BBC - Lying in the Streets of London

Much has been made this weekend of the apparent anti-war slant taken by many of those reporters covering the recent Iraq war protests.  I notice this morning the same problems arising in, surprise surprise, the BBC. 

Long regarded as the last word in unbiased reportage, the Beeb has of late descended deep into the fever swamp of the left.  An article penned by Tom Anderson yesterday reeks of dishonety and bias.

Despite police estimates that the number of protestors reached approximately 10,000, reporter Tom Anderson insisted on pushing the claims of the Stop the War Coalition that up to 100,000 were present.  OK, so he 'reported' a piece of 'news' if you want to get all technical, but that claim should be treated with the same level of skepticism as my claim to have a ten-incher tucked in my jockeys. 

Further supporting the theory that the estimates were, shall we say, inflated is the anti-war march 'in pictures' from the Beeb website.  Compare these two images.  One is from a March protest to mark the 2nd anniversary of the beginning of the war, genuinely attended by tens of thousands of people.  The other is a shot from Saturday's march, attended by *ahem* oh, y'know, tens of thousands of people.  They were, like, everywhere.  Crazy.  Gimme a toke on that, mate.  Can you guess which is which?

Lots of crazy folk

I've had more people in my bathroom.

In addition to the inflated claims made by the organisers it appears that many of those in attendance weren't even there to protest the war, but simply to piggy-back on the protest to further their own causes.

The Scotsman and the, echh, Socialist Worker report that many of those marching Saturday were in fact ex-employees of Gate Gourmet, recently sacked from their jobs at Heathrow Airport:

A large number of Gate Gourmet workers, whose campaign for justice after being sacked from their jobs at Heathrow airport has won huge sympathy, joined the demonstration chanting, “Troops out, workers in”.

One sacked worker told Socialist Worker, “We want to let the world know about what’s going on. Our management is ruthless and it is trying to get away with sacking permanent staff and replacing them with scab labour.

“Everyone should worry about this. There is also a feeling against the war.”

But that isn't the most interesting thing about the article.  No, the newsworthy point is that the reporter notes that the families of several soldiers killed in Iraq made speeches during the rally.  Look, even military families are turning against the war!  Surely now is the time for Blair to present an exit strategy!  Maybe.  But what if one of these grieving parents wasn't what he seemed? 

Peter Brierley, the father of the late Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley, was used yesterday in what has become a very popular tactic of war protesters - that of using the parents of dead soldiers to put out their message with the 'absolute moral authority' to speak on matters of national security.  One bonus of this approach is that the parents are largely immune from attack, as any attempt to discredit the position taken is viewed as an insensitive attack on the person.  As we've seen in recent months it's a tactic utilised successfully by Cindy Sheehan (or, more accurately, her backers).

The BBC included a short quote from Brierley:

"I am totally overwhelmed. Now Tony Blair has to listen and bring the troops home.

"Looking at what happened in Iraq through this last week it is obvious that Iraq does not want the troops there and if they don't bring them out there will be more families like us."

while the Independent prints a much more direct version:

"My son was betrayed by Blair. If the Government do not bring them out, there will be more families like us."

(emphasis mine)

Of course we all feel sympathy for Mr Brierley.  No parent should have to outlive his child.  But it appears that Mr Brierley has been used dishonestly by the protest organisers to attack the Prime Minister.  You see, Shaun Brierley didn't die in Iraq.  Shaun Brierley never even went to Iraq. 

Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley died on March 30th 2003 in a road traffic accident while stationed in Kuwait with the 212 Signals Squadron.  He was a motorbike dispatch rider providing support for British forces.  Brierley died only ten days after the war began, and never entered the country.  Brierley never heard a shot fired in anger.  He never witnessed a roadside bomb.  He was long dead by the time our forces took Baghdad.  He simply didn't take part in the war in Iraq.

So how did Tony Blair betray L-Cpl Brierley? 

Anderson, along with the organisers of the protest, used Peter Brierley to gain credibility - to show that there are real people who have suffered as a result of the war who are desperate for it to end.  But that simply isn't true in this case.  While the pain of losing a son would be no different for Mr. Brierley had Shaun died from a bullet, a bomb or a simple road accident, it's dishonest - both morally and journalistically - to use him as a tool to further the anti-war cause.

What strikes me as most interesting here, though, is that of all the hundreds of British parents who have lost children to the war, the organisers of this rally couldn't muster three of them to stand in front of a crowd and denounce it.  That, I think, speaks volumes.

Related Posts

Aid Refused

Bad News From Iraq? That'll Be £126, Please

The Currency of Expression

Update

Welcome Instapundit and LGF readers.  Make yourselves comfortable, and feel free to come back anytime.  Seriously, my current readers are idiots. 

I'm only kidding, current readers.  You know I love your quirky charms. 

'Nother Update

Don't forget to try your hand at the Caption Contest while you're here.  After all, didn't your mum say you were the funniest kid in class?  Prove it, bitch.

Comments

[David D]

Someone's adult child dies, and that gives them 'absolute moral authority' on an issue? I don't think so. It seems to me is that it gives some people absolute passionate intensity to blame someone for the pain they are feeling.

