straw and Trefgarne.
The Scottish government replies meanwhile have been excellent and thorough from what's been shown. Respectful conduct to overseas country, unlike Cameron. Yes, we will do just fine independently.
Plus we made USA's own hand-picked patsy, Mr Megrahi, guilty, likely at their request. There's nothing to damage!
Someone is suggesting that presenters like Esler do research before they conduct interviews. I think that in this case there was no motivation to recognize the truth.
Before there is any meeting in Scotland, Salmond should lay down the terms of the meeting before hand. It shouldn't be just a question of the Senators getting info from the Scottish government (however courteous or informal), it should be on the basis that the Senators can be asked searching questions too and the whole exchange between the two groups should be written down and made available to the public, or better still, transmitted on TV. By insisting on these conditions we would soon see if the Senators were genuine in their attempts to clarify a number of things concerning the Lockerbie affair or would they back off?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR655
It was slightly refreshing that Reevel Alderson spoke in the studio at lunchtime today on Reporting Scotland and clarified that it there is no way will their be an 'interview' but the Scottiah Government as they have in the past had informal discussions
Robin Days bow tie could have filled the silence!
Besides which ,it was a different BBBC in those days.
I suspect that Maggie called them in for that one and not for tea and cookies either!
It is now a gargantuan , arrogant biased broadcaster which reports with only a nodding acquaintance to truth.
They don't really have the insider knowledge to conduct interviews with the innate natural hostility that people like Wark, Esler or Brillo can bring to the interview as unionists and Scots.
Dimbleby and Paxman treat the SNP as annoying fringe politicians who they don't need to show respect to.
The Scots presenters in England know the SNP are politically dangerous and that's why they hate them.
The Glenn Campbell prologue was bizarre but completely in tune with the kind of faux drama we have come to expect from Beeb Scotland. Campbell gives the impression that he is auditioning for a job down south.
Esler let the Senator off with too many inaccurate statements and never once raised the obvious question regarding the lack of diplomatic legitimacy of an American senatorial committee attempting to summon elected representatives of a different state to be interrogated in front of the cameras. In allowing Memendez to mention the Trefgarne letter without pointing out that MacAskill had replied to the letter effectively putting Trefgarne in his place Esler demonstrated his failure to master the brief. Just another BBC London Paxman-wannabe waste of space.
Worse still, he failed to disabuse Menendez of the notion that he would be allowed to bring his circus to the UK so that he and his peers would be able to abuse British politicians in front of the cameras for the benefit of his own election campaign and the entertainment of the lieges of New Jersey.
Alex Salmond put over the Scottish people's point of view both accurately and succinctly and left Esler (a Scot allegedly but then again a London-based Scot in the Wark / Neil mould) spluttering. He cordially invited any American politician to come to Scotland for a meeting but made it quite clear that grandstanding would not be tolerated.
Esler's assertion that this tension between Scotland and the USA was a threat to Scottish independence was a freudian slip: London is not happy that Scotland has demonstrated its de facto judicial sovereignty to the most powerful country in the world. Even John Bolton could see this when he was last interviewed by Esler.
London is getting rattled: a sure sign that the SNP are on the right track.
I know, all of those guys are international reporters. Michael Crick did ask some questions which upset Margaret Curran so he is probably OK too.
This piece described Scotland as a 'land of milk and honey'. If you did not catch it it is worth a look as it is a quite outrageous little piece of propaganda. It actually made me feel queasy.
Salmond dealt with Esler, so that was OK, even if the questions were stupid and Esler was doing his best to be disapproving and haughty.
I think it's time there was just a full on campaign against the BBC now. Of some sort...
See link above. The piece begins at 19 minutes and 38 seconds.
Interesting point - BBC 1 at ten says 60 thousand jobs, Reporting Scotland (5 minutes later) says 50'000 .
It he after Catrina Rantings job as the labour gob on the news?
Have not had a reply from the Whitehouse I doubt they didn't appreciate my comments or maybe they're struggling to find a reply!
It is regrettable that Prescott was given a hard time by the Tories and some of the Oxbridge Labourati but I seriously doubt if he has ever thought in depth about anything in his entire life.
All he has said is with hindsight and boils down to "it wisnae me". Anyone who voted for this war shares complicity.
Quote:
Laugh? I nearly cried.
Where it will cause damage is where those people who disagree with the release decide not to vote for the SNP, but that has nothing at all to do with the independence question.
Many years ago I was a member of a sports club. They used to have dances, Burn's Suppers, etc to raise funds. They would put up ONE poster in the club and wondered why only 12 people would turn up.
Then they elected a new Social Convener whose approach was very differrent. He would literally plaster the walls of the clubhouse advertising events. He would button hole you in the street / pub. He would phone you up. He would send out letters to remind members of up and coming events. He created a data base of all members AND their friends AND relatives. He would place posters in local shops. He would place articles in local newspapers - and many other things. The result?
