The Parcel Bomb Attacks - Failure, or Win?

Despite the apparent sophistication of the Devices, the attack using Parcel Bombs Carried on Aircraft has, at least so far failed, or has it?

Even though detected, due the Media frenzy Worldwide a classic climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD) has been generated, this in it's self could be considered a win by those who planned/authorised the attacks. There is nothing new about Parcel Bombs and other than these were designed to explode in Flight, were a reversion to 'old school terrorism'. What has changed is the way the Media now 'spin' such stories.

When Intelligence and Security services foil a planned attack without publicity, the Terror Planners, may, or may not learn a useful lesson from the failure, but there is no getting away from the fact it was a failure.

But when as in this case, the plan fails, but does so under the spotlight of intense Media Interest (almost obsessive analysis of every aspect) then the failure can be turned in to a PR win. Actually killing people can rebound by hardening the resolve of the targeted Nation, or Culture, but not killing anyone whilst reinforcing the possibility of at anytime doing so, generates the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Also the Media demands action, leading to Politicians having to react publicly and immediately, which can in turn result in unfortunate statements being made and possibly counterproductive reactive action being ordered.

I find causalities from IEDs tragic, but the IRA were using remotely detonated roadside devices 30+ years ago, parcel/letter bombs have been used by many groups , again including the IRA, even bombs on Aircraft predate Lockerbie by decades. What has changed is the way the Media Report these events (actually report is often an incorrect term, express opinions that they may not be qualified to give, is too often the case). It is fair to say groups such as Al-Qaeda has learned that in many ways the Western Media, due to the way they react to events, useful in assisting in raising the climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt.

It probably why, although individual Journalists and film units have been targeted, no attacks have been launched against News Media Studios and Headquarters.

A cynical update of the view: 'A capitalist is someone who sells you the rope with which you then hang him', could be rewritten as 'The Western News Media's way of reporting, assists in the destruction of their way of life'.

Link to an Article in Aircargo News 02nd November 2010: Bomb plot fails but terror still rules

BBC Review - BBC Trust and DG Running Scared!

The remit of the BBC is to Inform, Educate and Entertain. In pursuit of these objectives the BBC has become the most trusted Broadcaster in the World. It is also an innovator, or at the very least an early adopter of new forms of media from Television through to today's Digital World, but at the same time continuing to develop its base in Radio and Print Publishing (the Radio Times started back n the 1920's), in the process it has become not just a National Icon, but one of the few British Institutions that are respected, trusted and admired worldwide.

The BBC like the Royal Family has to be seen to be apolitical (above politics, unbiased) and also or ensure niche audiences are catered for. In the modern era the need to be seen as 'apolitical' has meant that Politicians of almost every shade of opinion consider the BBC is biased against them (good it means the BBC is doing its job). Increasingly Commercial Broadcasting, Internet and Publishing Companies led by Rupert Murdoch's News International have launched ever more virulent attacks against the BBC. This has led to the BBC being attacked on two fronts.

Why because the BBC is good at what it does and they cannot compete? Well yes of course, but the Commercial Media spin their inability to compete because the BBC's is publicly funded through the Licence Fee, whilst they, who are more interested in Profit for their shareholders are not. Well, if you cannot compete with a Broadcaster that has to provide programming you would NEVER consider because it would never make a profit, provide coverage which you again aren't interested in and because of its remit do many things that you would not do, because it would harm your advertising revenue and therefore damage profits, then maybe the problem is that you are just not good enough to compete in the areas where you and the BBC meet head on!

Britain's Politicians have always had an uneasy relationship with the BBC, but as being a Politician has increasingly meant you also have to be a Media Personality the relationship has worsened. Normally I would see this as a case of if you want to be a Political Leader then facing for instance, Jeremy Paxman in Rottweiler mode is part of being in the trade.
But it is obvious that the Conservatives in particular are gunning for the BBC and now they have climbed into bed with Rupert Murdoch, the BBC leadership and in particular its oversight organisation the BBC Trust appear to be running scared.

The BBC's Independence from Government and Politics is paramount if it is to meet its remit, running scared is not the answer but fighting back does present a conundrum. As an apolitical organisation the BBC has it hands tied and cannot galvanise the public in its defence, because to do so would obviously be a political bias. So it is left to those outside the BBC to defend it
But this also is not as easy as it should be, because of lax management the BBC has been shooting itself in the foot ranging from Blue Peter Competitions through to employing the 'over aged juveniles' Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand and even allowing a discredited reporter back on air occasionally. Also being in the news itself over what it pays executives and talent (Jonathan Ross is deemed talent?).

