British Journalism (2)
Lord Ashcroft's tweet about the Mirror missing out the word "no" was actually the second piece of shoddy journalism this weekend which made me think of the Humbert Wolfe quote about the British Journalist.
The first was an express headline claiming that the Prime Minister knew about allegations that the SAS had killed Princess Diana and failed to act on them.
Except that when you read beyond the first two lines of the article it doesn't prove anything of the sort.
Anyone with an interest in paranoid fantasies and mischief making can read the Daily Express article in full here but a little light fisking of some of the claims in the article follows.
Express: "DAVID CAMERON and the head of the Army knew the SAS were allegedly responsible for the murder of Princess Diana – but failed to tell police."
The article which follows provides no substantive evidence for either of those things.
Express: "The Prime Minister and General Sir Peter Wall were sent copies of a letter claiming members of the elite regiment killed the princess."
The main purpose of the communication described in the article was a request for protection from the writer's husband, an SAS soldier, who she accused of mental and physical abuse and of threatening her life. The writer did mention her husband's allegations that the SAS was involved in the death of the Princess, but the context suggests that she was mainly concerned with what those comments imply about him being a current danger to herself. And if she is reporting him correctly, is such a loose cannon likely to be a reliable or well-informed witness about what happened sixteen years ago?
Express: "They and Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, who also received the letter, now face being questioned by Scotland Yard over why they did not act and remained silent."
Not if Scotland Yard are remotely competent, they don't!
The hacks who wrote this nonsense are probably paid more than an MP. They know perfectly well that the Prime Minister of the day, the defence secretary, and the head of the army receive more mail and email every day than they can possibly read themselves. So they employ people to sift through them, decide what's important, and draw to the attention of the PM or other senior figure what they think he or she needs to see.
I would be prepared to bet that in the years since the death of Princess Diana, the offices of successive Prime Ministers, Defence secretaries, and Chiefs of the General Staff have received literally thousands of letters from conspiracy theorists alleging that the Princess was murdered by MI6, the SAS, the KGB, the CIA, the mafia, the masons, the illuminati, little green men from Mars, and uncle Tom Cobbley.
These offices are staffed by mortal human beings, and by the time they've been working there for any length of time, the reaction to another allegation that the SAS killed Princess Diana must be "Oh no, not another one."
If there is anything new in such an accusation they probably do pass it to the relevant police authorities but I don't believe for a moment that every letter making that kind of allegation sent to the PM's office gets anywhere near him or her. So the fact that such letters were sent to the PM, Defence Secretary, and head of the army and that their offices replied does not prove that David Cameron, or Philip Hammond ever saw them.
I suspect that the MAIN concern of the author of the letter, namely her safety, may well have been drawn to the PM's attention, but any conversation might have been something like this
"And next, Prime Minister, we have a copy of a letter to the chief of the general staff from the wife of an SAS soldier who is asking for protection from her husband - she says he has physically and emotionally abused her, and she's afraid he might try to kill her."
"I trust action will be taken to make sure she has any protection which is needed?"
"Yes Prime Minister, Sir Peter's office has already been in contact with her husband's regiment to see what can be done to ensure her safety.
"Good. Write to say that I'm sorry to hear of her difficulties. Next item ?"
The Chief of the General Staff did contact the commanding officer of the soldier concerned, and the head of special forces, so the allegation that the people who received the letter "did not act" does not stand up to scrutiny.
Express: "Number 10 and the Ministry of Defence were informed of the alleged crime in February by the wife of a former SAS soldier, the Daily Express can reveal. Scotland Yard is now investigating the murder claims but detectives only learned of the allegations following a complaint by Mohammed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi died alongside Diana."
But a few paragraphs later, the Express also quotes the February 2013 letter as saying that these same allegations had already been passed to the police in September 2011.
Since the letter told No 10 and the Ministry of Defence that these accusations had already been given to the police eighteen months previously, it seems somewhat dubious to blame Number Ten and the MoD if - and I take this with a bucketful of salt - Scotland Yard did not learn of the allegations until some later date.
