Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6537103.stm
What do you think about it?
I personally have no problem with it as they've been through the experience and the papers will make their money regardless of whether these people get paid.
Don't really get why people are so up in arms about it tbh :mark:
They've been through hell and they don't have the best paid jobs in the world, so why not?
In an era when criminals can make money from book deals, and women like Rebecca Loos can make a career from celebrity kiss and tell stories, we surely can't begrudge these soldiers taking the chance to make a few quid.
Given that this is a perfectly normal occurrence, it neither surprises me nor overly disgusts me. That doesn't stop it looking rather vulgar and cheap, just as anyone who sells their story after an 'ordeal' does, but there you go. It happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
However, I can understand why some people are criticising this, and I have one particular concern. At the moment, the Ministry of Defence is engaged in a variety of strategies to promote itself to the general public in ways that it feels are more effective (and, to some extent, glamorous and exciting). Personally, some of what I have seen so far in relation to the Royal Air Force is at best misguided and and worst will probably turn out to be a disaster, but that's slightly off topic. I have a feeling that the Government and/or the MoD may have in some way encouraged the selling of these stories to the papers, and maybe the purchase of them by the papers, because it feels it has come across a good opportunity to put a positive spin on its activities in Iraq through the 'daring deeds' of these servicemen. I think this is rather cynical, and am not surprised that one (so far) of those involved has stated that they have no intention of selling their story.
I don't see how you can have a problem with it, really. Unless of course, you are the Iranian government...
I'm quite amazed at the horror reaction we are seeing, nobody critisised Andy McNabb when he made his story into a book or two :s
I have that same feeling. I also suspect that their stories will in fact be written by military propagandists like with Jessica Lynch:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch
"It was unclear what injuries Lynch had at the time of her rescue, but it appears she suffered a head laceration, an injury to her spine, and fractures to her right arm, both legs, and her right foot and ankle. Conflicting reports also existed that Lynch had suffered gunshot wounds to her left arm and right leg. Dr. Harith Al-Houssona, a doctor in the Nasirya hospital, described Lynch's injuries as "a broken arm, a broken thigh, and a dislocated ankle." According to Al-Houssona, there was no sign of gunshot or stab wounds, and Lynch's injuries were consistent with those that would be suffered in a car accident. Al-Houssona's claims were later confirmed in a U.S. Army report leaked on July 10, 2003.[2]
In the book I Am A Soldier Too: The Jessica Lynch Story by Rick Bragg, the author alleges that Lynch was raped anally during her captivity, based on medical records and her pattern of injuries. Iraqi doctors who treated her have disputed the claim because Lynch's clothes were on and showed no sign of having been removed at any point and the degree of her injuries did not indicate rape—although they were not looking for signs of rape at the time. Lynch has no memory of being raped nor of being slapped or mistreated during her captivity."
I don't know if that's going to happen Eki. But I reckon the one woman from the group will probably end up on page 3 of the Sun at some stage :p
Good Luck to them is what i say why shouldn't they make some money out of it! ;)
That was slightly different, because there was no suspicion that his writing was 'engineered' by the MoD.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
It has just been announced this morning that the MoD is to 'review' the 'outdated' arrangements relating to servicemen/women selling their stories. They are obviously about to deem it OK for them all to do so. This heightens my suspicions that the MoD and/or the Government are to some extent behind the efforts to get these stories into the papers, and I do find that worrying for the reasons I outlined before.
It's one of those great non-stories which the papers report with the words "sparked outrage" - which essentially means the reporter in question (who is probably outraged that women have been given the vote, let alone allowed to serve in the armed forces) is outraged, and most normal people couldn't give a stuff.
Normally, I would tend to agree with you, but I sense the MoD's or the Government's hand in this, and that is cynical on their part.Quote:
Originally Posted by inimitablestoo
Each to their own I guess. I was a bit suprised that the MOD allowed it, but I guess perhaps they don't have much say in things like this? I don't know... I don't blame them in the slightest for wanting to talk about it and I'm kinda interested to hear what actually happened after all the staged videos we saw. Personally I'd have more respect and time to listen to some sort of announcement or tv interview with them rather than read it in a tabloid but that's neither here nor there.