Mark Thompson may be reaping what others had sown, but is he the right man to be Director General in this time of crisis? Probably not, but he is the man on seat and it is his forthcoming Strategic Review that will, assuming it passes through purview by the BBC Trust determine the future shape of the BBC and this fact concerns me greatly.

Although less high profile, the Conservatives, if they win the next election also plan to scrap Ofcom the independent regulator for Communications and bring it back under Government Control. Whilst not a fan of quanos in general, in the case of independent regulators I am willing to make an exception. I would prefer a more aggressive, proactive Ofcom, but would rather have the current less satisfactory version than let Politicians control the regulator, especially Politicians in bed with a media mogul!

Whilst the BBC must always try to achieve balance, companies like News International set their own agenda. When Murdoch switched his political support in the UK from Labour to the Conservatives his UK media empire followed the Bosses New Party Line (it is an old Press Baron's trick, which has evolved to the Multi-media Age). Elsewhere in the world I always found Fox News in the US a source of amusement because of its reporting bias, but amusement would turn to a great deal of concern if that type of News Channel gained any prominence in the UK.

Personal Note to the Right Honourable David Cameron MP:
Dear Dave.
Your Candidate for the Constituency which includes my West London Hilltop appears to have the qualities I want in my parliamentary representative. It is therefore sad that based on current evidence of your policies she will not be getting my vote. Your party has some good policies (but then so do the others) and some I disagree with (as do the others), but on the list of reasons why I shouldn't vote Conservative in the next election following Tony Blair into the Murdoch Bed earned your party a lot of bad marks and the orchestrated sniping at the BBC from both the front bench and even backbench, but front bench wannabees like Doug Carswell have earned you even more. The desire to drastically reduce quangos is good, but Ofcom and indeed other independent regulators should not be brought back under political control, but instead given sharper teeth and told their role is to protect the consumer and business against the Privatised excesses of the often foreign owned Utilities and in the case of Ofcom the Telecoms and Media. Profit is good, excessive profit, when the consumers are effectively captive to the service provided, with limited or no choice is unacceptable.

I look forward to your party Manifesto which I shall read several times along with those of the other parties. But at the moment mine is one vote I wouldn't count on and in this constituency that 1 vote could be important.
End Personal Note

Moving on to what the leaked elements of the Strategic Review would affect:

1. Reduced Spending on imported Programmes: Not against that in principle, but as Torin Douglas wrote in a BBC article 'But would anyone else show Mad Men, which has attracted critical acclaim but few viewers'. Hmm good one Torin as it is an excellent series and maybe the viewing figures are due scheduling rather than anything else.
   
   
2. The Teenage Market. I am not a teen, so cannot comment on how good the BBC is at satisfying that market. But it is part of the remit of the BBC to fill niche audience needs and teens are an important group!
   
   
3. Radio - Dropping 6 Music and the Asian Network. Well for me the music died with John Peel, so I cannot comment on 6 Music. As for the Asian Network, well I am not Asian and as audience figures are in decline, it is obviously not doing its job. It's another Niche Audience and again under the remit should receive some coverage, although whether as a
   separate Radio Network, I think not!
   
   
4. Cease UK Magazine Publishing. In this case, as with so much the BBC has become a victim of its own success. BBC Worldwide who are responsible for the Publishing arm were told by the Government (not the BBC Trust) go forth and make more money and they did, very successfully, with UK titles like Top Gear and the Radio Times.
   
   Guess what Commercial Publishers are now screaming foul. Ahh bless! the publishing arm is an effective commercially run organisation, so if you cannot compete then get out the market. But according to the leaked Strategic Review instead of defending this money maker the BBC is planning to outsource, or sell off titles. Yes their running scared!
   
   
5. This brings me to a Jewel in the BBC Crown, The BBC Website, or rather sites. The BBC Sites form a massive National Resource of History, Programmes Past and Present, Articles and quirky side sites like h2g2 the online encyclopaedia, similar in idea to Wikipedia, used by those who know about it but mostly ignored.
   
   Yes the BBC Sites both UK and Worldwide have grown like Topsy. Yes there could be some restructuring, but not cost cutting, instead, revamp and grow the site, News and Sports areas are basically fine, but in areas of Science, Technology and indeed any specialist subject provide links to sites that cover a given subject of an Article in-depth (some of this is does already happen, but arrange with publishers that if an article is accessed by BBC site referrer then the full article is available without a separate log-in, although any intro Advertising remains). Expand the Programme archive, restructure the Historical Sections.
   
   Commercial Online News Services in specific areas such as Computing already provide back links to the BBC and often quote BBC Website Entries in their articles (sometimes
   ironically, but mostly factually). Leverage these types of relationship.
   
