Topic: Fury as the hostages sell stories

[volga_arnold]

"A very tough call" - Des Browne makes statement on media payments to Service personnel

Defence Secretary Des Browne has made a statement setting out the position on Service personnel being paid for their stories, and promising a review of the relevant regulations.

MoD

Speaking on Monday 9 April 2007, and following the return of 15 Royal Navy personnel from detention by Iranian authorities, Des Browne said:

"I recognise the dilemma that faced the Royal Navy last week.

"The Naval officers who had the responsibility of looking after the young people detained in Iran saw that the pressure on them and their families made it inevitable that some of them would accept media offers to tell their story in return for payment.

"The dilemma facing the Navy was this; should they refuse to give them permission to accept payment, recognising that some of them would find ways to tell their experiences anyway, without the support and advice of their service, and therefore with greater risk to themselves and crucially also at risk to operational security? Or should the Navy accept that in this particular and exceptional case, and in the modern media environment, they should give permission for these young people to tell their story precisely in order to stay close to them but accepting the consequence of the potential payment involved?

"Many strong views on this have been expressed but I hope people will understand that this was a very tough call, and that the Navy had a duty to support its people.

"Nevertheless all of us who have been involved over the last few days recognise we have not reached a satisfactory outcome. We must learn from this.

"This morning we announced a review of the regulations governing this area, looking at, among other things, the consistency of the regulations across the services, their clarity and, more broadly, whether the regulations are right for the modern media environment. I want to be sure those charged with these difficult decisions have clear guidance for the future.

"Until that time, no further service personnel will be allowed to talk to the media about their experiences in return for payment."

[Maggie May]

True. It was worth around £250k (at least - I've heard double that) from a book publisher, but don't seem to remember much outcry about that. He did the odd newspaper interview to promote it too.

These whining oafs should not be mentioned in the same breath as Private Johnson Beharry VC.  The lad was possessed of tremendous courage and suffered wounds so severe that he was unable to carry on his military career.  He is in continual and considerable pain. His story is one of true courage and not victimhood.   His manuscript was scrutinised by the MoD prior to publication in the correct manner and as the rules require.  Doing interviews to promote it was quite proper. 

[Maggie May]

Apart from the statement by Dozy Des being utter and complete cock, I found this to be interesting:

This morning we announced a review of the regulations governing this area, looking at, among other things, the consistency of the regulations across the services, their clarity and, more broadly, whether the regulations are right for the modern media environment. I want to be sure those charged with these difficult decisions have clear guidance for the future.

The regulations should be framed so as to serve the best interests of the Armed Forces, and should not be tailored or adapted in any way so as to be right for the "modern media environment".   

[Cassiel]

These whining oafs should not be mentioned in the same breath as Private Johnson Beharry VC.  The lad was possessed of tremendous courage and suffered wounds so severe that he was unable to carry on his military career.  He is in continual and considerable pain. His story is one of true courage and not victimhood.   His manuscript was scrutinised by the MoD prior to publication in the correct manner and as the rules require.  Doing interviews to promote it was quite proper. 

I agree. But then what we are saying here then, basically, is that these lot should not have sold their stories because what they did wasn't all that? If it had gone on for a few months, involved a few beatings and they bore it all stoically it would've been OK? Did people protest when Nichol and Peters write a book (Tornado Down) after being paraded on Iraqi TV, even though they were shot down on the first day of the Gulf War, as a consequence of their own incompetence. Nichol even pops up now and then on TV as a military expert, for God's sake.

There's an argument to say the guideliness are loose and fuzzy to say the least. If one good thing that comes out of this, it might be clear and concise rules for the military to follow in the face of a media bombardment like this and the silly money that is being thrown around.

Very few on here will agree with me, some will say she deserves it, but Faye Turney is about to reap a shitstorm of negative publicity because those newspapers who she turned down are right now digging up what dirt they can find, waving chequebooks in the face of former lovers, schoolfriends, accessing protected records in return for a few quid. I bet the Royal Navy didn't advise her of that when they said she could accept the offers put to her, and in my mind that constitutes a dereliction of duty on their part.

[tomred]

My humble and non-insightful opinion as someone who works in the evil PR industry.

The MoD are using these young kids for propaganda as a way to get their message out. They will have vetted everything.

The young kids who sell their stories are making a mistake doing so, and whatever amount of money they get that won't change.

I feel sorry for those who sell their stories, and you have to say those who don't have taken an honourable and smart route.

[Cassiel]

Apart from the statement by Dozy Des being utter and complete cock, I found this to be interesting:

The regulations should be framed so as to serve the best interests of the Armed Forces, and should not be tailored or adapted in any way so as to be right for the "modern media environment".  

But what he means Maggie is that, in this day and age, when a soldier locks himself in a broom cupboard for four hours and the Daily Mail is willing to pay him a hundred grand for his story, the rules need to reflect that. Thirty, twenty, even ten years ago, newspapers did not chuck around the amounts of cash they do now. Heads are going to be turned. We're talking about kids, not particularly well paid ones, some of who joined the forces because they couldn't get another job. Not all of them join up out of duty to Queen and country.

 All of a sudden they have a chance to make lots of money. Some are going to take it. Yes it's regrettable, but that is the world we live in. The media talks. The Iranians might not have got what they wanted, but Rupert Murdoch generally does, ditto Lord Rothermere or The Barclay Brothers. It is only right that the new guidelines reflect the 'modern media environment' which is politico-speak for 'twisted bastards who don't think twice about chewing up and spitting out young sailors/soldiers/tinkers/tailors.'

[pascoli]

I may be wrong in this, maybe bigdava will know more
But im pretty sure that training for the armed forces dictates that in the event of capture, the only  information you give out is your name and number.