As plenty of army, navy and air force people before have been made to keep quiet and not allowed to sell their story until after leaving the forces, this is something new. McNabb was, if I remember right, threatened with all sorts by the armed forces before his story was published. Even after it was released under a different name and with 'based on a true story' tagged on the tittle page he was looking at prison time - then the papers gave his name and so on, leading to it being reprinted under Andy McNabb.
I'm of the feeling it's unfair on those in the past, and those who died before getting a chance, that this group has the chance to make money out of doing the job they are already paid for.
Nobody made them sign up. They agreed when doing so that their work was secret and they would only be able to pass on some details of it. They knew they'd be part of the effort should conflict begin.
I've said previously that I am sure this whole hostage thing was engineered by our government, and now it seems more so. Those sailors where there, unknown to themselves, to be caught and held. The point was to gauge Iran and UK reactions, then manipulate UK feeling on the subject. That seems more obvious now, given the stories not only being allowed but encouraged.
I simply do not believe that. Call me naive, but this strikes me as being too far-fetched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
I don't care what you believe at the moment. Time may just change your views, along with the details coming out in thirty years' time.
More far-fetched things have turned out to be true. Hitler never was vegitarian, the Germans almost certainly did land on Brit soil (albeit for one night only and partly by accident :p : ) and friendly fire blasted just how many men said to have been shot down by the enemy ......
Next you'll be telling me there's weapons of mass desruction in Iraq, because Tony Blair said so :laugh:
Stranger things have happened. I certainly wouldn't put it past the Government to attempt to hoodwink the nation. They've done it before.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Put it this way - Why have these 15 been allowed to tell their story to whomever they like?
Why where they were they where, without the back-up that's normal?
Why were we told they'd been taken, when normally that information wouldn't have been out?
Why were they named? How come their families seemed happy to be filmed?
Sorry, but the entire thing was just far too open for people not to start questioning it all as staged.
I am perfectly capable of working out that some things are obvious attempts to hoodwink, thank you very much, and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was one of those. Your suggestion that this incident has been concocted is way out of that league — and your idea that, if it was, we would know in 30 years' time is equally far-fetched as the papers relating to such an issue would almost certainly be retained for longer than that rather than being released.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
Like it or not, there is genuine tension at present between Iran and the nations of the coalition operating in Iraq. These are not generally the conditions under which two nations get together and test the water by arranging an incident such as this. The Iranian leadership is too fragmented to have made organising such a thing possible, for a start. We had no direct dialogue between ourselves and the more hard-line elements of the Iranian regime, who, if reports are to be believed, were to a large degree responsible for what happened. It ended up coming to a close because of the more moderate voices. Why would the latter have colluded with the British government to stage a kidnapping of our forces, when they are the very people in Tehran who are counselling against an escalation of the 'conflict'? None of this adds up with the conspiracy theory.
Of course, strange things do happen, but everything tells me that this kidnapping was real, and everything is now telling me that the MoD is misguidedly encouraging the sale of the stories.
I'm all for questioning the actions of any government, especially when it comes to issues relating to Iraq and the 'war against terrorism', about which we have been told a lot that hasn't been true, but I think it is possible to go too far.
I think I've already answered that. The MoD is currently trying to publicise the work of the armed forces in a more 'exciting' way, through various 'engagement' strategies aimed at increasing public awareness of the services. In addition, the Government is, as we all know, desperate for the media to focus on 'positive' stories from operations in Iraq. This is why I believe the sale of the stories has been encouraged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
These things happen in war. Troops end up in situations without adequate support. It's hardly unusual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
Yes, it would have been released. We knew about it before when a similar incident occurred a while back, for example. That type of thing simply isn't kept secret any more, and to some extent it never was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
It is unavoidable that news of their identities will filter out, and then that the names will be released. Again, I see nothing unusual at all in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
I cannot be bothered messing about with loads of quotes, but shall ask one thing. Where did I say the UK and Iran got together on this? I didn't, you just jumped to that with no evidence. You see, people have ideas when they get information, as you've just proved.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
My idea was that it appeared staged. I didn't say who by, other than the UK government. Yours was different. It just happened to pop into my tiny female brain when I first heard about them being taken. Feel free to patronise me about it - I'm capable of taking it :laugh:
I think the UK's leading people allowed some sailors to be out there just to see what would happen. It would test the water with Iran and with us at home. Some of the Navy may have known what was happening, but I don't think those on that ship did. For all I know they may have been trying to get Brit hostages taken for months and failed until now. The US have said they thought US personnel where being lined up to be taken, but had covered their backs (I saw this on a News 24 item, so how true it is is anyone's guess) and that Iran had been trying to take either UK or US Navy staff hostage for some time.
