British Bullying Corporation

Let us be clear. The BBC is funded to a large extent by us, the license payer. Admittedly they do sell programmes around the world and sell advertising on their world tv station. The seed-corn from the license fee which underpins so much of what they do comes from us.

In that context it is quite appalling what was revealed yesterday in the Dinah Rose Review report. The review was set up in the light of the Jimmy Saville revelations. It does not make pleasant reading. The fact that this report emerged on the same day that the news about Stuart Hall broke left the revelations somewhat overshadowed.

In sum, sexual harassment at the corporation is an issue but not as big an issue as bullying which was described by several contributors as ‘institutional.’ In particular, there is a perception among many of the BBC’s employees that those known as ‘the talent’ are considered untouchable. There are also managers who are known bullies who are not only still in post but have actually been promoted.

“A total of 35 people were involved in 37 cases of alleged sexual harassment at the BBC over the past six years, according to the Rose review. Two individuals were dismissed, while a third received a written warning. More than two-thirds of the cases resulted in the perpetrator receiving a final warning or their contract terminated.

In a "very small" number of examples, the alleged offender had gone on to be promoted despite having a sexual harassment complaint upheld against them – while in "only a few cases" the alleged perpetrator had been suspended or redeployed to another part of the BBC after the complaint.

The report said concerns about bullying and "other forms of inappropriate behaviour" were "much more prominent". "Often this behaviour appears to go unchallenged by senior managers," it said. "Some individuals are seen as being 'untouchable' due to their perceived value to the BBC."

But broadcasting unions criticised the corporation, attacking the "toxic" problem of bullying and harassment at the BBC. "It is quite clear that bullying has become an institutionalised problem at the BBC, one that has taken hold over many years," said Michelle Stanistreet, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists.

"Our submission [to the BBC inquiry] was eye watering stuff – people have been bullied because of their sexuality, or their race; women have been subjected to the most awful sexism; journalists have been openly attacked about their age and there are many others whose lives have been made unbearable for no discernible reason, people have been picked off simply because their face doesn't seem to fit."

The NUJ submitted more than 70 pieces of testimony to the Rose review, including multiple accusations of bullying against a single senior executive who was named in a collective complaint by more than 20 people. 

Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of the BBC's biggest union, Bectu, said bullying affected "several hundred" people at the broadcaster with complaints made daily to his representatives. "It is not physical intimidation, it is people who lose their temper, are shouting, the impact on people can be demeaning and humiliating," he said.” Guardian 3/5/13

Having worked in an institution where bullying by a small number of managers was allowed to go unchecked, the comments about people losing their temper, shouting at and humiliating staff, rang a lot of bells.  The effect on a large institution is pernicious. Most people prefer a quiet life and do not want to put their head above the parapet. To watch the few who are prepared to do so get shouted at or belittled for expressing genuine concerns has a deleterious effect on the watchers. Contributions to meetings become guarded and ‘safe.’ Alternative thinking rarely happens. People become very defensive. For some, week-ends were a welcome break, but all too soon Sunday night would herald another Monday morning. A colleague would wince when he saw a particular car in the car park knowing that at some point there was a good chance that he would be subjected to a tirade.

What should have been a vibrant happy workplace, full of creativity and energy, became a place where getting by and not being noticed was the norm. Expressions such as ‘tin hat day’ were shorthand for staff to be particularly careful. To work in such an atmosphere is soul-destroying. For those who were on the receiving end it was bad enough. For those who colluded, it was also very bad as they had to live with the compromises and consequences of their inaction.

For senior managers to ignore, collude with or even perpetrate bullying is awful. These are very highly paid executives at the BBC. 

In the light of all the recent revelations they are not earning their money.

There needs to be a cull of anyone at the beeb who has either bullied, or colluded with bullying. They should be sacked forthwith. 

The BBC should be a shining example of creativity and best practice. It has a long long way to go to get back its reputation. There are many sharks circling who would dearly love for it to be broken up and sold off.

The reality of Drones

The following is reproduced in its entirety. It is the opening statement to the US Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. The statement comes from Ibrahim Mothana, a 24 year old Yemeni writer and activist. 