   Downsizing, or in any negative way messing with the BBC Websites is
   worth going to the Barricades to stop. Improve and restructure, but
   don't anyone dare even consider slowing the growth of what is probably
   the most useful Website in the World!
   

Present For The BBC - Much Better Pay than being an MP

The base salary for an MP is nearly £65,000. Which is about twice what many of them are worth. But if based on the 'job description' is probably about £15,000 too low.
Now MP's salaries and expenses have been in the Media spotlight with the BBC in there with the best of them (and quite rightly so).

Yet when it comes to the contracts for its Radio and TV Presenters, it suddenly goes very coy. Siting confidentiality agreements with presenters over pay!
This is the BBC fearless investigator of those whom it deems have their noses in the trough and are riding a gravy train?
Apparently so, but then who but the BBC would pay:

• That aging Juvenile Jonathan Ross £6 Million a year for the past three years and is rumoured to be renewing the contract for another three years at £3 Million a year!
• The miniature man Graham Norton has been paid nearly £2.5 Million a year for the past three years and looks like renewing for less (but almost certainly many times what he is worth i.e. the Minimum Wage plus 10%)
  

But this is the BBC where the 'talentless' are routinely overpaid and allowed to over exercise their egos! Surely there are some decent Chat Show Hosts out there?

Moving on: Jeremy Paxman who is very good at what he does. gets £800,000 for Newsnight and plus more for doing University Challenge, pushing his annual earnings over £1 Million. Yes Jeremy is good, but that good!

Meanwhile, Terry Wogan is reputedly being paid £800,000 a year for his radio show! Whilst Chris Moyles get £630,000. These inflated salaries mean that Production costs for most breakfast and drivetime shows on BBC radio were "much higher" than those on commercial radio stations and the average Presenter Salary was twice that paid by Commercial Radio.

I think the BBC is one of the greatest British Institutions, but some of these salaries are beyond belief and trying to hide information from bodies such as the National Audit Office and House of Commons public accounts select committee is an indication of not only they have something to conceal, but know that they will face the same sort of public outcry that they have helped to stir up against MPs expenses.

The BBC's reaction is typical of the Media's fear of being investigated for the very abuses they publicize in others. Whilst one almost expects this of the Newspapers, the fact that this is the BBC once again shows how low standards have fallen.

However as light relief, here are Stephen Fry's comments on Journalists during an interview with Michael Crick:

“Although, of course, anybody can talk about snouts in troughs, and go on about it, for journalists to do so is almost beyond belief, beyond belief. I know lots of journalists; I know more journalists than I know politicians.And I’ve never met a more venal and disgusting crowd of people when it comes to expenses and allowances."

It is probably the first time I have laughed whilst watching a Newsnight Interview. Whilst I disagree with Stephen over much of what followed in the interview, it is worth watching for his opening comments:

Michael Crick inteviews Stephen Fry on MPs Expenses

Attack in Sri Lankan Cricket Team -Six Police Die in the line of Duty

There has been a lot of criticism over the measures taken by Pakistan to secure the safety of the Sri Lankan Cricket Team.

Well six Policemen Died in the Line of Duty as part of that security failure!

Ambushed and Outgunned the Police did not really stand much chance, but their deaths along with the quick actions of the Driver of the Team Coach saved the Cricketers lives.

Already their deaths and those of the two civilians also killed are footnotes in todays stories in the media. But the Idle Man hopes that the Lahore Police Force buried their dead with Honour and Ceremony due to those who died in the line of duty and will help their families through this time of their grief and into the future.

Moving on to the overall security arrangements, well much better qualified people than I, have stated these were less than adequate, and therefore must have been privy to these arrangements prior to the attack. If this is so, did they raise these concerns before the attack?

Sorry I am being ironic, the people commenting of the security arrangements in the media wouldn't have been briefed and as usual are being wise after the event.

The primary failure as in all highly successful terrorist attacks is in Intelligence. If you don't have prior knowledge of at least the general plan then you cannot quantify the action needed to either arrest those planning to take part, or provide the correct security needed to thwart the attack if it occurs.

That does not mean there were not failures in security on the ground. Mention has been made that the Team Coach took the same route each day. The small scale map of the area I have seen, seems to indicate that the Liberty Roundabout, scene of the attack was going to be part of any route to the ground. Commonsense dictates that if this is a 'choke point' on the route it is where security needs to be at its highest. But the level of security like any insurance is based on risk assessment, which brings us back to the failure in Intelligence.

Every successful Terrorist attack is a failure in Intelligence and Security. But to paraphrase an IRA Terrorist 'you can stop us 9 times out 10, but we only need that one success'.