These people appeared on telly, telling the iranian nation how they apologise for entering their waters etc etc. Fucking disgrace if you ask me. Should of refused to say a fuckin word. They  knew the dangers involved in the job before signing up, probably the main reason i never signed up for anythin meself.

I think they should be ashamed of themselves. Now theyre selling their stories?
 They should be told to piss off somewhere else out of the country, almost tantamount to fuckin treason if you ask me.

Surely pride in your country is part of peoples inspiration to join the navy or anythin, so why then go on the television, and blatantly lie, admitting to things that never happened.

Did they not realise the sgignificance of what they were doing? Admitting to the Iranian nation that they were in the wrong, when our government where coming out and sayinghow we had done nothing wrong?

Im astonished by this, i really am.

[vicgill]

All concern and respect for them has gone now.

Looking at the footage we have seen (and I know it will have been heavily edited), they don't seem to have been treated badly at all. Obviously they were scared and concerned, but I get that way when I drive past Old Trafford.

Danger is a part of their jobs, and unfotunately the possibility of being taken hostage comes with the territory. They should not be given the chance of making a quick buck for doing their jobs.

well said mate   exactly how I feel

[Maggie May]

Very few on here will agree with me, some will say she deserves it, but Faye Turney is about to reap a shitstorm of negative publicity because those newspapers who she turned down are right now digging up what dirt they can find, waving chequebooks in the face of former lovers, schoolfriends, accessing protected records in return for a few quid. I bet the Royal Navy didn't advise her of that when they said she could accept the offers put to her, and in my mind that constitutes a dereliction of duty on their part.

Well you know that and I know that, in fact anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that, and nobody gave me any advice about it, its just plain bloody obvious - so why didn't it occur to Fat Faye? 

If you get into a bidding war, the losing newspapers are going to have you for it.  No doubt at all in my mind.  So don't do it.  You mess with the press and you end up like the lady that rode on the back of a tiger.

She had the opportunity to resign and write a book if she wished.  But if she was to write it what exactly would she write about?  When she was captured the Iranians stared and looked at her funny.  She was kept on her own for a couple of days.  Someone was hammering somewhere outside her cell.   Some woman ran a tape measure over her.  She had a little cry.   And?  Erm ..... that's it.  Hardly makes a good rivetting read does it?  Her "story" wouldn't keep, so she took the money now while there still remained a modicum of interest in her victimhood.

[Harry_Wong]

We still don't know what CDs they were given - I'm hoping something up to date like Nelly Futardo.

The British government have been completely driven by this 'modern media environment', from their own early posturing and fantasies about the treatment of the captives, to putting the sailors and marines up to sell 'stories' of their own similar fantasies about their treatment.

Even in their own conception of that 'modern media environment' they've failed to control or shape it effectively to advance their interests.

In harsher times, those who actively collaborate with captors in giving statements about their comrades and then willingly participate in propaganda would be court martialed and punished.

However, that would hardly do in the 'modern media environment'. We've seen them all on tv, seen or read profiles of them and their families. Iran probably could have turned it into an earner if they'd put them up for expulsion/release by text-vote.

They probably don't understand that 'modern media environment' the way the British government do, the simple things are mesmerised by the presence of a female, they'd probably just make a prime-time spectacle of her.

Almost all these sailors and marines seem to have been happy to talk to anyone they met, telling them whatever they wanted to hear, and do exactly as they were told by anyone in charge of them at the time.

The next action-man marine doll will have to come with a string in the back to make them blab on command.

Some even began taking digs at eachother over cooperating with the Iranians when they were negotiating with the press on their own behalf. The 'modern media environment' seems to be corrosive to morale - esprit de corps.

[Cassiel]

Harry, you give far too much credit to the MoD and Royal Navy. Of course they wanted to get the story out to counter the Iranian propaganda, but the idea they 'put up' the hostages and organised them in any way is preposterous. This has been a monumental balls up because there was no organisation or coherent attempt to control the news agenda. The sailors got back, the newspapers had already started bidding, some wanted to sell, others didn't. The MoD press office, staffed by ageing hacks, naively thought allowing the stories to be sold would have no negative consequences, Des Browne rubber-stamped it and then watched it all go tits up afore his eyes.

Just an everyday tale of incompetence, naivety, avarice and media whoredom.

The modern media environment certainly is corrosive to morale - which is why something needs to be done to contend with it.

[Harry_Wong]

They waived their own rules, and as Max Clifford put it virtually frog-marched them to the press.

The executive level abdicating responsibility for their decisions is symptomatic, as is the captives abdicating responsibility for their active collaboration.

Even if people want to put it down to incompetence, naivity and whoredom - they're still responsible for that, unless it's the standard expected in that culture.

More than naivity, the repeated efforts to posture and stir up hysteria over fantasies of mis-treatment or torture, suggest a cynicism in believing that the 'modern media environment' can be used to sell any story to a gullible public, regardless of the reality.

[Cassiel]

They waived their own rules, and as Max Clifford put it virtually frog-marched them to the press.

The executive level abdicating responsibility for their decisions is symptomatic, as is the captives abdicating responsibility for their active collaboration.

Even if people want to put it down to incompetence, naivity and whoredom - they're still responsible for that, unless it's the standard expected in that culture.

More than naivity, the repeated efforts to posture and stir up hysteria over fantasies of mis-treatment or torture, suggest a cynicism in believing that the 'modern media environment' can be used to sell any story to a gullible public, regardless of the reality.

So, you think they were treated well and Iranian TV showed the truth? And you don't think any government on earth would release their stories to the media - regardless of payment - after such an incident? And you don't think it's in the very nature of our press to spin and twist the story to their own hysterical ends, regardless of what the government tells them what to do?