“Written testimony of Ibrahim Mothana for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cruz, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide my written testimony on the critical issue of the increasing US targeted killings in Yemen.

Yemen and the United States of America

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to tell you about my country. The people of our two countries share many of the same dreams although many Americans may not realize this, in part because of a media that focuses on terrorism to the exclusion of a broader understanding of Yemen. Al-Qaida and its associates in Yemen, at the most extreme estimates, number a few thousand members, no more than a tiny fragment of our 24 million people who hope and dream of a better future — one that offers them dignity, freedom, and economic stability.

We are the poorest country in the Middle East with over 50 percent of our people living on less than 2 dollars a day. We are running out of water and out of oil, our major source of foreign revenue. Our nation has been troubled by decades of conflicts and an irresponsible, corrupt governments. A lot of my childhood friends are unemployed and live a daily struggle to maintain their basic human needs. In 2011, millions of Yemenis who lived decades under one autocratic ruler rose up in a largely peaceful revolution calling for democracy, accountability and justice, the very values cherished in American democracy.

Many young people like me grew up looking to America and its people for inspiration. Among many other things my teenage years were enriched by Carl Sagan's Cosmos, Martin Luther King Junior's speeches, Mark Twain's sarcasm and American TV shows. The promise of equality and freedom seemed fulfilled when America elected its first black president. With an upsurge of happiness, many Yemenis celebrated the inauguration day and, at that point, President Obama was more popular among my friends than any other Yemeni figure. I was inspired by President Obama's promise of "a new era of leadership that will bring back America's credibility on human rights Issues and reject prioritizing safety to ideals."

But happiness and inspiration gave way to misery. My admiration for the American dream and Obama's promises has become overshadowed by the reality of the American drones strike nightmare in Yemen.

The Impact on Yemen and its People of the US Targeted Killing Policy

In the past few years, I have visited and worked in areas of Yemen that are the forefront of what the United States views as a global conflict against Al-Qaeda and associated forces. I have witnessed how the US use of armed drones and botched air strikes against alleged militant targets has increased anti-American sentiment in my country, prompting some Yemenis to join violent militant groups, motivated more by a desire for revenge than by ideological beliefs.

We Yemenis got our first experience with targeted killings under the Obama administration on December 17, 2009, with a cruise missile strike in al-Majala, a hamlet in a remote area of southern Yemen. This attack killed 44 people including 21 women and 14 children, according to Yemeni and international rights groups including Amnesty International. The lethal impact of that strike on innocents lasted long after it took place. On August 9, 2010, two locals were killed and 15 were injured from an explosion of one remaining cluster bomb from that strike.

After that tragic event in 2009, both Yemeni and US officials continued a policy of denial that ultimately damaged the credibility and legitimacy of the Yemeni government. According to a leaked US diplomatic cable, in a meeting on January 2, 2010, Deputy Prime Minister Rashad al-Alimi joked about how he had just "lied" by telling the Yemeni parliament the bombs in the al-Majala attack were dropped by the Yemenis, and then-President Ali Abdullah Saleh made a promise to General Petreaus, then the then head of US central command, saying: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours." Such collusion added insult to injury to Yemenis.

Animosity has been heightened by the US use of so-called "signature strikes" that target military-age males and groups by secret, remote analysis of lifestyle patterns. In Yemen, we fear that the signature strike approach allows the Obama administration to falsely claim that civilian casualties are non-existent. In the eye of a signature strike, it could be that someone innocent like me is seen as a militant until proven otherwise. How can a dead person prove his innocence? For the many labeled as militants when they are killed, it's difficult to verify if they really were active members of groups like AQAP, let alone whether they deserved to die.

In Yemen, we know that the reliability of the intelligence the United States uses to launch and report drone strikes is questionable. For instance, the Yemeni authorities have claimed three times that Saeed al-Shiri, the second-in-command of Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), was killed by a drone strike. According to Yemeni and international media, at least 30 other suspected militants were announced to be killed in these strikes. But as recently as April 8, 2013, Shihri appeared to be alive. So who were the dozens of people killed in the three strikes that allegedly killed Shihri?

