Consequences

Following the anticlimactic Panorama that turned out to be a mere shadow of the sensationalised trails that preceded it, Lutfur Rahman’s mayorship is under scrutiny. It says so again here on Trial By Jeory.

Eric Pickles has sent auditors from PriceWaterhouseCooper’s to sift through Tower Hamlets’ financial records.  If illegal practices are unearthed, something will happen. 

Some commenters are hoping Rahman will be found guilty and jailed. Imagine the backlash if that happens! Already the BBC has been accused of racism just for investigating this situation. 

I’ve been following the thread, which contains some fascinating comments. Some contributors are predicting that ‘nothing will happen’. Defeatists!

There are many examples of ‘nothing much happening‘ even after the most conclusive cases of bad practice and injustice.    

One commenter asks Mr. Jeory:

 Graham Taylor: “Ted – What’s the situation if a journalist uncovers a criminal act? Do sub judice / contempt of court type rules apply?”

trialbyjeory : “They’d hand evidence to appropriate authorities. In many circumstances a reporter would also agree not to report something they’d uncovered if it jeopardised a criminal investigation. That’s happened to me several times.”

Hmm. This is not strictly true. For example, remember Don’t Panic. I’m Islamic? 

One of the BBC researchers knew Mohammed Hamid was involved in acts of terrorism, yet she didn’t report him to the police. Instead Nasreen Suleaman went to ‘senior BBC managers” and was told not to go to the police.

I know, I know, that was back in 2005; the past is another country, and all that, but not where historic cases of abuse (or various other misdemeanors from the past) are concerned.

So, on the subject of outcomes, the value of having a complaint against the BBC upheld is questionable. Does having a complaint upheld lead to a significant change of policy or have a consequence of any kind?

Being published on the obscure BBC complaints website, or in a PDF that painstakingly sets out the convoluted passage through the  system of each complaint nestled in amongst a mixed bunch of partly upheld, not upheld and other upheld complaints, doesn’t quite seem commensurate with the effort of pushing a complaint uphill against a tide of glue.  

Even though I wasn’t the complainant here, I’d like to see Sarah Montague publicly apologise in at least a 32 second statement. And promise not to do it again; and perhaps have Kevin Connolly boiled in oil. 

I’d quite like to see John Humphrys made to revisit the occasion where he let Jack Straw get away with a gratuitously offensive remark about ‘stealing land’ during an interview with Dore Gold on an unrelated topic, and perhaps have him brave the black chair live, answering questions on “Israel from 1948 to the present day” no passes; and while we’re at it, I’d have preferred one of the presenters on that early morning paper review, which an eagle-eyed viewer highlighted on BBCWatch, to have at least countered Alpesh Patel’s offensive Jewish Lobby remark with something equally robust about the all-powerful Arab Lobby.

Even if these matters were to form the basis of a successful complaint, I doubt the outcome would be life-changing. 

The consequence was: very little.    And the World said:  Nothing.

Dirty Conscience

Well, as several Harry’s Place commenters have wisely remarked, last night’s Panorama was a bit of a damp squib. Since we’re using firework analogies, the background outlined on Trial by Jeory is the issue that is by far (potentially) the most explosive.

Read the H/P thread. (Please) It has some interesting comments as usual.

Lutfur Rahman’s dodgy practices were exposed, but on a scale of financial dirty dealings nought to ten, the revelations in this much too short programme didn’t seem to be revelatory enough to merit all the fuss. I’d give it foive.

The underlying accusations of racism, litigation, betrayal and BBC  machinations are a bigger point of interest.

These are some of the questions I wanted to ask.

What material was left on the cutting room floor?

What is the precise evidence of ‘Muslim’ favouritism wrt diverting substantial amounts of funding? After all, the improved housing, which was organised by Rahman and praised by a resident was for the benefit of all, not just the Somalis and Bengalis.

Why did the investigating team entrust this unreliable lady with their innermost secrets?

Judging by her lengthy apologia on Voice of Bangla she was no literary genius. Her articles were framed as a struggle between her ‘career as a journalist” and her conscience,  i.e. loyalty to the Bengali community.  She found John Ware’s remark that her (Asian) appearance would help with undercover filming disconcerting as she wished to be engaged ‘for my ability’ rather than “because of my appearance”, the implication being that the BBC’s agenda/racism pushed her over the edge and sent her scurrying off home with her secret dossier. 

As it happens I can well believe her allegation that the BBC had a preordained agenda, into which which they fitted their evidence. That is standard BBC, albeit a practice more commonly exerted in the opposite direction, as outlined over and over again on sites like this one and BBCWatch.

What is really worrying is that corrupt goings-on in local government seem to have been imported from the third world; bullying and intimidation on a grand scale. 

As if this isn’t bad enough, taken together with the so-called  Trojan Horse tactic, it’s something that needs governmental intervention. One Panorama does not a summer make.  

Even the Guardian is on the case. There is much more to this than meets the BBC’s eye.