I do not care to base my morality on the advice of someone who claims to be moral because they've been hurt. Blame is a step in the grief process, not the basis of morality.

[pst314]

'absolute moral authority'

Then I nominate as authorities all who have suffered at the hands of leftist thugs, and their survivors...while noting that the left has, for generations, ignored and defamed these people.

[YetAnotherRick]

I agree that no one grieving parent who is against the war has any more moral authority than a grieving parent who supported the war, but your dismissal of Shaun Brierley's situation is rather callous. The fact that he did not die within the borders of Iraq is meaningless if he was there for the purpose of being part of the war effort.

[sortapundit]

I have the utmost sympathy for Mr Brierley on the loss of his son. As I said, a parent should never have to lose a child. My point was that Brierley's death really had nothing to do with the war. A car accident is just as likely at his previous base in Germany, so the fact that 'my son was betrayed by Blair' really makes little sense. His son, tragic as it is, was betrayed by a Land Rover.

[Ifyouareaggravatedtheyareimpressed]

Anti-war movements are transparent. Anti-war is a mass-produced label hiding canned juvenile contempt. But contempt for what? Authority, maybe not.

Never to be publicly against honor-killing. Never to be anti-the-communist-gulags. Never to be suspicious of fanatical bombers. The list goes on but those realities don't represent well in headlines or exhibits or cartoons. Those realities don't represent well for two-bit intellectual highwaymen either.

Reality doesn't need to confront spectacle because historical realities have nothing to do with spectacle and reality has nothing to do with the so-called anti-war movement. Except the reality of disenfranchisement from society.

These caricatures appear periodically as if beckoned by the seasons. The telling irony of anarchy is that it represents dystopia. Each counter-culture show is always the same demoralization of the proletariat.

Meanwhile:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1571520,00.html

[Gandalin]

The fact that Lance Corporal Brierly died in an accident 10 days before the troops with which he was deployed moved into Iraq does not, in my opinion, refute the simple fact that he gave his life to defend his country and its way of life, i.e. freedom. As you say, under different circumstances he may very well have died in an accident at a base in Germany or on a street in his hometown. But in fact, he died in an accident while actively deployed in support of the mission. He contributed to that mission, and simply by volunteering to serve in the armed forces, he put his life on the line to defend you and me. To my way of thinking, the real moment of heroism is the moment of enlistment. Once the shooting begins, most of us will do what we can to defend ourselves and defeat the enemy. But to step outside of everyday life, and volunteer, to enlist in the armed forces when there are indeed many other paths to follow, that is courage, and I think you should respect that. His mother is wrong to denigrate his sacrifice and disparage the noble mission upon which he embarked. But he is nonetheless a casualty of a great war to defend freedom and civilization from a terrible and bitter barbarism. Not a victim, mind you, but a casualty. May God rest his soul and reward his selfless willingness to lay down his life for his fellow man.

[sortapundit]

Gandalin, any member of the armed forces who dies in the line of duty is a hero in my eyes, and I'm not trying to downplay the death of L-Cpl Brierley or the grief of his parents. I also believe that anyone who enlists is a hero. I went to a few interviews for the Navy and came within a gnat's dick of starting my AIB, but it turns out I don't have that special something to push myself that far. I respect those who do entirely.

That said, I still believe that for Brierley's death to have been used as political fodder - especially since it was indirectly implied by both the rally organisers (in order to deceive the protesters) and the BBC and other MSM (to deceive the general public) that his was a combat death - is dishonest.

[Gandalin]

Thank you, Sortapundit, for your reply. A couple of responses - First of all, it is not clear to me, at least from the Peter Brierly quotes in your posting, that Lance Corporal Brierly's parents make the claim that he died in combat in Iraq. The father says that his son was "betrayed by Blair." In fact, he was deployed to Kuwait in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and died while participating. He was not in my opinion betrayed by the Prime Minister, now would it be fair to say that he had been betrayed by the Prime Minister had he died in combat.

Second of all, by quibbling over whether Lance Corporal Brierly died in combat or not, in Iraq or not, you unnecessarily and, I think, inadvertently, lend credence to the erroneous notion that the immediate family of combat casualties should in fact be granted a privileged status as commenters or judges of the war. Lance Corporal Brierly's father is a foolish dupe being used quite cynically by those who have chosen to ally themselves with barbarism and terror, and he would be just as foolish and just as duped if his son were alive, or if his son had been killed in hand to hand combat with a jihadist terrorist.

[Scruffy]

Cindy's dragging around another mom, much like the father above, whose son died in Texas, off duty, in a car accident. She claims legitamacy to her anti-war stance because if he wasn't getting ready to deploy, he wouldn't have been there driving around. Hmmmm....maybe he was just a crappy driver?

[mr smith]

one. l/cpl brierly died about one hour after being involved in a r.t.a in the back of my ambulance with me and a doctor being present.

two. he was traverling in a land rover not far fron safwan inside iraq.

three. i will never forget that night which was the day before mothers day which has all ways stuck in my mind. Plus i will allways belive that we were right in getting rid of saddam and his evil bastard sons, just rememeber halabja( the gassed kids the same age as my nephhews) especially, but then that is not news worthy and not worty of paper as profit comes first not the truth,