In the majority of cases, we Yemenis receive no explanation about why suspected militants are killed and what threat they posed to the United States. If the intelligence misidentified Shihri, the suspected militants who were killed in these incidents might just be random people who were in the wrong place.

We Yemenis are deeply worried that the Obama administration appears to be avoiding the Guantanamo dilemma of indefinite detentions without charge by killing suspects in Yemen rather than trying to capture them. An example is the November 7, 2012 targeted killing of Adnan al-Qadhi, who was a lieutenant colonel in the Yemeni army and reported to be a suspected al-Qaida militant in Sanhan, a district 22 miles east from the Yemeni capital and a 15-minute drive from where I live. Sanhan is near to one of the biggest bases of the Republican Guard, at the time one of Yemen's most powerful military units. According to his family members, Yemeni authorities could have arrested Adnan any time. Adnan's brother Hemyar al-Qadhi told me, "Adnan was arrested and released by the government in 2008 and we would've taken him ourselves to the authorities if they requested him again."

We Yemenis ask ourselves, how many more of our citizens were killed without any attempt at capture instead? Why is it that in the four years that John Brennan was the top counterterrorism advisor, only one so-called "high-value target" was arrested anywhere outside the United States?

More Human Costs and the Consequences of US Targeted Killing Policy

During my visits to Abyan, Shabwa and Radaa, three areas of central and southern Yemen where the US has carried out targeted killings, I was overwhelmed with sadness meeting families of drone victims suffering a miserable combination of personal loss and devastating economic burden. Many of the children of strike victims that I saw were severely malnourished and families who lost their main financial provider had little hope for the future. For many of the youngsters, death seemed an easier burden than life so, with this bleak outlook, they joined the fight against the government.

With drones flying overhead 24/7, people are living in constant fear and anxiety over the possibility of another strike. During my visits to these areas, I shared their fear. I felt as Adel al-Jonaidi, a high school student living in Radaa did, when he told me, "Whenever drones are hovering in the area, it's like being in a state of waiting endlessly for execution."

The more unjustified the drone strike victim, the more rage it creates within local communities. Angry reaction followed in Hadramout when Salem Ahmed Bin Ali Jaber, a moderate cleric who often denounced violence and publicly opposed al-Qaeda, was killed in a drone strike on August 25, 2012. Such strikes call into question US claims of tidy surgical strikes and explain why the number of AQAP estimated fighters increased from a few hundred in 2009 to a few thousand in 2013, according to Yemeni and US government estimates.

In another botched strike, a missile struck a passenger van in central al-Bayda governorate on September 2, 2012, killing 12 civilians, 3 of them children. Local and international media initially quoted anonymous Yemeni officials as saying the strike targeted militants, but state-run media later conceded the killings were an "accident" that killed civilians. During a recent visit to Radaa, the city near the attack site, I met Mohamed Mabkhoot, a relative of one of the civilians who was killed. Mabkhoot explained how months after the attack there is still mounting rage at the apathy and inability of the Yemeni government to bring justice for those affected by the strike.

"Our lives are not worthless and it's common sense that people start hating America when their innocent relatives and family members are killed. Young people here are desperate and will fight to die if they don't have anything left for them to live for," he told me.

Drone strikes and US military intervention are the rallying cry that al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Yemen use to recruit more fighters. In a country like Iraq, al-Qaeda was created from scratch after 2003, seizing on the existing local grievances the war created. Something similar is happening here in Yemen. During my visits to different parts of my country, even though I hear broad opposition to AQAP, I also hear objections to foreign intervention by the United States.

Even natural allies of the United States like young leaders, intelligentsia and the upper middle class feel that the targeted killings infringe on Yemen's sovereignty. Many of us ruefully repeat a line from one President Obama's press conference on November 18, 2012: "There is no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders."

Moreover, it's vital to grasp the intricacies of our society's reality, where tribal dynamics and laws are vital in largely under-governed areas. In Yemen, killing a person without trial is not only extrajudicial, it also violates the sovereignty and dignity of the entire tribe to which the slain person belonged. Each tribe is responsible for defending and ensuring the safety of its members. Understanding the tribal system and traditions is key to winning hearts and minds of the local populations and to gaining their support. The lack of any apology, compensation or damage control-mechanisms, outrages tribes and local populations in the affected areas.