I am extremely pleased that the casualties to the Sri Lankan Sportsmen and the Officials were limited to minor wounds and also laud the efforts of the Coach Driver to save himself and his passengers.

But my sympathies lie with the families of the two civilians and six policemen who died and the Men and Women of the Lahore police force who lost six colleagues, but today have to carry on policing the city.

External Links:
BBC - How the attack on cricketers happened

Pondering the Israel, Gaza Situation.

The Idle Man has avoided posting on the recent Israeli Incursion into Gaza, primarily because my thoughts on the entire episode have been contradictary:

Before going further a map of the entire Gaza Strip:

• I fully understand why the Israelis decided to take military action. Having daily rocket attacks into your villages and towns requires action to stop it. As Hamas seems impervious to any diplomatic or economic pressure, military action was the only option left. As to whether the action was proportionate, is not a subject I feel qualified to judge. Unfortunately this has not stopped many just as unqualified as I, making pronouncements in Newspapers, or through Broadcast Media.
• I have immense sympathy for ordinary Palestinians who have been wounded, traumatised, lost love ones, homes, or livelihood.
• I intensely loath Hamas and its core agenda, but admit it has played its few cards extremely well and in many cases has trumped the incredibly slick and well organised Israeli PR Machine.
• I found the British Media's whining about the restrictions placed on them by the Israelis annoying, as none of them apparently tried to report from the Egyptian Side of the Gaza Border and the stalled supplies and medical volunteers stranded there, because Egypt for very good reasons kept the official border crossing closed. Maybe the Egyptians refused them access, if so they didn't mention this. Also none of them tried to get past the Israeli Naval Blockade on the Mediterranean Sea. Perhaps our fearless reporters felt that even if this didn't endanger their lives, it might endanger their careers as if caught they would never work in Israel again.
• In addition Western Media have an unfortunate tradition of endangering the lives of their own servicemen and women due irresponsible reporting and one can therefore understand the Israelis being reluctant to let them anywhere near the front line.
• I agree with the BBC and Sky refusal to broadcast the British Disaster Emergency Committee Appeal. Although this puts the BBC and Sky in a no-win situation, the decision is correct as this is not just another humanitarian disaster, but a political minefield. A minefield involving the fact that the Gaz Strip is governed by a Terrorist Organisation dedicated to the destruction of Israel and is anti-semitic and anti-christian. This coupled with the delicate political situation regarding the other Palestinian Enclave on the West Bank, plus Egypt, Jordan as well as Israel, means that any station broadcasting this appeal is sending a political message, that many will see as a statement of position, rather than simply a request for relief donations. I find it sad that ITV and Channel 4 have decided to Boradcast, but it is a free country, so it is up to them.
  
• At a personal level, whilst I accept that in many disasters some of the donations end up in the hands of the Corrupt, in this case, unless I receive a written guarantee that any monies donated will NOT be accessible by, pass through, or be paid to Hamas Officials, or Agencies, or Agents, then I will not be donating anything. I have never (at least knowingly) donated money, a proportion of which has ended up in the coffers of a Terrorist Organisation and I am not going to start now!
  
• The senior clerics of the Anglican and Catholic faiths in Britain have 'waded in' criticizing the BBC, yet they have been strangely silent over the plight of Palestinian Christians who have been persecuted for decades. I suggest that before having a go at the BBC and Sky, I suggest you start looking at what you should have been doing to help the Christians who live in a climate of persecution and abuse. He who casts the first stone..

Other Posts on Gaza in this Blog:
Hamas and Humanitarian Aid to Gaza, 06/07 Feburary 2008

The Brand & Ross Sitrep

The situation as of today stands as follows:
BBC Action:
Russell Brand: - Resigned from his Radio 2 show! His TV Show on Channel 4 continues (I fleetingly saw him as I switched Channels - So checked the Schedules). As I indicated in my last post, he irritates me and I don't get his 'humour'.

Jonathan Ross: - Suspended for 12 Weeks without Pay (In effect a fine) and on final warning. I don't think this enough, but at least its something.

Legal Situation:
I still believe Brand and Ross actually broke the Law in two areas (see Brand and Ross Suspended by the BBC) and this remains outstanding,

Ofcom:
Still investigating.

Fallout at the BBC
Lesley Douglas: The controller of Radio 2, has resigned over the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand phone prank scandal.
Although she has done the honourable thing by accepting both responsibility and therefore accountability (something some of our leading Politicians need to learn), I regret that this Scandal has caused the end of her 23 year (and apparently unblemished) career with the BBC.
Mark Thompson: The BBC Director General had a difficult interview with Emily Maitlis on BBC Newsnight (see also BBC Newsnight Wikipedia Entry) but as once he was in the loop (on Holiday when this became a Scandal) took decisive action and therefore will probably be safe in his job for a while.

