Considering the last Conspiracy Files series presented both cases, then debunked the tin-foil hat wearers, I really doubt it’ll be any different this time round.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/default.stm

The MSM of course feel that the existence of the BBC – whose news output, at least, is insulated from commercial pressures to some extent – represents unfair competition.

The real story is not so much how much energy this paper or that commentator puts into denouncing the latest Holocaust denier – “fruitloops” are by definition impervious to reasoned argument – as the fact that the BBC’s licence fee is unsustainable in the medium term.

Any chance of an article on this? Or preferably two, one defending the BBC and one arguing for an alternative not-for-profit model of producing high quality independent news media?

“The anti-BBC whingers strike again”

Oh so anyone who criticises your beloved BBC is a whinger even though the very same people are forced to pay for it if they watch live transmissions (a tax invented to fund the mighty BBC). Scum like you belong in the dark ages with your BBC friends

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign was approached by the BBC to participate in their 7/7 Conspiracy Files programme. We declined on the basis that the anomalies and inconsistencies in the official report deserved serious investigation, something that all media including the BBC have failed abysmally to do.

Our response can be read here:

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-refuse-bbc-conspiracy-files-offer.html

Nick Kollerstrom does not represent J7 despite various underhand efforts to associate him with our campaign. We recently discovered that he was to speak at a meeting, which was to be filmed by the BBC, billed as a ‘J7 researcher’. Rachel North has disingenuously referred to him as ‘particularly odious ‘J7 Truth’ conspiracy theorist’.

J7 have informed the BBC of our concerns.

‘Scum like you’…? Jesus…what high intellectual standards!

Unity,

Excellent post. It’s nice to see the right have their priorities in order.

I have a few issues with the BBC license, but at the end of the day, I would ‘subscribe’ to the BBC anyway, as their content is far-and-away the best in the UK.

I tend to see the license fee as a public good. All that investment they put into kids TV – educational without ads etc. I don’t allow my kids to watch commercial TV.

Sao Paulo

Scum like you..

Go away troll-boy.

I agree that it is a silly subject to attack the BBC on. Especially while its biased position on the EU and the treaty has the potential to do so much more actual damage to political debate.

“If your beloved BBC was so good you’d be in favour of subscription but you know in reality you liberals only make up a small part of the UK even though you’ve caused most damaged with your PC crap”

I wish that people would stop posting those ‘Have Your Say’ extracts.

In July 2007 the BBC approached J7 asking for participants in a ‘documentary’ about 7/7. Six months after initial contact, the BBC revealed the ‘documentary’ was part of BBC2’s risible Conspiracy Files series. On learning this, J7 declined to participate.

For almost three years, we have campaigned for a completely independent inquiry in the events of July 7th 2005, outside of the limited remit of the pernicious Inquiries Act 2005. We do not endorse programmes or other media which solely attempt to speculate regarding the various alternative theories behind the glaring inconsistencies in the Official Report into the London bombings. We believe this obfuscates the main issues and brings us no closer to the truth.
Our response in full to the BBC can be viewed here.

J7 have noted that since our refusal to participate in, or co-operate with the making of this programme, the BBC seem to have approached anyone even remotely connected to the events of July 7th 2005, many of whom also declined to be involved. Moreover, a relative of Richard Chang left a very interesting comment on our BBC response article, suggesting that the BBC have form for mendacity when making their ‘documentaries’ about events which still have yet to be thoroughly, independently and conclusively investigated.

This week, the 9/11 Truth Campaign began advertising an event which is taking place later this month, at which prominent author and researcher Nafeez Ahmed is due to speak; the flyer for which was also advertising the presence of “J7 researchers”.

J7 were not at any time approached with regard to this event, nor were we asked permission for our website to be included on the flyer. After asking for an explanation regarding this oddity, we were told that the “J7 researchers” was in fact Nick Kollerstrom, a man who we recently discovered is a keen participant in the making of the BBC’s ‘Conspiracy Files’ programme, whose approach to 7/7 research is markedly different to that of J7, who recently discovered that his theories regarding the holocaust of the second world war were rather unpopular and who, needless to say, is not affiliated to or associated with J7. It also transpired that the BBC were due to film the event – something which had not been previously made clear.

Mike Rudin from the BBC stated on Wednesday of this week,

“Along with his views of 7/7, Nick Kollerstrom’s views about the Holocaust will be scrutinised and challenged in the programme.”