I'm fairly sure I'm entittled to my views, or is that too far-fetched? As for being proved right when the papers come out, I don't care either way. By then worse things will have happened and been covered up or opened up.
I wasn't attempting to be patronising — just to disagree with you. I think I'm entitled to that. You are quite right to say that you didn't suggest collusion between the UK and Iran, and for that I apologise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
However, I still think that none of the questions you posed afterwards offer any sort of evidence that it was set up by anyone. All the answers are perfectly straightforward.
If it was an attempt by the British military/government to see what would happen (which I don't think it was), it has backfired spectacularly. It is certain that there is now much less sympathy than there was for those involved, though having just seen a particularly absurd comment from Richard Littlejohn on the front of tomorrow's Daily Mail, as shown just now on News 24, not all of the criticism is fair.
Questions don't tend to offer evidence. They offer questions ... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
It never is, whatever the subject.Quote:
.... not all of the criticism is fair.
Which is exactly why I don't buy newspapers and do question stories now. Anna Nicole Smith wasn't doing illegal drugs, Brad Pitt isn't the perfect man, the grassy knoll wasn't a knoll because Shergar was buried under it and the UK government has some smart, motivated, secretive guys working us like muppets at times.
Fair enough, but as I said, the factual answers to those questions demonstrate that there was no conspiracy on anyone's part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
How do you know they are facts?
It's rather like saying the whole Navy are happy with stories being sold. They plainly aren't, yet at first we were told they were. I'm pretty sure some sailors on board that ship won't be pleased if details about them come out, yet we won't hear about it. Facts aren't always facts these days, they're half stories and quotes taken from half a comment.
To me, the answers are quite obvious. The reason they were allowed to tell their stories is because the MoD thought it would be good publicity. That's enough of a dodgy ulterior motive as it is; I can't see any way in which it indicates a set-up. The circumstances of the incident strike me as being normal, if unfortunate, and it is normal practice for us to know that such things happen and then the names of those involved. I simply don't get how any of those elements of the story indicate something more 'sinister'. Questioning the official line is great, as I said, and I'm all for it as you know, but there are limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
Oh, and we already know that one of the people involved was unhappy with the idea of the stories being allowed to be sold. You are quite right when you say that any disagreement among them on that score will be pushed to one side by the MoD.
The only factual answers we have are those which have been released by the government. That is not to say that they are the truth. One thing is for certain, it took the focus away from Iraq for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
As Carl says, the 'facts' are only what we are told. We have no proof either way.
David Kelly would be the man to ask on that score ....
I know that this is not to say that the official answers are the truth. As someone who has, in a previous job, been involved in looking into the actions of Government departments, this is something of which I'm fully aware.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
All I am saying is that none of the circumstances of this incident and the way in which details of it have been brought into the public arena indicate to me that there was any great conspiracy afoot here. It is fact that incidents like this happen, as unfortunate as they are — after all, they have occurred before. It is fact that we always get to know about these incidents and the identities of those involved. None of these things are unusual.
But it is possible to consider whether those facts are indicators of a conspiracy, and I don't think they are. The way in which the stories were allowed to be sold does indicate an attempt to manipulate the situation, as I have said all along, but the fact that we knew that the incident had happened and the fact that we got to know the names are perfectly normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
No, it isn't :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I'm pretty sure that 22 Troop, or whatever the SAS are called, don't tend to talk much :laugh:
It's fact that we don't always get to hear about what happens. I can live with that. So long as I don't feel I'm being fed bull to make me take another war quietly.