In one case, a drone strike exacerbated my country's already serious political and economic difficulties. On May 25, 2010, a US drone strike killed Jabr al-Shabwani, a prominent sheikh and deputy governor of Marib province who was a US counterterrorism ally After Sheikh Shabwani was killed by the strike, his tribe carried out retaliatory attacks on my country's main oil pipeline, which runs through Marib, costing Yemen billions of dollars. This is no small matter when you consider that 70 percent of Yemen's national budget relies on oil exports. The strike also erased years of progress and trust-building between the US and other tribes who had helped fight Al Qaeda in their areas; they considered the killing a betrayal.

The Targeted Killing Policy is Counter-Productive

Many of us in Yemen believe that even strikes that kill AQAP leaders can be counterproductive. The short-term military gains are miniscule compared to the long-term damage that the targeted killing program causes. In the place of one slain leader, new leaders swiftly emerge in furious retaliation for attacks in their territories. And with each strike, it becomes ever easier to belong to a militant group in the region where your tribe lives.

As Khaled Toayman, a young Sheikh from Marib and a son of a Yemeni member of parliament told me, "We are against terrorism and we seek to live in peace and dignity like anyone else in the world. I don't hate America or Americans. I just want to know why my relatives are killed."

In my visits to the areas affected by drone strikes, I observed an increasing sentiment that America is part of a problem and not a solution, something that is hard for diplomats to feel while living disconnected from Yemenis in the emerging Green Zones of Sanaa. In Yemen, it's impossible to win a war with drone strikes where basic services and human needs remain unmet. For a loaf of bread, you can push a hungry, desperate and angry young man to fight for al-Qaeda, possibly regardless of his ideological beliefs.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we Yemenis are the ones who suffer the most from the presence of Al Qaeda and getting rid of this exhausting plague is a top priority for the majority of people in the country. But we also see that there is no easy way to end terrorism. Only a long-term approach that strengthens democracy, accountability and justice, together with programs to address structural economic and social drivers of extremism can bring about security in my country.

When I think of solutions, I think of our common ideals. The drone program is far from these. Edward S. Herman offers us a critique and an opportunity in his reflection on Hana's Arendt concept of the Banality of Evil: "Doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way rests on 'normalization.' This is the process whereby ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and are accepted as 'the way things are done.' "

As a Yemeni citizen, I urge the US government not normalize crimes committed under the name of your great country. I call on the US administration to be transparent regarding the strikes it has authorized in Yemen and to compensate affected civilians. I call on the United States to critically reflect on using targeted strikes and the existing counterterrorism policy in Yemen and to see that, it is insecurity and not security that these are creating in my country, the region, the US, and the entire world.”

[Document reproduced in Guardian Online thanks to Glenn Greenwald, 1/5/13]

Powerful testimony of the stupidity and futility of the drone approach to counter-terrorism. The question always worth asking in circumstances similar to these is, “Who benefits?” Certainly not the Yemeni people. Certainly not the US, who confirm their reputation in the Middle East as the ‘Great Satan.’ And certainly not the cause of world peace as more and more angry young people seek revenge. Which leaves us with the arms manufacturers.....

Wherever the US goes, the UK is never far behind. The government have recently admitted that our drones are being ‘piloted’ from RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire. 

Not in my name they are. 

Whistleblowing at HMRC

Certain stories emerge every so often which act as a barometer for our times. This is one. 

A whistleblower contacted the National Audit Office and two parliamentary committees under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. He wrote ‘in confidence’ but the clerk to the public accounts committee contacted HMRC to check whether the whistleblower was their employee. What followed is salutary.

“Tax officials used intrusive investigative powers meant to catch serious criminals to try to prove that a whistleblower who uncovered a "sweetheart" deal with Goldman Sachs had spoken to the Guardian, it has emerged.

The belongings, emails, internet search records and phone calls of the HM Revenue and Customs solicitor Osita Mba and the phone records of his wife, Claudia, were examined by investigators, according to previously undisclosed documents.

