Paul Adams - we know where you live.

Ah! The BBC - solid supporter of the establishment and all that is good in this great kingdom.

You know, I really did think that Paul Adams was a cut above the rest of the bottom feeding low life who infest the BBC, but then he comes up with this. Quite clearly he has set himself up as vox pop and is now stirring some of the brown and smelly stuff methinks.
News or politcal propaganda?

The British Army, some argue, is getting away with murder in Iraq - civilian courts should be responsible for getting at the truth.
"Some argue?" Would that be you Mr Adams?
Lets drop Mr Adams with lets say a troop size gaggle of other journalists on there own in a uniform that shouts 'soldiers' give them radios that work when they want to, the knowledge that should they shout for help it could take a while to get to them, then issue them with light weopans with minimum amount of ammo. Make them patrol where they are vunerable to snipers, IED's and insurgents.

Let them face rioters, mobs and looters. let them find out that stones and petrol bombs can be just as scary and effective at injuring and killing you as bullets ........ let them do that for a few days getting scared on a regular basis.

Then let us judge their decisions and actions ffrom the comfort of our armchairs and with the benfit of hindsight.............. If any of them came out alive.


Edited for being a mong as usual.
Ah the truth! The first casualty indeed. How refreshing for a journalist to recognise that somebody other than "investigative journalists" might have a role in determining what went on, somewhere at some time. However like all journalists he will become bored with the time spent on investigating, legal issues and trial procedure itself and will probably continue to snipe and cavil and make carefully judged to just this side of libellous comments - thank you in house legal department! Prejudicial your honour, why that thought never crossed my mind.

I have been very cross about the reporting of the Irish Guards trial in the red-tops. I hope Jorge Mendonca has been alert and has a quiverful of writs ready for the evening of day one of his trail - for the Mirror and the Sun.
Mr share your surname with another Adams knob. Don't invent the truth, find it. :x

To quote from the Neil report on BBC journalism from the BBC's website.

As a starting point for our deliberations we thought it important to consider what we believed to be some of the guiding principles that should always be at the heart of BBC journalism:-

• Accurate, robust, independent, and impartial, journalism is the DNA of the BBC. On a daily basis, whether it is Radio Cumbria reporting on farming issues, BBC Northern Ireland examining the security situation, the Jerusalem bureau live at the scene of a bomb blast, Andrew Marr in Westminster, or an undercover BBC journalist inside the Greater Manchester Police, audiences should always feel they can trust our words and our deeds.
He is willing to quote the MOD and the soldier's defence legal team, but goes quiet on the identities of the "human rights' lawyers". Cherie Blair, perhaps?

Hardly objective reporting.

Can I suggest that people note the only quote made throughout the brief article

"....The same argument was made, forcefully, by the Army's senior legal officer for the invasion, who gave evidence during the trial.

"There was a total failure to plan for the occupation," said Lt Col Nicholas Mercer. "It was not foreseen that Iraq would implode to the extent that it did." ..."

Perhaps some more careful reading is needed. At no time does Paul Adams say that the army is at fault. The failure to name a Human Rights lawyer is quite insulting to such "Ambulance Chasers". There is no sign of any the normal Rent-a-quote mob dribbling out of their ears.

Too many people in here engage rant, disenage brain. THINK......Use the lump of grey matter up top. Knee jerk rants make us look like thick c88ts who deserve all we get....
What's everyone shouting about? He's actually being quite supportive of the army.
Kit, I'm with you on this again :?

These surley the key questions are:

If an alledged criminal offence occurs, should it be investigated?


By whom?

IMHO on Ops it should be the RMP (SIB/PNSS), whether it is mansluaghter or an ND.

If there is evidence to support a trial should it be a CM or a Civilian Court that hears the evidence?

CM because you are judged by your peers (i.e. other servicemen who hopefully have served on Ops.)

Before bitching about political interference, press misreporting or any other RANTS. Please explain why due process and the law of this land (inc. HR legistaion and Army Act 1955) should not be applied on Ops? If you don't like the political climate in this country leave the Army/Country or vote the ******* out of office.

edited once for mong grammar
I think the phrase 'getting away with murder' is unduly provocative and extremely strong. If someone has actually said this to Mr Adams, then he should attribute it (even if he doesn't name the source). If it is what he thinks others might think, or is his own view, then it has no place in this article.

I disagree that he is being supportive of the Army and he has also got the complete wrong angle of the outcome of the case. At no time has there been a suggestion that the APA were 'soft' on troops because it was Army investigating Army - if anything it is the opposite. The real story, rather than bashing the Army, is the appalling vacuum created by no planning for post-conflict.
brewmeister said:
What's everyone shouting about? He's actually being quite supportive of the army.
There is a very subtle difference between saying what you mean and meaning what you say. This is a cowardly piece which purports to describe the view of others, thinly disguised as this clown's own. If he really felt that strongly then he should come out and claim the views as his own supported by substantiated evidence. As it is, articles such as this only fuel the fires of the PC brigade who would have us 'on trial' for every round fired in battle.

He is a fukcing numpty who should actually know better.
The man is clearly a prat. He does raise a small glimmer in my wasn't-there, long-retired, useless-old-git's mind.
If the looting situation was as described and there was the vacuum between bang-bang ROE and 'peacetime' ROE as agreed by the legal officer, where was the chain of command all this time? Their apparent inaction led to troops devising their own (breadbasket & cooling-off) procedures. The filmed reports of Ali Baba actions does not suggest they were especially subtle. The gdsn on trial were there because they lacked 'proper' instruction. No good the bosses saying they didn't know - it was their job to know as any soldier would have been told ifhe used that excuse.
The BBC has turned from what used to be an objective source of independant journalism into nothing more then a left wing TV and radio bound version of the SUN with about as much Decorum as well!

The journalists are becoming lazy and complacent looking for a story to further their careers without regarding the lives they ruin or bring into disrepute.

They, the BBC in whole, are decadent and need a general overhaul. Journalism is meant to be impartial and free from political bigotry..... the BBC is a classic example of how not to practice the art of journalism!

They bring shame on the BBC World service that saved thousands of lives during the second world war and thus has overstayed its purpose!!!

N.B. Half the journos these days cannot even string a sentence together...

Latest Threads