Strategic Defence and Security Review Public Engagement

The Government website has announced:

"The Cabinet Office, Department for International Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Home Office, Ministry of Defence as well as other departments are working together on the NSS and SDSR. This review will look at the full range of threats that we face; it will examine the capabilities we need to counter them; and help us judge how to resource those capabilities.

As part of this work, we are engaging with a range of audiences, including Parliament, academics, industry, think tanks, Allies and partners, non-governmental organisations and the public. This is why we have developed an online form giving members of the public the opportunity to contribute ideas and suggestions on defence and security matters which will be used to inform the work we are doing."

With some time on my hands, and starting from the fundamental that defence of the UK is the first duty of our Government, I thought I would compose a short piece highlighting the now obvious errors of SDSR 2010 and suggesting, taking account of the darkening strategic situation, these deficiencies might be addressed. 

Imagine my surprise to find that "the opportunity to contribute ideas and suggestions on defence and security matters which will be used to inform the work we are doing," is limited to just 1500 characters (about 300 words, I understand, or a couple of Tweets).

Now, during my time at Staff College, polishing my Service Writing skills, the importance of brevity was stressed but 300 words, even from armchair-airmen like me, is a bit of a challenge!

It is particularly galling since the Secretary of State for Defence has said:

"This is a strategic defence review, not a Treasury-led review, a review across the whole of government to assess the threats to the country and the future threats that may emerge to our country, the capabilities needed to address those threats and, of course, the resources we need to finance those capabilities."

Sadly, given the insulting opportunity for public consultation, I think we can draw our own conclusion about the SDSR terms of reference and Treasury intentions!

C4 Claims Black Americans "Disenfranchised"

I hope you don't think I have nothing better to do than to complain to the BBC or C4, but this really cried out for comment.  Kylie Morris, reporting from Ferguson, concluded her report by saying that the subjects of the riots and unrest were "disenfranchised."  I'm pretty sure that all American citizens can vote, regardless of their ethnicity, so I took C4 to task for their use of the word "disenfranchised."  This was their preposterous reply:

"Thank you for contacting Channel 4 News regarding Kylie Morris' recent report on the shooting in Ferguson.

We are sorry to read that you feel the language used by Kylie was inappropriate, given the context of the piece the term disenfranchised referred to a general feeling of disconnection with the government, state or political process. "

Call me old-fashioned, but I rather like to stick with the accepted definition of words because it tends to avoid misunderstanding.  If the pompous Kylie Morris really wanted us to know that there was a general feeling of disconnection with the government, state or political process, then why on earth did she not say so?  Instead, she claims that some people in Ferguson are denied the vote!  Words fail me!

BBC Right to Condemn Cameron - Shock

I have received a reply, entirely predictable, you may agree, from the BBC about my complaint over their headline saying that "David Cameron had been widely condemned" for his use of the word "swarm" in connection to the human tragedy at Calais. The BBC say, in their defence, that the language was condemned by "the Refugee Council, Labour’s acting leader, Harriet Harman, the SNP, the Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, and the UN Special Representative for International Migration, Peter Sutherland."  To coin a phrase, they (all the above) would say that, wouldn't they?  All the BBC have done is to prove that if they ask the right people you will get the answer you need to support your corporate agenda!  Finally, I agree that " BBC News did not take a standpoint on the language used by Mr Cameron"  - that would have lead to accusations of bias.  Quite cleverly, the BBC got their knife in by hiding behind those "widely consulted," whoever they were!

This is what they said in full:

"BBC News has reported extensively on the migrant crisis in Calais and our coverage has included voices from across the debate. We have reported on measures taken by both the UK and French governments to deal with incursions into the Channel Tunnel, explored the motivation of migrants trying to come to the UK, and examined the impact of the situation in Calais on tourists and businesses.

As part of this overall coverage, we reported on reaction to the Prime Minister's use of the word “swarm” when describing migrants trying to reach the UK. The language he used led to criticism from a number of prominent groups and individuals, including the Refugee Council, Labour’s acting leader, Harriet Harman, the SNP, the Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, and the UN Special Representative for International Migration, Peter Sutherland.

We believe that these concerns were reported entirely properly and we included Downing Street’s reaction to this criticism. BBC News did not take a standpoint on the language used by Mr Cameron; we simply reflected the views of others.

Thank you again for contacting us, we value your feedback. All complaints are sent to senior management and news teams every morning and we included your points in this overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future programmes."

Swarming at Calais

On the BBC News at 2200 on Thursday 30 August the headline was that the Prime Minister had been "widely condemned" for his language on the Calais illegal immigrant problem.  Of course, the BBC did not repeat the word "swarm" but we may assume that it provoked the "outrage."

As it sounded to me, which was clearly the BBC's intention, the whole weight of public opinion was against Mr Cameron. But I think we are entitled to ask exactly whom they consulted to justify the use of the term "widely."  Specifically, what was the extent of their research and what cross section of opinion did they consult in order to reach their editorial position?

It comes as no surprise that the Prime Minister would be condemned by the Labour Party for whatever he said and I suspect that most of the egalitarian hierarchy in the BBC would be only too eager to mount the highest moral ground at the slightest sniff of a humanitarian interest.  However, I feel sure there would be many who would consider the use of the word swarm, collective aggregation by definition, as entirely descriptive of the situation.   I wonder whether the BBC consulted the occupants of the Clapham Omnibus, to say nothing of the long-suffering people of Kent, before trumpeting their headline? I have asked them the question in an official complaint.