Propaganda and counter propaganda are as old as the hills. I went to the museum at the 'Hanoi Hilton' jail in Hanoi, used to hold US PoWs. Among the display were the volleyball nets the PoW's played with, their gym shoes, pictures of them laughing, having fun, looking relaxed. Slightly different to the story spread by the PoWs who were lucky to make it back. Twas always thus.

As I said earlier, the MoD cocked up. They were keen to get the stories out and the press office naively believed that the fact the hostages were to be paid would not arouse public ire. But there was no organized propaganda push here. The opposite in fact, a laissez faire 'let them eat cash'.

The MoD fucked up. But our media is a voracious ugly beast too and the hypocrisy seeping from its every pore on this issue makes me feel sick.

[Harry_Wong]

So, you think they were treated well and Iranian TV showed the truth? And you don't think any government on earth would release their stories to the media - regardless of payment - after such an incident? And you don't think it's in the very nature of our press to spin and twist the story to their own hysterical ends, regardless of what the government tells them what to do?
...
As I said earlier, the MoD cocked up. They were keen to get the stories out and the press office naively believed that the fact the hostages were to be paid would not arouse public ire. But there was no organized propaganda push here. The opposite in fact, a laissez faire 'let them eat cash'.

The MoD fucked up. But our media is a voracious ugly beast too and the hypocrisy seeping from its every pore on this issue makes me feel sick.

They appear to have been treated remarkably well, and for a purpose. The Iranian coverage seems to have been more realistic and consistant than British coverage which followed the government's lead and climbed the hights of hysteria to portrayed the captives as 'hostages' (which you've absorbed), and indulge in idle fantasy about mistreatment.

Of course there was an organized propaganda push from the British goverrnment, the media was full of ministers grand-standing and posturing, and when the Iranians released footage of the sailors cooperating with their captors the coverage turned to what terrible treatment they must have received to induce them to collaborate. It appears that they told the sailors some scary things about the situation they were in and most of them immediately put themselves at the disposal of their Iranian captors.

I've no idea where the notion of naivity on the part of some press office comes from, and it's not as if the press office is the authority within the MoD either - they're a diversion and a scapegoat. It strikes me as rationalising a cynical obsession with the 'modern media environment' at the executive level cought up in the belief that it can and will trump reality (they did it on Iraq and WMD).

That obsession has been used against them by the Iranians, who actually understood who they were dealing with, and anticipated all their likely responses.

[volga_arnold]

Apart from the statement by Dozy Des being utter and complete cock, I found this to be interesting:

The regulations should be framed so as to serve the best interests of the Armed Forces, and should not be tailored or adapted in any way so as to be right for the "modern media environment".   

Wouldn't that mean making the case to go to some war, any war ?

Tories slam "shambolic" decision. David Cameron said although Mr Browne had finally spoken out about the decision, questions remained unanswered about this "dreadful decision",

[Cassiel]

They appear to have been treated remarkably well, and for a purpose. The Iranian coverage seems to have been more realistic and consistant than British coverage which followed the government's lead and climbed the hights of hysteria to portrayed the captives as 'hostages' (which you've absorbed), and indulge in idle fantasy about mistreatment.

Of course there was an organized propaganda push from the British goverrnment, the media was full of ministers grand-standing and posturing, and when the Iranians released footage of the sailors cooperating with their captors the coverage turned to what terrible treatment they must have received to induce them to collaborate. It appears that they told the sailors some scary things about the situation they were in and most of them immediately put themselves at the disposal of their Iranian captors.

I've no idea where the notion of naivity on the part of some press office comes from, and it's not as if the press office is the authority within the MoD either - they're a diversion and a scapegoat. It strikes me as rationalising a cynical obsession with the 'modern media environment' at the executive level cought up in the belief that it can and will trump reality (they did it on Iraq and WMD).

That obsession has been used against them by the Iranians, who actually understood who they were dealing with, and anticipated all their likely responses.

Hmmm. And here's me thinking parading prisoners  on TV is the preserve of basketcase, tinpot dictatorships. The Iranian coverage might have been more consistent because the media is state-owned. We have a pesky thing  called a free press here which is a bit of bugger to control, try as you might. Our gov has form in these matters, I grant you, but to claim Iranian state TV told the whole story and our lads and lasses spent all their time playing ping-pong is pushing it a bit. It was inevitable we would try and get the other side of the story over.  But by mishandling it, and allowing the hostages, sorry, holidaymakers, to be paid for their stories, it has backfired. Spectacularly.

I'd also like to know when it was, and by whom, our 15 patsies were schooled into what to say, think and do by the 'British Government.' They must have worked pretty quickly, and in the case of Faye Turney, pretty convincingly. Next you'll be telling me the money was paid to buy their complicity, but that would be fucking barmy.

As for the press office, that was where the decision was taken and why Browne is now taking the blame. They were the ones dealing with the media avalanche, not very well it turns out. They were overwhelmed, all at sea. And of course it was naive. They didn't think anyone would bat an eye at ouir gallant lads and lasses taking the shilling. Er, they were wrong. Embarrassing fuck-up all round.

[BIGdavalad]

I agree. But then what we are saying here then, basically, is that these lot should not have sold their stories because what they did wasn't all that?

Personally I have no problem with LCpl Johnson Beharry VC selling his story (and that might be double standards, but there you go) because he has already proven himself to not only be a hero in every single way but also someone who understands their duty. Nothing I've seen of the ones who sold their story says that to me - the only one who's come out of this in anything like a decent light is the RN officer who was commanding the patrol.

If it had gone on for a few months, involved a few beatings and they bore it all stoically it would've been OK? Did people protest when Nichol and Peters write a book (Tornado Down) after being paraded on Iraqi TV, even though they were shot down on the first day of the Gulf War, as a consequence of their own incompetence. Nichol even pops up now and then on TV as a military expert, for God's sake.

