Please wait

British troops risk their lives to protect the UK and our way of life

but what about the people who should be watching their backs?

Unfortunately, it seems very few are actually doing their jobs...

Full details of the BBC complaint from Paul Warburton

Index of complaint correspondence

Date

Title

13/04/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

04/05/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

10/05/2011

Letter to BBC Complaints

08/06/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

17/06/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

01/07/2011

Letter to the BBC Trustees

07/07/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

16/07/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

13/08/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

30/08/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

12/09/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

07/11/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

13/12/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

03/01/2012

Letter to the BBC Trust

04/02/2012

Letter to the BBC Trust

08/02/2012

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

16/02/2012

Letter to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit

02/04/2012

Letter to the BBC Trust

16/06/2012

Letter to the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

13/06/2012

Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Files Warburton (PDF)

13/06/2012

Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Files Annex 2 (PDF)


17/06/2011 - Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

BBC Trustees
Editorial Standards Committee
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ

17th June 2011

Dear

" I wish with all my heart that everyone fighting in this war and above all those whose duty it is to direct the war from Britain and America could come with me ... into this world of a nightmare "
Richard Dimbleby of the BBC on entering Belsen concentration camp in April 1945

I wrote to you all on the Editorial Standards Committee over a week ago and I have not had an acknowledgment from you or indeed the complaints dept who I wrote to in early May. I am becoming concerned about this non communication. Will you please engage with me in this process and initiate what I have been requesting for some time - an investigation into your own editorial standards over your reporting of the 9/11 attacks.

My friend Prof Niels Harrit has recently been visited by Mr Rudin of your staff. You may say or the complaints dept may reply and say we have assented to one of your requests by taking the trouble to go to Denmark to film the Professor and hear his views. You may even screen it in the Autumn. However I do not believe that will remedy the matter.

All of the evidence that I have so far alerted you to in my previous correspondence is pointing to a different set of facts contrary to the ones you have been presenting on 9/11 so far. I say that as a lawyer versed in the rules of evidence. My version (ie the official account is wrong) with all the experts listed at the end of this letter would pass the higher criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" before an independent group. Your version (ie the official account is correct) on the lower civil standard of "balance of probabilties" would fail in front of the same group in my opinion. What seems to be happening in your editing process in the conspiracy files programme is you are showing selected pieces of evidence and massaging them to fit the official account of 9/11 eg you fail to show the expert opinions of explosive experts that categorically say all the 3 towers on 9/11 were controlled demolitions ie Danny Jawenko's interview on youtube on first viewing WTC7's collapse "its an expert team who did this". Added to that the separate testimony of Niels, Richard Gage the 50 Firefighters and William Rodriguez and Barry Jennings all point that way too.

I am now going to raise for the first time the core issue - suppose you have an investigation and suppose you make a finding which requires you to say your 10 year broadcasting of the official account is wrong. eg you allude to the question who would have put the explosives within the 3 towers to bring them down ? It could not have been the alleged Arab terrorists themselves. 1. That turn round would be highly embarrasing to the BBC. 2. It would be highly damaging for other broadcasters. 3. It would have huge political ramifications far in excess of the David Kelly saga the BBC was embroiled in. Please do not let these potential ramifications cloud your pursuit of the truth and your job of presenting it. That is your stated primary objective as a public organisation.If it is not you must stop using the term Independent.

You may be thinking about your stated defence against this was broadcast in the conspiracy files "the plot (that somebody else other than the alleged Arabs carried out the attacks) would have had to have been so big it would have involved thousands of people and somebody would have spoken out" et ergo it didn't happen despite the scientific and eye witness evidence that indicated it did.

I am old enough to remember the Bologna train station bombing. I also remember your excellent Timewatch BBC2 programme on Gladio aired in the early 90s. It was 3 episodes of about 50 minutes each of wall to wall interviews with high ranking western politicians, intelligence chiefs, police officers and judges who all said in essence - elements of Western Govts infiltrated left wing terror groups and used them to create "tension" and terror within Europe in the 60s through to the 80s in order to ward off communist political progress in those countries. That in itself sets a precedence which you yourselves have already researched and aired. You therefore contradict your own argument and logic in the conspiracy files. Its all ready happened and in the recent past too. Please investigate what I have been saying to you over the past 3 months. I respectfully ask that you do not ask Mr Rudin or his team to review his work. I believe any review has to be truly independent.

Something of this magnitude cannot be swept under the carpet or be ignored. To echo Richard Dimbleby, our forebears fought a war against tyranny. One of tyranny's main allies is deceit. Truth and decency are the vital foundations to our security, freedoms and well being aswell as those of others. Of all the people who call for the truth to be exposed about 9/11 it is the survivors and the family members of victims whose voices are the strongest. Please, this 10th anniversary, honour those people by committing the BBC to giving a much more truthful and more honourable account to those horrific events.

Yours Sincerely,

Paul Warburton

cc the Trustee Editorial Standards Committee members; Richard Ayre, Anthony Fry, Alison Hastings, David Liddiment, Mehmuda Mian, Elan Closs Stephens, Miss C Haydon secretary


« Previous item

^ Return to index ^

Next item »