It is really rather sad to see journalists who ought to know better to try to drag the present government and Chief of the Army General staff into these sensationalised reports.
The first was an express headline claiming that the Prime Minister knew about allegations that the SAS had killed Princess Diana and failed to act on them.
Except that when you read beyond the first two lines of the article it doesn't prove anything of the sort.
Anyone with an interest in paranoid fantasies and mischief making can read the Daily Express article in full here but a little light fisking of some of the claims in the article follows.
Express: "DAVID CAMERON and the head of the Army knew the SAS were allegedly responsible for the murder of Princess Diana – but failed to tell police."
The article which follows provides no substantive evidence for either of those things.
Express: "The Prime Minister and General Sir Peter Wall were sent copies of a letter claiming members of the elite regiment killed the princess."
The main purpose of the communication described in the article was a request for protection from the writer's husband, an SAS soldier, who she accused of mental and physical abuse and of threatening her life. The writer did mention her husband's allegations that the SAS was involved in the death of the Princess, but the context suggests that she was mainly concerned with what those comments imply about him being a current danger to herself. And if she is reporting him correctly, is such a loose cannon likely to be a reliable or well-informed witness about what happened sixteen years ago?
Express: "They and Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, who also received the letter, now face being questioned by Scotland Yard over why they did not act and remained silent."
Not if Scotland Yard are remotely competent, they don't!
The hacks who wrote this nonsense are probably paid more than an MP. They know perfectly well that the Prime Minister of the day, the defence secretary, and the head of the army receive more mail and email every day than they can possibly read themselves. So they employ people to sift through them, decide what's important, and draw to the attention of the PM or other senior figure what they think he or she needs to see.
I would be prepared to bet that in the years since the death of Princess Diana, the offices of successive Prime Ministers, Defence secretaries, and Chiefs of the General Staff have received literally thousands of letters from conspiracy theorists alleging that the Princess was murdered by MI6, the SAS, the KGB, the CIA, the mafia, the masons, the illuminati, little green men from Mars, and uncle Tom Cobbley.
These offices are staffed by mortal human beings, and by the time they've been working there for any length of time, the reaction to another allegation that the SAS killed Princess Diana must be "Oh no, not another one."
If there is anything new in such an accusation they probably do pass it to the relevant police authorities but I don't believe for a moment that every letter making that kind of allegation sent to the PM's office gets anywhere near him or her. So the fact that such letters were sent to the PM, Defence Secretary, and head of the army and that their offices replied does not prove that David Cameron, or Philip Hammond ever saw them.
I suspect that the MAIN concern of the author of the letter, namely her safety, may well have been drawn to the PM's attention, but any conversation might have been something like this
"And next, Prime Minister, we have a copy of a letter to the chief of the general staff from the wife of an SAS soldier who is asking for protection from her husband - she says he has physically and emotionally abused her, and she's afraid he might try to kill her."
"I trust action will be taken to make sure she has any protection which is needed?"
"Yes Prime Minister, Sir Peter's office has already been in contact with her husband's regiment to see what can be done to ensure her safety.
"Good. Write to say that I'm sorry to hear of her difficulties. Next item ?"
The Chief of the General Staff did contact the commanding officer of the soldier concerned, and the head of special forces, so the allegation that the people who received the letter "did not act" does not stand up to scrutiny.
Express: "Number 10 and the Ministry of Defence were informed of the alleged crime in February by the wife of a former SAS soldier, the Daily Express can reveal. Scotland Yard is now investigating the murder claims but detectives only learned of the allegations following a complaint by Mohammed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi died alongside Diana."
But a few paragraphs later, the Express also quotes the February 2013 letter as saying that these same allegations had already been passed to the police in September 2011.
Since the letter told No 10 and the Ministry of Defence that these accusations had already been given to the police eighteen months previously, it seems somewhat dubious to blame Number Ten and the MoD if - and I take this with a bucketful of salt - Scotland Yard did not learn of the allegations until some later date.
It is really rather sad to see journalists who ought to know better to try to drag the present government and Chief of the Army General staff into these sensationalised reports.
Comments