How very unsurprising for a programme apparently dedicated to examining ‘conspiracy theories’ regarding the horrific events in London in the summer of 2005.
In order to reiterate J7’s position and to avoid any confusion:

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 4:22 PM
From “J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign”
To “Tristan Quinn”
Cc

Subject Nick Kollerstrom 7/7 Conspiracy Files

Dear Tristan

We recently became aware of a meeting to be held in London on 25th June
which you were intending to film for the 7/7 Conspiracy Files programme
you are making with Nick Kollerstrom. We were appalled to find that the
flyer for this meeting developed by the UK 911 Truth Movement, without
our knowledge or consent, advertised a ‘J7 researcher’ and included a
link to our website when no member of J7 knew of the meeting, much less
agreed to appear at it. It transpires that this alleged ‘J7 researcher’
would appear to be one Nick Kollerstrom.

As the BBC has a duty with respect to the accuracy of facts presented to
its viewing public, please be informed that Nick Kollerstrom is not a
member of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign and therefore cannot be
classed as a J7 researcher. Kollerstrom is, if anything, a 9/11
researcher who belongs to the 9/11 Truth Movement UK & Ireland and it is
with the operations of that group that Kollerstrom is involved with at a
high level.

Over the last few months, Nick has been contacting various members of
J7, mostly for information that would be in his possession if he were
indeed a serious researcher into the events of 7/7, but also to arrange
to collect J7 leaflets. It now transpires that he attended Leeds with
your film crew, presumably with J7 leaflets in hand, where he attempted
to make contact with the families of the accused.

These events lead us to suspect that efforts are being made either by or
for your production to somehow conflate Kollerstrom with J7.

Surprisingly enough, not everyone that has questions about the events of
7/7 is a member of J7 and for the BBC to portray otherwise would be a
new level of disingenuousness.

We would like an assurance from you that your Conspiracy Files programme
will not be referring to J7 in relation to Kollerstrom or any other
researcher.

Regards
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

I wish that people would stop posting those ‘Have Your Say’ extracts.

Not really all that surprising. As is evident from Unity’s post above, most of the time when the hysterical right get on their high horses about the BBC, its some silly axe they’re grinding.

This doesn’t even cover the amount of conspiracy loons who inhabit the likes of Iain Dale’s blog and ConHome who think the BBC runs a socialist agenda which is stacked against the Conservative party.

We could have a whole blog just dedicated to such exposes.

I’d be interested in the thoughts of the Liberal Conspiracy team on l’affaire Davis. Anthony Barnett reckons they’re right behind the political classes on this one.

Sorry, that should have been “the BBC’s coverage of l’affaire Davis”.

Typical right-wing BBC attempt to sound populist while reducing complicated issues to Daily Mail standard? Yes Bishop Hill, you’re right.

but I’ve never said BBC journalism is without criticism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/18/liberalsabandonthebbc

The right can’t stand the Beeb, because, according to all their doctrines, it shouldn’t work. A massive state-funded bureaucratic Behemoth which is consistently more creative and inventive than its private competitors? It just doesn’t compute.

Sunny

Yes, I remember you saying that you thought the BBC had a right-wing bias. I’m sure that you will therefore not want to pay for it, since it doesn’t reflect your views.

The BBC is IMHO irredeemably statist, and therefore extremely illiberal. That’s why it is pulling out the stops on 42 days.

Stephen Rouse

I thought it was generally held that all the innovative TV is coming out of the USA at the moment? 24, Six Feet Under, that kind of thing. And even if you like it very much, it doesn’t change the fact that forcing people to pay for your viewing pleasure is not very liberal.

balanced or biased? freedom fighter or terrorist?

As the BBC’s GCSE Bitesize revision programmes repeat to death, “it’s all a matter of perspective.”

Methinks the political camps are in need of some revision to avoid any revisionism.

Bish,

More of a Sopranos man myself – thought 24 lost the plot some way through series three.

The point about the American system is its extreme inefficiency and waste. For every Mad Men and West Wing, we don’t get to see the countless abandoned pilots or series axed after the first few episodes for failure to make the ratings. (The first series of 24 could have fallen foul of this after episode 8 – just think, market forces would have denied us that amazing final plot twist)

I don’t enjoy a lot of the BBC’s output but I accept being forced to pay for Celebrity Strictly I’d Do Anything To Solve A Problem Like John Barrowman on the grounds that it gives pleasure to millions of others. Which is pretty darned liberal, even if I do say so myself.

“The point about the American system is its extreme inefficiency and waste.”

Yes, but the waste isn’t born by non-consensual parties. And the good stuff, both mainstream and outside, coming from the US imho far outclasses almost anything the British have to offer and anything the BBC has to offer.

Conspiracy theorists are now warned! Tony Gosling and his crew have been arrested, and by 10 cops at that. For the full story go to http://www.markofthemask.blogspot.com
Rachel North is the one we need to listen to even if there are inconsistencies in her story.

Dear Unity,
Its exciting to see how my views are generating such interest. All over the place it seems. Do you know, all those years I was writing my history of science (mainly astronomy) articles, I always used to wish someone would come up and talk to me about them … but they didn’t. Suddenly, as you document, comments of an indignant nature are appearing all over the place. O God, not Melanie Philips too?