1. Well attended functions where tickets sold out.
2. A huge increase in membership.
3. An upbeat and positive atmosphere that spread throughout the club.
4. An increased awareness of the club within the town and throughout Scotland.
5. Promtion for the "team" in 4 successive years.
So what is my point?
We can't - no musn't - sit back and just moan about things.
We must shape our own destiny! We must be active in a positive way?
Speak to other people about this site!
Tell them about the Scottish Parliament's e-petition relating to the "Saltire flag" and "Wallace letter" campaign. Tell them about other important but neglected matters.
"Tell 5 to tell 5"
Let others know what you have been up to through this site! (On line ed - perhaps we need a dedicated "section" to promote this aim?)
How can they accept business dealings by Blair or BP or Obamma with Lybia given this connection?
They need to look elsewhere for their domestic exposure because they are sure as hell barking up the wrong tree in picking fights with Scotland.
As for what we in Scotland can do - it is obvious we are being abused as a nation by the media we have to put up with and this should be put in context as a progressive attempt to erode democracy. It should be reported the UN and European Court of Human Rights that we are forced by law to subscribe to the BBC which then seeks to undermine our democratic rights.
The Scottish Government has no such powers or staff at present.
In that light, consider;
Both the USA and London Governments are complicit in deals with BP. They are both involved in the dodgy 'deal in the desert. This is a matter of fact.
BOTH want to 'pass the buck'.
So, why are the media, and government officials still uttering the same lies and mis-infomration, trying to imply it is all Scotland's fault??
Simple, events we see unfold are orchestrated via London and Washington. They both see, for differing reasons, Scotland as a 'fall guy'. The USA want this as a diversion, away from them. The Tories in London see it as a chance to damage the credibility of the SNP, and the Scottish parliament, whilst also helping them avoid tricky questions.
All of it is designed to leave the general impression that it is ALL Scotland's fault. Which of course is a blatant lie.
A long term strategy to tarnish and 'blacken' the image of the Scottish parliament. It suits the USA and it suits London.
Let us never forget, that the Tories actively and vigorously campaigned against the re- convening of the Scottish Parliament at the time of the referendum in 1997.
Their are many in the Tories who would happily have it shut down in the blink of an eye.
It's all about business anyway, India is a massive export market.
As enneffess said, he's making no friends and nil diplomacy
:-)
Here is the comment!
"For those of you who would like an accurate review of the "goings on" in the Al-Megahi/Tony Blair/ David Cameron / 4 US senators / et al affair, try the Newsnet Scotland site. I would love to hear posters thoughts?"
the goings on in present day Scotland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dOOFB8fs38
NEWSpapers NETwork Scotland.COMrade should help. I liked that.
"The NYT is recognised throughout Europe as the journal of note of the United States of America for its journalistic integrity and it refusal to bow to those who would attempt to use the media to promulgate their own political and commercial agendas.
"In recognition of this, and with the greatest of respect to its readers, I wish to say that those who would attempt to implicate the Scottish Government in any deal negotiated by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Tony Blair) with the ruthless dictator Gaddaffi to release Mr al Megrahi from a Scottish prison know nothing of the political situation within the UK and underestimate the strength of feeling in Scotland with regard to the Lockerbie atrocity.
"Politically, the ancient nation of Scotland is dominated by the 10 times larger and equally ancient nation of England within the United Kingdom of England and Scotland (i.e. the UK). However, when the parliaments of the two countries were combined in 1707, Scotland and England retained their own judicial and educational systems.
"From 1979 until 1997 the UK was governed by the Conservative Party of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, a party with hardly any mandate from the people of Scotland. Indeed, in the election of 1997 which brought the Labour Party of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to power, the Scots expressed their revulsion for the Conservative Party by returning not one Conservative MP.
"When Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down over the small border town of Lockerbie in December, 1988, fire crews raced from our major cities 60 and 70 miles north to try to help. The local rural police force was overwhelmed by the scale of the catastrophe and it soon became clear that all on board and many on the ground had perished.
"However, locals observed that, within two hours of the explosion, American security service personnel were on the ground searching for evidence. Where had they come from and how did they get there so quickly and didn't they realise that they were contaminating a crime scene? What were they looking for? They never found out the answers to these questions because Margaret Thatcher refused to hold a public inquiry into the disaster.
"Over the following years it was revealed (by the US and UK security services) that the prime suspects in the case were thought to be a Syrian group acting on behalf of Iran in retaliation for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes over the Straits of Hormuz in July 1988. All the shared intelligence and evidence supported this view. Then, in the run-up to the first Gulf War, the USA required the support of Syria and it was decided to implicate Libya, at the time a pariah state, as the source of the Lockerbie bomb.
"At the trial of Mr Megrahi and his co-accused Mr Fahima at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, the three Scottish judges were presented with a highly selective subset of the evidence against the two accused and the defence team were prevented from seeing all of the evidence gathered (a requirement under Scots law), including evidence that would have freed both accused. Those who have been appraised of this evidence, including the majority of lawyers practising in Scotland, are of the opinion that the Iranians and Syrians and not the Lybians were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing.