I seem to remember disquiet about Tornado Down because it was written when Nichol was still serving in the RAF (not sure about Peters). If Nichol and Peters had left it until after they left the service (I believe they both left quite soon after the Gulf War) then there would have been no problem because they're civillians and can do what they like.

I also think it's unfair to say they were shot down due to incompetence - Tornado GR.Mk Is had one of the worst loss rates of the war because of the way they were being used - low altitude attacks on heavily defended airfields because the RAF were the only force at the time with a dedicated anti runway weapon.

There's an argument to say the guideliness are loose and fuzzy to say the least. If one good thing that comes out of this, it might be clear and concise rules for the military to follow in the face of a media bombardment like this and the silly money that is being thrown around.

I would agree.

Very few on here will agree with me, some will say she deserves it, but Faye Turney is about to reap a shitstorm of negative publicity because those newspapers who she turned down are right now digging up what dirt they can find, waving chequebooks in the face of former lovers, schoolfriends, accessing protected records in return for a few quid. I bet the Royal Navy didn't advise her of that when they said she could accept the offers put to her, and in my mind that constitutes a dereliction of duty on their part.

Anyone silly enough to to get involved with scum like the Sun and Mirror are either very stupid or very naive. She's sold her soul to the devil, now she'll have to dance to their tune. Until people learn that then they'll continue to get hurt when their 30 pieces of silver have long gone and sordid stories about their lives carry on coming out.

[BIGdavalad]

I may be wrong in this, maybe bigdava will know more
But im pretty sure that training for the armed forces dictates that in the event of capture, the only  information you give out is your name and number.

The Geneva Conventions (I think) say that the only thing a POW has to give is their name, rank, service number and date of birth. Anything after that is down to either your conscience or how many electrodes you have strapped to your tessies. Technically they weren't covered by that (they weren't Prisoners of War because we're not at war with Iran) but you would expect most countries to respect that right to foreign personnel captured in any type of incident.

These people appeared on telly, telling the iranian nation how they apologise for entering their waters etc etc. Fucking disgrace if you ask me. Should of refused to say a fuckin word. They  knew the dangers involved in the job before signing up, probably the main reason i never signed up for anythin meself.

Although I dislike how quickly they 'broke', I'm not going to slag them off for that because I don't know what I would do in those circumstances and I don't know what really happened (although they're doing a god job of making me feel silly for defending them so vigourously at the time). I would hope that if I was ever in that situation then I could come back with my dignity, which I don't think they have particularly.

[xavidub]

These people appeared on telly, telling the iranian nation how they apologise for entering their waters etc etc. Fucking disgrace if you ask me. Should of refused to say a fuckin word. They  knew the dangers involved in the job before signing up, probably the main reason i never signed up for anythin meself.

I think they should be ashamed of themselves. Now theyre selling their stories?
 

Wow, you have an amazingly high tolerance for other people's pain.

In the real world, (i.e. not Mel Gibson movies) torture destroys people's lives for ever, physically and psychologically. Its actually more traumatic than typing into a keyboard.

If their rules of engagement are inadequate enough to allow them to be captured, they should sing like drunken canaries who are getting married in the morning until they are released.   

[Harry_Wong]

Hmmm. And here's me thinking parading prisoners  on TV is the preserve of basketcase, tinpot dictatorships. The Iranian coverage might have been more consistent because the media is state-owned. We have a pesky thing called a free press here which is a bit of bugger to control, try as you might. Our gov has form in these matters, I grant you, but to claim Iranian state TV told the whole story and our lads and lasses spent all their time playing ping-pong is pushing it a bit. It was inevitable we would try and get the other side of the story over.  But by mishandling it, and allowing the hostages, sorry, holidaymakers, to be paid for their stories, it has backfired. Spectacularly.

I'd also like to know when it was, and by whom, our 15 patsies were schooled into what to say, think and do by the 'British Government.' They must have worked pretty quickly, and in the case of Faye Turney, pretty convincingly. Next you'll be telling me the money was paid to buy their complicity, but that would be fucking barmy.

As for the press office, that was where the decision was taken and why Browne is now taking the blame. They were the ones dealing with the media avalanche, not very well it turns out. They were overwhelmed, all at sea. And of course it was naive. They didn't think anyone would bat an eye at ouir gallant lads and lasses taking the shilling. Er, they were wrong. Embarrassing fuck-up all round.

If the US-UK get milage from footage of captives like Saddam, or surrendering soldiers, or suspects picked up Iraq they'll use it. Otherwise they may preserve the dignity of their captives by kicking the fuck out of them, trussing them up, degrading them, taking photos for their personal trophies or for use in interogation, or fly them around the world between closed prisons and their allies torture cells.

You overestimate the 'free press', they're governed by D-notices, the largest media organisation in the country is the state broadcaster with three major tv channels and twice as many radio stations. I certainly didn't claim the Iranian media told the whole truth, they wouldn't know any more than they're allowed to anyway. I said their coverage was more consistant over the course of the saga, compared to the hysterical reactions of the British media.

As soon as the 15 surrender monkeys were on their way back on the BA flight they could, and almost certainly would have been being questioned about what went on. Even if things had to wait until they got back to Britain there was plenty of time to organise their accounts in time for the first press conference - ahead of the deadline for the Sunday papers. They've already shown themselves to be suggestible at best, and given their capture/cooperation with the Iranians there could be plenty of pressure applied to encourage them to tailor their stories to suit their new masters, as well as the inducement of a big pay-off from the tabloid press.