The powers, which are supposed to be used to combat large-scale criminal tax frauds, were used because the tax inspectors suspected that Mba had been in contact with the Guardian's former investigations editor, David Leigh.

Leigh's telephone numbers and email addresses were cross-referenced with Mba's, but investigators found no evidence of contact, documents show.” Guardian 30/4/13

The Guardian published a story by David Leigh in October 2011 in which he claimed that Goldman Sachs had been let off paying £10 million in tax. The Revenue reacted to the disclosure by authorising the use of powers normally applied to serious crime. Their motive in this is questionable. 

“Using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), HMRC can see websites viewed by taxpayers, where a mobile phone call was made or received, and the date and time of emails, texts and phone calls. According to the revenue website, these powers "can only be used when investigating serious crime". (ibid)

Yet again we have a case of shoot the messenger. What has been exposed is shocking on so many levels:

• The existence of sweetheart deals: would that ordinary taxpayers were treated with such fawning concern and consideration.

• The lengths the authorities will go to to keep their squalid deals hidden from view.

• The amount of money involved: four sweetheart deals are today revealed as worth £4.5 billion between 4 as yet unnamed companies. 

• The treatment of someone brave enough to stand up and expose the scandal. This story fits the definition of Public Interest Disclosure to a ‘t’  - so what are the parliamentary committees going to do about it? And more particularly, what is going to happen to the person (or persons) who authorised the use of RIPA on Mr Mba? Will they face the full disciplinary powers available to HMRC and be dismissed? 

This case typifies so much of what is wrong in the UK today. A wealthy elite work cosy little deals with each other to their mutual advantage. Most of this mutual back-scratching goes on behind closed doors. Our politicians collude with this system while launching nasty and divisive attacks on the poor and vulnerable. The comfortable arrangement with the political parties and the major accountancy firms is yet another example of how corrupt our elite have become. 

Anyone with the balls to stand up and expose these cosy ‘arrangements’  is to be crushed, not because they have done anything wrong, but to send a message ‘pour encourager les autres.’ 

“Cathy James, the head of the whistleblowers' charity, Public Concern at Work, said the decision to use intrusive powers to examine an employee who made claims using whistleblowing legislation was "outrageous" and "sinister". (ibid)

Two Tory Millionaires

Benyon

Having squillions of cash clearly entitles a chap to offer profound advice to the great unwashed who can only touch their forelocks in gratitude. Our first sage is Richard Benyon. 

“..(who) stands to inherit an estimated £110 million from the 20,000-acre Englefield Estate in Berkshire, which is owned by his father, Sir William, according to The Times’s Daily Rich List.

As part of an annual tradition dating back to 1581, Mr Benyon has handed loaves to villagers in Ufton Nervet from the windows of the family’s manor house.

Mr Benyon, a Tory minister in the Department for Environment, said earlier this week that households were wasting up to £50 a month by needlessly throwing away “enormous amounts of food”. Sunday Telegraph 28/4/13

“Benyon's advice may be sound. His intentions may be of the best. But poverty-stricken families just one step away from the food bank may ponder if Benyon knows whereof he speaks. He is the wealthiest MP in the Commons with a family fortune of £110m.

He is on a reasonable salary of £107,108 as MP and Government Minister. 

Plus the ability to make lavish expense claims, including a £400 a month allowance for buying food, no receipts required. Why should MPs vote themselves such a substantial perk? Why can't they fund their daily calorific intake from their own pockets as the rest of us do?”  Tom Shields, Herald 28/4/13

Duncan-Smith

Sage number two is our old friend Iain Duncan-Smith. He recently provoked one of the fastest e-petitions ever with his claim that he could easily live on £53 a week. A claim he has singularly failed to follow up. 

He is in the news today for asking ‘wealthy’ pensioners to hand back benefits such as the winter fuel payment, free bus pass and TV licence. It is an interesting concept.

He may wish to explore his idea further with his many millionaire chums in the Cabinet. Would they consider themselves ‘wealthy’ and if so, what would they give up? Ministerial cars? Second home allowance/mortgage assistance? Free food? 

How heartening it is for us oiks to have such words of wisdom graciously dispensed from two fine upstanding examples of Tory manhood. 