"On the election of the Scottish National Party as the Government of Scotland in May, 2007, a tension arose between the Scottish Government in Edinburgh and the UK Government in London. The Scottish Government refused to have anything to do with the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) signed by Tony Blair (UK Prime Minister) and the Libyan Dictator Gaddaffi. Blair (an English trained lawyer) failed to understand that the PTA drafted under English law was inapplicable to Scotland. Gaddaffi, who thought that a deal signed with Blair would open the way to commercial transactions with BP, was none the wiser.
"When Mr Megrahi was diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer, two consulant urologists and two consultant oncologists working in Scotland pronounced that he was dying. A request was made under the terms of Scots Law that Mr Megrahi should be released to die at home with his family. An English oncologist was hired by the Libyan Government to confirm the diagnosis. Mr Megrahi was released on the grounds of the original four specialists' diagnosis and was flown home to Tripoli where he is now undergoing terminal palliative care.
"The explosion of the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico while under the ownership of BP and the subsequent environmental disaster have prompted certain American senators currently seeking re-election to look for a link between BP and the release of Mr Megrahi.
I have to query the allegation that American Security personnel were at the Lockerbie crash site somehow searching for evidence.
When the incident occured, I was serving in the RAF at Abingdon, where the salvage teams came from. There was at the time a specialist squadron who's role was to basically pick up the pieces from military aircraft crashes. I worked as an analyst within the Engineering Wing and the only reason I wasn't despatched to the site was that I knew four of the victims.
The RAF was brought in because of the sheer scale of the debris, scattered over a massive area, not only Lockerbie. several of the guys went on to help at the East Midlands crash as well. The first teams were on site within 12 hours.
Not one single person reported anything untoward by any foreign personnel. The primary job of the crash team was to assist in the location and recovery of bodies whilst providing assistance to the AAIB and emergency services. Lockerbie was also swarming with journalists. Why was there not a single report of these americans? I still possess the Sun newspaper from that day. Not a single mention is made. The FBI WOULD be there because whenever there is potentially a crime against American citizens they are brought in. In addition to the FBI Boeing and Pan AM people would have been there.
One reason you have so many people on an aircraft crash site immediately after is to try and ascertain the basic facts before commencing with the more thorough investigation. Gruesome as it is, much can be determined from the victims as to a possible cause.
There were no orders to keep quiet, or ignore certain activities. The debris did not fall on some small area of Lockerbie, but about 900 square miles of a corridor some 70-80 miles long. Aircraft are rather delicate pieces of machinery. It can take AAIB investigators months to piece everything together, so how on earth did some "security personnel" arrive on the scene knowing precisely what to look for? Even if someone knew exactly when an explosion was to take place, they could not possibly predict where all the debris would end up.
Paul Foot's report and those of many others (including one by Time magazine) provide the background story to the smuggling of drugs using US carriers with the approval of the US security services, who were tracking the shipments in the hope of catching bigger fish.
"The Scottish Government has provided the senators with every piece of documentation regarding the compassionate release of Mr Megrahi with the exception of those vetoed by the US and UK governments."
If it's okay I'd like to quote your post elsewhere.
Would be interested to hear their reply to you.When I wrote them they claimed what they had printed was factually correct,that they had read the papers published on the goverments site many times,, ignored my comments about Tony and his deals in the desert and didn't mention whether they would read newsnet as I had suggested for unadulterated articles.
http://tiny.cc/28gyf
http://tiny.cc/5gcr0
These are what the ignorant senators need to digest.
"Lockerbie residents reported seeing unmarked helicopters hovering overhead, carrying men with rifles whose telescopic sights were pointing directly at them."
Why was that not reported by the media? They were swarming all over the place.
For heaven's sake, if somehow the CIA was looking for so-called evidence they wouldn't advertise the fact, and they certainly would not be pointing weapons at residents.
I'm not disputing the circumstances of the trial and investigation. But some people seem to be taking liberties with the facts.
Some people have been taking liberty with the facts since the event , lying and covering up evidence in a manner which suggests Western complicity.
I found the letter about the crash in Mull most interesting.I had friends in the area in a powerful boat and on hearing the coastguard offered their assistance, turned down of course.They would'nt have been much use amongst the carnage.
There are certain procedures which apply to all air accident investigations. I know, I've been involved in a number of them.
Helicopters for example. One of the most immediate tasks following an air accident is to get a photographer up in a helicopter to photograph/video the affected area. That might explain where the author in antibeeb's link gets the notion that there were snipers.
Why was Jim Swire's excellent and informative letter ignored by the MSM when they, including the toxic BBBC, were very keen to examine every word in Mr MacAskill's correspondence?
Perhaps because that would have disturbed their anti-SNP/anti-Scottish Government agenda.
http://tiny.cc/ambjw
RSS feed for comments to this post.