I don't believe a press office would waive existing regulations and clear these service personnel to sell stories if they didn't have clearance from their political masters, and considering the stature of their master in the MoD, no way would he have cleared it without a go-ahead from the Prime Minister's office. Going by the communication unveiled by the Hutton Inquiry, that may have been press office to press office to keep their masters informed without directly implicating them in an official communication or decision.

[Dug]

Edit - circa 0710 a.m.
(An above post reference to a daily mail link written by Richard Littlejohn has been removed by the poster).
This post was a response to that post - which has been .... removed 



^^^^^^^^^
Littlejohn is a c*nt of the highest order who panders to the percieved woes of the pathetic British middle class.
The last time I read anything by this c*nt was shortly after Hillsborough and I'd like to ask the twat if all the Liverpool sailors who also died in WW1 & 2 were both "cowardly and offensive", like all scousers are.
Stick it up your arse Littlejohn.

Anyway, I digress, in these times of fuckin celebrity this and that, is it any wonder to anyone that this should happen and a load of military personnel end up writing a story about their experiences.

I'm sure Simon Weston and a few dozen lads who've had their limbs or faces blown off in the last few years could also write a corker novel too. And if they did, and if they got a few bob from it then at least with the funds they'd receive they wouldn't have to burden the Blighty tax payer by moaning and whining for hand outs from the state just because they were doing their job.

That c*nt Littlejohn would then be really pleased.

[pascoli]

Wow, you have an amazingly high tolerance for other people's pain.

In the real world, (i.e. not Mel Gibson movies) torture destroys people's lives for ever, physically and psychologically. Its actually more traumatic than typing into a keyboard.



If their rules of engagement are inadequate enough to allow them to be captured, they should sing like drunken canaries who are getting married in the morning until they are released.  

Wow, you really mean that.  Torture is more traumatic than typing into a keyboard. I tell you what mate, you got brains there, not many could have worked that out. IN fact you're wasted on a site like this. Maybe full time journalism beckons??

And as for my tolerance for other peoples pain, yeah i suppose its quite high, depending on whose pain we're talking about. forgive me though, i must have mis-read the pieces of interview in which it spoke of  the captives being physically tortured, sorry about that my mistake.

And i hope you are not trying to say that mel gibson films arent true to life?

Tut tut tut.

Anyways, yer last sentence told me a lot about you.
"If their rules of engagement are inadequate enough to allow them to be captured, they should sing like drunken canaries who are getting married in the morning until they are released."

Yup, in fact it told me just about all i need to know. Cheers for the confirmation

[Maggie May]

Wow, you have an amazingly high tolerance for other people's pain.

In the real world, (i.e. not Mel Gibson movies) torture destroys people's lives for ever, physically and psychologically. Its actually more traumatic than typing into a keyboard.

If their rules of engagement are inadequate enough to allow them to be captured, they should sing like drunken canaries who are getting married in the morning until they are released.  

What "pain" would that be in this instance? 

Certainly torture can destroy people's lives, but I think that would have to amount to more than somone nicking your Ipod. 

And as for your recommendation that captives should "sing like drunken canaries", that is quite insulting to the very many people who refused to do precisely that despite very severe and prolonged real torture.

[Cassiel]

If the US-UK get milage from footage of captives like Saddam, or surrendering soldiers, or suspects picked up Iraq they'll use it. Otherwise they may preserve the dignity of their captives by kicking the fuck out of them, trussing them up, degrading them, taking photos for their personal trophies or for use in interogation, or fly them around the world between closed prisons and their allies torture cells.

You overestimate the 'free press', they're governed by D-notices, the largest media organisation in the country is the state broadcaster with three major tv channels and twice as many radio stations. I certainly didn't claim the Iranian media told the whole truth, they wouldn't know any more than they're allowed to anyway. I said their coverage was more consistant over the course of the saga, compared to the hysterical reactions of the British media.

As soon as the 15 surrender monkeys were on their way back on the BA flight they could, and almost certainly would have been being questioned about what went on. Even if things had to wait until they got back to Britain there was plenty of time to organise their accounts in time for the first press conference - ahead of the deadline for the Sunday papers. They've already shown themselves to be suggestible at best, and given their capture/cooperation with the Iranians there could be plenty of pressure applied to encourage them to tailor their stories to suit their new masters, as well as the inducement of a big pay-off from the tabloid press.

I don't believe a press office would waive existing regulations and clear these service personnel to sell stories if they didn't have clearance from their political masters, and considering the stature of their master in the MoD, no way would he have cleared it without a go-ahead from the Prime Minister's office. Going by the communication unveiled by the Hutton Inquiry, that may have been press office to press office to keep their masters informed without directly implicating them in an official communication or decision.

Again. Hmm. For a start, existing regulations weren't waived. The Queen's Regulations were 'unclear' and the Royal Navy felt, after studying those regulations, they couldn't prevent the hostages being paid for their story. The press had got close to and been tapping up their families for days, particularly la Turney's, and the bidding war had begun from the moment it was announced they were to be released. The genie was long since out of the lamp and it was clear the amount of money being flung around could not be ignored. There was no way the story was not going to be told - the hostages wanted to explain their actions, what went on, and the Government wanted to counter all that cuddly Iranian fluffy bunny news coverage, which was obviously a heap of shit. The Second Sea Lord - fucking great name by the way, hope he carries a trident - told the hostages they could speak and went to the MoD for that to be ratified. The good burghers of the press office fail to see the ensuing shitstorm, whose job it is to anticipate how these things 'play', could see no problem and dear old Des agreed. A disastrous decision as we've seen. Does it matter if Blair agreed to it to it? Just another fuck-up in a long line of fuck-ups. Bad judgement, but would that surprise anyone?