But we have always known whenever British forces (excluding the SAS and SBS for obvious reasons) working on the waterways on the Iraq/Iran border have been involved in these incidents. We knew when it happened before, and we have now heard about it again. On balance, I very much doubt that there have been other incidents in which British non-special forces have been kidnapped by the Iranians without us knowing. There is no reason for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
As I have kept saying, I know full well that we don't get to hear everything that happens in conflicts such as this. I am merely pointing out that there are limits to how much can be read into these happenings. I do believe that there are reasons for doubting the official version of the death of David Kelly, for example, but this does not mean that I automatically think that this is a conspiracy too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
and now the MoD has banned servicepeople from selling their stories. Power to the peop.... Errr I mean power to the tabloids!
To suggest this kidnap was a plot by the government, Tony Blair being our leader is absurb to say the least! I think someone's been watching too many movies!
You've asked a few questions, and said this shows that it doesn't add up. BDunnell has answered those questions, which the answers to were common sense to say the least!
Your entitled to think it was staged, but the evidence against that theory far outweighs the fact it was just a kidnapping incident, not a staged kidnapping given the ok by Tony Blair. Some people seem to want to cook up theories and conspiracies for the sake of doing it, adding complications to things.
To say the only facts are what we're told is also a bit silly.
Forgot to actual state my opinion on the actual topic in hand.
I don't see any problems with them selling their stories, as long as it doesn't compromise the situation out there. If your offered 100k to tell your story, and people are interested in hearing your story, and it doesn't put any of the current troops in danger - why not?
Why begrudge someone a one off lump sum when they've been putting their life at risk for our country? It's a bit harsh. We don't begrudge people like Jodie Marsh, or other Kiss and Tell girls, or we don't begrudge John Terry getting 100k A WEEK for playing football, yet someone who risks their life everytime they go to work, people don't like the fact they are trying to make a one off lump sum.
Maybe it's jealousy, but I would do the same in their situation. God I'd even do it for 50k! As long as it doesn't put others in harms way it's fine. I don't think the fact it's harsh on the families who have their family still in war, I'm sure they are happy to see people return home safely. Or do they think they begrudge other families a happy ending, just because their son/daughter is still out on war? I have a friend over there, and I don't think it's wrong to see families celebrating the return of a loved one.
As I said, under normal circumstances I wouldn't have a problem with them selling their stories, because, as you say, this sort of thing happens all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
However, would you really sell your story in this fashion? I ask because it's all very well telling your story in a way that describes the incident accurately for posterity — hence my lack of objection to people who write serious books about their time in the forces, or their role in particular campaigns — but this is rather different to selling your tale to a tabloid newspaper, or a crappy news-based magazine show on ITV. The view that the MoD put forward about wanting those involved in this situation to tell their own stories is really naive. Do they really think that Faye Turney will have the story of events reproduced in a faithful manner by The Sun, or is it being re-told 'in her own words' in tabloid journalese? My money is on the latter.
For 100k, yes I would :)
And I think Sir Trevor McDonalds show is far from crap :)
I don't begrudge her the fact she's sold her story to The Sun of all tabloids. I think she's done it for the want of money rather than wanting to share her experiences, hence why she's sold it to the Sun, which as you point out, isn't the most reliable source. I would do the same though, so can't critizise her for it.
Trevor Mc is indeed far from being crap. Especially when he does the interview himself, usually it's just him introducing someone else.
I have to disagree about Tonight With Trevor McDonald. I think it's an absolute joke, but each to their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
I like the guy, and respect him. He carried out the interview with Faye and I thought it was a pretty good interview. I don't watch his show every week, but whenever I do I tend to enjoy it :)
What would other people do in Faye's situation? Accept the 100k or reject the offer from the Sun and ITV? Just curious? I'm guessing a lot would be dependent on the personal circumstances. If I was a high earner and didn't need 100k, I probably wouldn't be fussed. As things stand I wouldn't think twice about rejecting it.
Given her position and the fact that she's very unlikely to be a high earner, I don't think there is any realistic situation where you could turn down £100,000. I don't know her wages but I'd imagine she'd take about 4-5 years to earn that much money, there is no way you can not accept that, especially when you have a family to support.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123