You allege that, ‘every single piece of source material on which his writings on the Holocaust are based’ came from sources with ‘well-established links to far-right groups and organisations’ – I’m only aware of one, viz the author of the old, 1980s leaflet ‘Did six million really die’ who called himself Richard Harwood. I could not avoid that reference. If there are any others can you kindly advise me? I think you are muddling up revisionist writers eg Robert Faurisson, prof of French symbolist poetry in Paris, currently facing jail because of the talk he gave a the 2006 Iran conference, with your alleged ‘far-right’ sources. I compiled the essay after a few weeks study in the British library and confess that I would not have much idea which sources cited were ‘far right’ – but, I have been advised that the first version of my essay did allude to a few such and deleted them. Could I trouble you to check the slightly revised version of my essay – http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrillusion.html? For me, the most important source is ‘The Rudolf Report’ 2003 by Germar Rudolf the chemist-in-jail. http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/. I do not believe you can credibly allege any right-wing or ‘far-right’ component in his beliefs.

Try to apprehend that my main angle of approach to this subject is chemical, I am only writing about this whole area because two different chemical investigations concur. Whatever it is you want to believe about what happened then, you cannot have repeated cyanide gassings in the normally-designated chambers, because they do not have the residual cyanide in the walls, as shown by the two investigations of Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf. You are here scoffing at my belief that the primary use of cyanide in the Auschwitz camps was in the chambers used for delousing bedding (and everyone’s clothes). If you don’t want to accept that, then the onus lies upon you to explain why these delousing chambers (which still exist, and were specified in the design plans as shown by Pressac) have one thousand times more cyanide in their walls than the chambers alleged to have been used for human gas-chambers. Two different chemical surveys have established this. I am confident you cannot do this.

Concerning your asinine comment that I have alleged ‘that conditions at the camp were something akin to those of holiday camp’ – is character-assassination your only motive here, or did I miss something? The camp at Auschwitz had the industrial purpose of synthetic rubber production for the German war-effort, centred around Monowitz and Rima, and that amenities laid on such as a swimming pool and orchestra were for these workers (over 20,000 one gathers). But I don’t know much about this and would rather not get into an argument about it.

Nick:

Are you somehow blind or merely so wrapped up in you own pet theories that you cannot be bothered to do even the most basic background research into your sources.

Rudolf’s first paper “Report on the formation and verifiability of cyanide compounds in the Auschwitz Gas Chambers” was commissioned by defence attorney, Hajo Herrman, for use in the trial of Otto Ernst Remer, who was charged with incitement to hatred.

Aside from playing a pivotal part in foiling the 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler – and think about what that implies about his political views – Remer went on, after the war, to found the Sozialistische Reichspartei which operated as an openly National Socialist Party in West Germany until it was banned by the West German Federal Court in 1952.

After fleeing Germany to avoid charges of holocaust denial in 1994, Rudolf set up Castle Hill Publishers, which is closely linked to the Flemish far-right VHO.

And FFS, in one of your posts over at CODOH you quote Simon Sheppard as a source – do you have any idea at all who and what Sheppard is?

If nothing else, Nick, why don’t you look into the association between Rudolf, Castle Hill Publications & the VHO and Siegfried Verbeke? Have you looked at Verbeke at all, or at the Order of Flemish Militants, of which he was member?

Do I really have to take this all the way, and document every last connection between your sources and far right politics or do you plan to wake up some time soon and stop living is a state of utter denial.

Honestly, who cares?

It’s not as though the average Brit really thinks about things like the Holocaust on a regular basis – never mind know anything about it. It’s far safer to nod seriously in baffled agreement and feigned concern and wait for the awkwardness to go away so you can talk about “Strictly” or the holiday home in the Dordogne.

If you are going to get all het up about a minority sport such as debating the minutiae of something that supposedly happened some 70 years ago, you may as well include the Chinese Holocaust of some 13 million during the same period – except I don’t suppose they are “white enough” to drum up enough self-righteous opprobrium from the rational and objective Left.

Moreover, the yinyang over the BBC is also rather academic. In a few short years there is about to be a complete “entertainment paradigm shift” as TV ceases to be “broadcast” and joins the infinite host of entertainment products on the internet as digital convergence kicks in, and ISPs start buying out TV production companies and setting up their own VoIP services (much like PlusNet are doing). There’ll be less people actually equipped to receive the prolefeed anyway so there’ll be a momentary fart of “ooh what do we do” as the Charter Renewal drifts in to view, and promptly ceases to make sense; leaving us with the full American spectacle of countless identity-less “channels” all fed through countless identity-less “you tubes” as Airstrip One is culturally subsumed into Pax Americana… but, like I say… who cares!