I see you've fallen for the Iranian line that we are as culpable as the US for Abu Ghraib, rendition etc blah blah blah. So you're not free of absorbing propaganda yourself. The fact is we're not as culpable. I doubt our forces are angels. The Iraq war was and is a fucking disaster and the behaviour of some aspects of the US armed forces an absolute disgrace, but I don't go for all that moral equivalence because its student politics. Give me proof of systemic abuse of PoWs by British forces, not isolated incidents, and cast-iron proof that our Government has used that abuse as a tool of propaganda and I will reconsider.

D-Notices my arse. Our press is not free, I grant you. But not because of D-notices, which the likes of Paul Dacre and Rebekah Wade would wipe their arses with unless it was for good reason. I'm more than willing to accept that, in this case, the papers that support 'Our Boys' would be more than willing to counter the Iranian propaganda, but only because it makes a better story than 'We did what we told and had a nice time, Thanks.'  And the BBC as a tool of state propaganda equivalent to Iranian TV? My arse in excelsis.

But this is pointless. Your view of the world seems to come direct from conspiracy theories and spy novels. Nasty corrupt western regimes plotting and planning against the innocent Arab, the lapdog media being used as their tool. My theory, one borne from experience of several years working in the national press and dealing with these people, is that the cock-up theory explains everything. Where you see dark tricks and sleight of hand, I see a bumbling bunch of fucking buffoons. Where people scent conspiracies, looking at actual events will give you a different explanation: a grade A balls up.

[xavidub]

And as for my tolerance for other peoples pain, yeah i suppose its quite high, depending on whose pain we're talking about. 

And that tells me all I need to know about you.

[ollick]

I haven't read all of this thread but I will, I've just read the last page and found it quite interesting.

As far as I'm aware it's only been two service personnel who have sold their stories, two out of 15.  As has been mentioned I hold a great deal of respect for the two officers whom turned down offers of payment as "it was who they were"

As for conduct after capture, interrogation, tactical questioning, whatever you want to call it unless you've experienced even 1% of the fear, dread and fatigue that goes with being in such an environment then I'm not sure how you can comment on what they did and didn't say bearing in mind this was played out in realtime to the whole world.

The best way to fuck with someones mind is to create an envirnoment whereby they do it to themselves.

Without wanting to swing a lantern or pull up a sandbag I've spent a not so delightful 40-odd hours in a place near Bedford having the bejesus scared out of me, deprived of sleep, exercised, stood in hot rooms, cold rooms clothed and naked, all to get me to say the things that they wanted to hear, whether they were true or not.

In the back of my mind I knew these fuckers were on my side and I was going to go out on the piss again, I was going to see my fiance (now wife) so I can empathise (sp) to a large extent with what they said during their captivity.

What I don't agree with is that they've been allowed to sell their stories to the media, that to me is wrong at a Governmental level.  They've just made 10 years wages out of a couple of hours talking to the press, I can understand them doing it but I cannot understand the Government, Main Building or the Admiralty allowing it to happen.  At a lower level I cannot believe that their Commanding Officer, Families Officer or Troopie didn't step in and say "hey guys think about this"

Or maybe they did and they ignored it.

Anyway their back and the military looks stupid (again)

[pascoli]

And that tells me all I need to know about you.

Fuckin hell mate you must be a miserable bastard down at the pub if you cant recognise when something is said in jest

And did you forget to add the link that pointed to the proof these guys were tortured, or did you decide to pick one little point out of my reply and decide to respnd to just that?
Or maybe, just maybe there is no link, cos they werent tortured. Possibility no?

[xavidub]

Fuckin hell mate you must be a miserable bastard down at the pub if you cant recognise when something is said in jest

And did you forget to add the link that pointed to the proof these guys were tortured, or did you decide to pick one little point out of my reply and decide to respnd to just that?
Or maybe, just maybe there is no link, cos they werent tortured. Possibility no?

Sorry, I misinterpreted your remark.
I still think though that Iranians, who regularly execute their own citizens for trivial reasons (which the soldiers would have known), probably didn't have to actually do very much to intimidate the prisoners.

[Harry_Wong]

Again. Hmm. For a start, existing regulations weren't waived. The Queen's Regulations were 'unclear' and the Royal Navy felt, after studying those regulations, they couldn't prevent the hostages being paid for their story. The press had got close to and been tapping up their families for days, particularly la Turney's, and the bidding war had begun from the moment it was announced they were to be released. The genie was long since out of the lamp and it was clear the amount of money being flung around could not be ignored. There was no way the story was not going to be told - the hostages wanted to explain their actions, what went on, and the Government wanted to counter all that cuddly Iranian fluffy bunny news coverage, which was obviously a heap of shit. The Second Sea Lord - fucking great name by the way, hope he carries a trident - told the hostages they could speak and went to the MoD for that to be ratified. The good burghers of the press office fail to see the ensuing shitstorm, whose job it is to anticipate how these things 'play', could see no problem and dear old Des agreed. A disastrous decision as we've seen. Does it matter if Blair agreed to it to it? Just another fuck-up in a long line of fuck-ups. Bad judgement, but would that surprise anyone?

I see you've fallen for the Iranian line that we are as culpable as the US for Abu Ghraib, rendition etc blah blah blah. So you're not free of absorbing propaganda yourself. The fact is we're not as culpable. I doubt our forces are angels. The Iraq war was and is a fucking disaster and the behaviour of some aspects of the US armed forces an absolute disgrace, but I don't go for all that moral equivalence because its student politics. Give me proof of systemic abuse of PoWs by British forces, not isolated incidents, and cast-iron proof that our Government has used that abuse as a tool of propaganda and I will reconsider.