Abu Qatada and the Rule of Law

Another day, another statement from the Home Secretary. More time and column inches devoted to how our useless judiciary will not do the ‘decent thing’ and send this man back to Jordan. A reaction to the latest setback appeared in the Daily Hate comment section online. 

“You don't need to write some BS treaty, you just need to grow a pair of balls for once, and not give a damn what your E.U. masters will say, or do. How hard is it to put him in chains, commandeer a Cessna and fly his ass off to Jordan. You'll be home in time for a pint and a bit of X-Factor, you can deal with the fallout in the morning, but at least you will regain a little bit of self respect.” 

And there, in a nutshell is why we need the Rule of Law. Qatada is a deeply unpleasant human being. He is difficult to defend. He espouses actions and values that are dangerous and inflammatory. Yet it is vital for our system of the Rule of Law that nasty pieces of work are covered by the safeguards of the law. He has also been in custody - without trial - for many, many years. This is disgraceful. Everyone has the right to know what their accusers say and have their moment in court to state their case. This has not happened. 

He is reported to have made speeches back in the 90’s which seem to break quite a few public order laws. Yet successive governments have chugged back and forth between various courts to get him sent to Jordan. Why has he not been charged here?

It seems that to do so would compromise ‘intelligence’  .........Mmmm. 

Whenever human rights are considered, it is the appalling human beings who test their application. Doesn’t make human rights less important - if anything, it makes the case for their retention even stronger, otherwise numpties who rant in the Daily Hate will set the agenda - and we will be back to locking people up because they look funny. 

Newsporn

A week ago while listening to a five-live football programme the news came through of the Boston marathon bomb attack. The presenter of the radio programme went into hyperdrive. Anodyne questions poured across the airwaves. It was clear very quickly that no-one had much of a clue as to what had happened and the extent of casualties etc. Similarly no-one had an idea of who the perpetrators were. 

On the basis of the flimsiest foundations, speculation followed conjecture mingled with opinion. The few facts there were did not survive repeated scrutiny.  

Would that were an end to it. 

Fat chance.

Rolling news is making us thicker and less discerning. Analysis, of the thoughtful considered kind, provided by ‘From our own correspondent,’ is becoming rarer and rarer. Not only is there the headlong rush to put out something.....anything....now.....there is a swarm-like mentality to the coverage by media outlets. The Oklahoma bombers were wrongly identified as muslim culprits. Similarly the culprits at Boston were described as being ‘dark-skinned.’ Damage done in the first couple of days is largely uncorrected, because by the time the truth emerges, there is another hot story to drool over. 

In the meantime stories with as much - if not more - validity, are ignored and consigned to the bin. For instance on the same day as the Boston bombings, 55 Iraqi citizens were killed in several bomb attacks. Many more Americans died on that same day from gunshot wounds.

Another element in all this hysteria is the burning desire to ‘go live’ to some poor soul, usually standing under an umbrella somewhere looking fed up. The added delight is that the presenter will tell us what the ‘live’ bod is going to tell us. The bod is then asked simple questions so that the bod confirms what we have been told. Every now and then we have the jaffa cake moment when the bod has to sadly report that ‘nothing has happened/no-one has said anything.’ 

The worry is that the political bubble dwellers who inhabit the same space as much of the mainstream media know exactly how to play the system. Get your version out quickly despite it being as flimsy as gossamer. Tell your lies big and often (adopt sincere tone and an air of gravitas). When challenged blame the messenger. 

It worked for Goebbels. 

Politics can make a difference and still be civilised

Compare and contrast

From the Guardian letters page yesterday. A woman writing from outside the political bubble said that her mother had her funeral on the same day and at the same time as the 'non-State' one held in London. Each funeral used the same quote from St John. In her family affair, the passage was quoted as, ‘In my father’s house there are many rooms..’ 

Whereas the lesson read by Cameron had this, ‘In my father’s house there are many mansions..’ 

Following a really divisive period it is good to see something which gladdens the heart. New Zealand became the 13th country to legalise gay marriage. Click on the link to see how politics can be done.  

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/17/new-zealand-mps-sing-maor_n_3100103.html