However during the Interview with Emily Maitlis the subject of a joke about the Queen on Mock The Week was raised. I am a fan of this show, but occasionally it does go beyond edgy into 'out of bounds territory' and I think this joke was an example. The fact it remained in for Broadcast was obviously an editorial decision and whilst I believe it was unacceptable, I and not sure if the majority of viewers would agree it went too far. This is part of the problem that faces all Comedy Shows, who decides the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable. Although the Brand and Ross radio show was so appalling it should have been a 'no brainer' to have deemed it unacceptable, a lot of the after the watershed comedy shows are 'edgy' and therefore the boundary between acceptable/unacceptable often going to be close.

Will I stop watching Mock the Week because of this one Joke?
NO - It was in bad taste, but it was single joke and in my opinion should not have been broadcast. The rest of that show I found very funny and my personal view is the rest of the jokes and banter did not actually cross the boundary. Unlike the Brand/Ross Situation there was no sustained stream of sub-juvenile behaviour.


-

Brand and Ross Suspended by the BBC

I admit that I find Russell Brand extremely irritating and his sense humour totally out of synch with mine, so I neither watch his Television Appearances, or Listen to his Radio Shows.
However a very large number of people think he is brilliant.

As for Jonathan Ross, well.. I think he does Film 2008 as well as any replacement for Barry Norman could. His Friday Night Show is hit and miss, but without Michael Parkinson being around anymore, it is probably the best there is! I don't listen to his Radio Show, so cannot comment.

As for the Broadcast that has caused the pairs suspension, well I did not listen to it, but it is obvious from the transcript that they made several unsolicited, offensive (bordering on the obscene) telephone calls to a private number.
Regardless of other causes of offense during the Programme, they appear to have broken the law under the Telecommunications Act of 1984, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 Section 1 as amended by Section 43 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and the Protection From Harassment Act 1997.

Unfortunately it appears the maximum they could each be fined is a £1000.00, a sum that is 'loose change' to Jonathan Ross and hardly noticable by Russell Brand. However if these Laws have been broken then Messrs Brand and Ross are both directly responsble and accountable. regardless of whether the recordings made were subsequently Broadcast.

The fact they were Broadcast and without the permission of Mr Sachs and his Family makes things even worse (One assumes there are grounds for Civial Action against the pair and the BBC).

From reading the transcript, the attempts at humour for most of the show was sub-juvenile and much of it was offensive to Andrew Sachs and his Granddaughter. One senses the show became an ego trip, each egging each other on.

The responsibilty for actually allowing the show to Air with both the Phone Calls and the related offensive material, also makes the BBC Editorial, Production Team and their Executive Managers culpable on several counts.

However both Brand and Ross have 'power' in the BBC and taking them on about their behaviour and the shows content would require someone with a strong personality an ability to stand their ground in the face of 'bullying', plus knowing their superiors would support them, not side with the 'talent'. I am NOT excusing the Editoral and Executive failures, just that I suspect
that the Production team had neither the experience, or confidence to deal with these massive egos.

Ofcom, which is responsible for Broadcast and Communications standards are going to have a field day with this. I hope that when their investigation reaches a conclusion, if they decide a fine is appropriate, then it should be severe. From what I've read, a fine equivalent to six months of their salary from the BBC would probably be a salutary lesson for messrs Brand and Ross. As for the fine on the BBC well I suspect it will be very large.

Will this end Brand's and Ross' careers?
As regards Russell Brand personally I wouldn't care if this was the case.
As for Jonanthan Ross, I suspect his career will be seriously dented and it will take a while for viewers to warm to him again. Whether this will end his hopes of eventually becoming an 'elder statesman' of chat shows, probably not, but it will take a lot longer to achieve it.

As to should they be sacked from the BBC?
Personally my opnion is YES. But in reality and the way the media 'protect their own and their investment in talent ' then Russell Brand possibly and, Jonathan Ross probably not.
Even if both were sacked, then they would be back on TV and Radio within the year, because that is how Broadcast Media works in the UK.

However if I was Jonathan Ross' agent, I wouldn't be accepting any invites to guest host Have I Got News For You for a couple of years at least.

UPDATE 28 Oct 2008 1819 GMT:
Russell Brand has resigned from his Radio 2 programme

UPDATE 31 Oct 2008 1418 GMT:
The Brand & Ross Sitrep (On this Blog)