D-Notices my arse. Our press is not free, I grant you. But not because of D-notices, which the likes of Paul Dacre and Rebekah Wade would wipe their arses with unless it was for good reason. I'm more than willing to accept that, in this case, the papers that support 'Our Boys' would be more than willing to counter the Iranian propaganda, but only because it makes a better story than 'We did what we told and had a nice time, Thanks.'  And the BBC as a tool of state propaganda equivalent to Iranian TV? My arse in excelsis.

But this is pointless. Your view of the world seems to come direct from conspiracy theories and spy novels. Nasty corrupt western regimes plotting and planning against the innocent Arab, the lapdog media being used as their tool. My theory, one borne from experience of several years working in the national press and dealing with these people, is that the cock-up theory explains everything. Where you see dark tricks and sleight of hand, I see a bumbling bunch of fucking buffoons. Where people scent conspiracies, looking at actual events will give you a different explanation: a grade A balls up.

I've seen nothing to suggest anything was unclear in the regulations, but the MoD wanted these stories out there from the sailors because far fewer people would believe or sympathise if it came from the ministry. All the stuff about the stories getting out anyway, that's just a very poor plea of mitigating circumstances - they're service personnel, with a duty to their service as employers and comrades. The rest of your point on that is embroidery.

The UK (along with other US allies in NATO) has been complicit the US policies on torture, rendition etc. There were British military intelligence personnel at Abu Ghraib, receiving the product of prisoners who'd beem 'feared up'.

The British media also willingly censors itself, Sky sat on a report where the officer on the boat happily said part of their mission was to gather intelligence on Iran, sounding like Russel Brand: 'It's good to gather int on Iran'. Channel 4 delayed showing a drama on the conduct of British soldiers in Iraq.

The cock-up theory is always wheeled out to 'explain everything' when there's a chance that someone in charge might actually be an inquiry into what they've planned behind closed doors. The political leadership are more concerned with minimising their own involvement, hence the hiding behind press offices, the minister blaming the Navy, the Prime Minister denying any knowledge and by implication blaming the MoD.

[Cassiel]

I think this piece is spot on. The media castigating the MoD for refusing to stop them from buying stories. Bizarre.

Harry, answer me this: if the sailor's stories were cooked up by some Machiavellian figure in the MoD then surely they would have come up with better stories than stolen fucking Ipods or insect bites? Maybe a bit of cigarette burning, or putting nether regions between a floury bap and saying 'Come here Fido?' Maybe torture and maltreatment ain't what it used to be.

You might have seen nothing about the regulations being unclear, but unless you're Second Sea Lord what you've seen matters fuck all. The regulations are unclear, methods of payment murky - these lot could have got their money via friends and family, a whole heap of ways.

All the stuff about the stories getting out anyway, that's just a very poor plea of mitigating circumstances - they're service personnel, with a duty to their service as employers and comrades. The rest of your point on that is embroidery.

Eh? Embroidery? Your whole argument is that the sailors were hapless patsies fed a pre-prepared line by their masters, which they were lured into telling with the offer of money, fed to a gullible media eager to do the MoD's bidding. I give you a completely different set of circumstances, events and reasons and you describe it as 'embroidery'?

The British media also willingly censors itself, Sky sat on a report where the officer on the boat happily said part of their mission was to gather intelligence on Iran, sounding like Russel Brand: 'It's good to gather int on Iran'. Channel 4 delayed showing a drama on the conduct of British soldiers in Iraq.

What, the drama on the conduct of British soldiers they showed last night? The media censors itself - sometimes to the point of hilarity, remember 'Massive Attack' - but there's a whole heap of difference between censoring yourself in what might be seen as delicate situations and knowingly spreading spoonfed government propaganda. I bet Radio One didn't play 'In the Navy' by Village People either.

The cock-up theory is always wheeled out to 'explain everything' when there's a chance that someone in charge might actually be an inquiry into what they've planned behind closed doors. The political leadership are more concerned with minimising their own involvement, hence the hiding behind press offices, the minister blaming the Navy, the Prime Minister denying any knowledge and by implication blaming the MoD.

But the reason it's wheeled out Harry is because invariably it's true. Nearly every fuck-up in human history is down to incompetence and hopelessness, mistakes or mishaps. But that doesn't fit the paranoid view of the world that we're all in hock to the man, that a dark hand is behind every event and sinister motives drive all those in power. And when the shit hits the fan and things backfire, as they have done in this case, people wil always try and pass the buck. Allowing Turney and Batchelor to be paid - although, as has since come to light, they were advised of the consequences if they did take ths shilling, which is why many of the others didn't - was a terrible decision. But no one was fed a pack of lies to tell, no secret plan was hatched beyond 'Let's get the stories out there when they got back' and the media were certainly not complicit, as their hypocritical squals of rage have since shown.

[veritas1616]

Interesting comments from Counterpunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/lind04122007.html

For Britain, and especially for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, the incident ended in utter disgrace. The initial surrender of the British boarding party to what appears to have been a much larger Iranian force is the only defensible British action in the whole sorry business. Even in Horatio Hornblower's Royal Navy, a British frigate captain was not disgraced if he struck to a French or Spanish ship of the line. Force majeure remains a valid excuse.

But everything else that was said or done would have given Hornblower or Jack Aubrey an apoplexy. The failure of HMS Cornwall to foresee such an event and be in a position to protect her people; the cowardice -- there is no other word for it -- of the boarding party (including two officers) once captured; their kissing the Iranian's backsides in return for their release; and perhaps most un-British, their selling their disgraceful stories to the British press for money on their return -- all this departs from Royal Navy traditions in ways that would have appalled the tars who fought at Trafalgar.

Yet that is not the worst of it. The worst of it is the reaction of the Navy's higher-ups. According to a story in the April 7 Washington Times, the Royal Navy's top commander, Admiral Jonathon Band, leapt to the boarding party's defense with virtually Jerry Springeresque words:

He told the British Broadcasting Corp. he believed the crew behaved with "considerable dignity and a lot of courage" during their 13 days in Iranian captivity.

He also said the so-called confessions made by some of them and their broadcast on Iranian state television appear to have been made under "a certain amount of psychological pressure."

"I would not agree at all that it was not our finest hour. I think our people have reacted extremely well in some very difficult circumstances," he said.

Had the captives been 10-year old girls from Miss Marples' Finishing School, Admiral Band's words might make some sense. But these were supposed to be fighting men from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines! Yes, I meant men. What Politically Correct imbecile detailed a woman to a boarding party?

This is just part of a much longer article; it is well worth a read imo.

[Buck Pete]

I'm Ex RN and find this all a little embarrassing to be honest.

The pictures of that bird kissing Iranian arse took me back to that RAF pilot during the Gulf War in the early 90's.

The difference there was that the pilot had clearly taken a nasty beating and was drained physically and mentally, Whereas that Turney Bird looks like she may have been holding a mug of tea and a cream cake out of camera shot.

I believe the MOD should demand the RN personnel in question hand over all monies received from the newspapers and donate it to the British Legion or another worthwhile forces charity.

And as for that Arthur guy,who was admitted receiving 'mother hugs' from Topsy during their 'Ordeal'.  He should be kit bagged  when he returns to his mess for being a whining little shit-bag.  But he wont because the Navy has gone all Politically correct these days.

[veritas1616]

I'm Ex RN and find this all a little embarrassing to be honest.

The pictures of that bird kissing Iranian arse took me back to that RAF pilot during the Gulf War in the early 90's.

The difference there was that the pilot had clearly taken a nasty beating and was drained physically and mentally, Whereas that Turney Bird looks like she may have been holding a mug of tea and a cream cake out of camera shot.

I believe the MOD should demand the RN personnel in question hand over all monies received from the newspapers and donate it to the British Legion or another worthwhile forces charity.

And as for that Arthur guy,who was admitted receiving 'mother hugs' from Topsy during their 'Ordeal'.  He should be kit bagged  when he returns to his mess for being a whining little shit-bag.  But he wont because the Navy has gone all Politically correct these days.

What Politically Correct imbecile detailed a woman to a boarding party?

As an ex serviceman I would like to know your opinion on this. Personally I think women should not be involved in front line work of this nature.

[Bullan]

The Geneva Conventions (I think) say that the only thing a POW has to give is their name, rank, service number and date of birth. Anything after that is down to either your conscience or how many electrodes you have strapped to your tessies. Technically they weren't covered by that (they weren't Prisoners of War because we're not at war with Iran) but you would expect most countries to respect that right to foreign personnel captured in any type of incident.

So let me see if I've understood this.
They were obviously not taken as spies due to what you have explained previously re wearing a uniform.

And they were not POWs because there isn't a war.

So what was their status then? Well apart from being guests of Iran of course?

[nyctex]

So let me see if I've understood this.
They were obviously not taken as spies due to what you have explained previously re wearing a uniform.

And they were not POWs because there isn't a war.

So what was their status then? Well apart from being guests of Iran of course?

quite simple really - hostage as the thread title says.

[volga_arnold]

Officers fear furore hides real 'scandal'

Royal Navy commanders are furious that the Ministry of Defence and senior Fleet officers have failed to order a full inquiry into the debacle surrounding the capture by Iranians of 15 servicemen.

There is a growing belief that the furore over the media payments story is acting as a smokescreen to the "national scandal" of the mistakes made that have substantially undermined Britain's international standing, Fleet sources said.

Officers believe a board of inquiry would reveal what led to the decision to allow 15 troops so close to the Iranian border without support.

But defence chiefs might be reluctant to hold an official inquiry because it would expose the state of the Navy which does not have enough funding for training, equipment or ships.

According to Navy regulations, a board of inquiry should automatically be ordered when boats are lost or crew taken prisoner, but the MoD and Navy chiefs have decided that only an investigation to discover "lessons learned" will go ahead.

The inquiry will examine training of personnel, the effectiveness of equipment, operating procedures and "how to stop this happening again," Whitehall sources said.

"An investigation is going on but we don't know whether there will be a full board of inquiry," a Navy spokesman said. "If the Navy thinks it warrants a board of inquiry it will go ahead but at the moment it is an investigation."

But Navy sources have said an investigation is not enough. While a board of inquiry does not apportion blame it is an official inquest in which the facts are fully established. Its findings can also be used to bring courts martial against officers or ratings.

"This incident caused enormous strategic damage to both the nation and to the Fleet I cannot see how you can have anything other than a board of inquiry and subsequent courts martial," a Navy officer said.

[volga_arnold]

Captive’s Iran diary banned by MoD after ‘mad’ change of media policy
The senior naval officer (Lieutenant Felix Carman) who led the crew that was captured by the Iranian authorities has been barred from releasing his account of events.

....Now defence officials admit that they have performed a third policy change by telling the sailors and Marines that they must not speak to the media at all. One official said: “We know this is madness, but we have to stop feeding the story. We know Carman is sensible, but we can’t let him get his story out there because it will spark further interest when we are trying to dampen it down.”.....

[BIGdavalad]

So what was their status then? Well apart from being guests of Iran of course?

They appear to have been held as hostages to me, although Iran are obviously claiming that they were arrested for trespass.

[BSBW]

So what was their status then? Well apart from being guests of Iran of course?

Tailor's dummies sums it up for me apart from the lard arse bird who I feel they dressed appropiately as a fuckin tramp.

[BIGdavalad]

Tailor's dummies sums it up for me apart from the lard arse bird who I feel they dressed appropiately as a fuckin tramp.