This exchange of emails
between me and the BBC will be of interest to many readers.
1. My complaint dated 9 April 2017.
2. The BBC's reply dated
19 April 2017.
3. A transcription by a very competent audio typist of the relevant parts of a BBC Radio 4 programme called The World Tonight (10pm) in which the events of 4 April 2017 are discussed. At this stage I invite readers to absorb this transcript and draw their own conclusion about the veracity of the events described therein.
People
will see that the BBC does not mention the OPCW which is the recognised authority on chemical weapons. The BBC also
glosses over the fact that, as yet,
there's no credible evidence of what
happened on 4 April 2017, if anything. The BBC
uses relayed audio and video
broadcasts from people who claim to have witnessed events but as
former UK
Ambassador to Syria, Peter
Ford, points out do not stand
up. There have been
no western reporters
admitted to the area yet.
Dear Mr Bennett
Thanks for contacting the BBC. This is to confirm we’ve received the
attached complaint sent in this name. We’ve included the text of the
complaint and a case reference for your records (see below).
Please don’t reply to this email because it’s an automated
acknowledgement sent from an account which can’t receive replies. If you
do need to get in touch, please use our webform instead at
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints, quoting your reference number.
We’ll normally include the text below in our overnight report to
producers and management of all the complaints and other reaction we
receive today (with your personal details removed). This means it will
reach the right people by tomorrow morning.
We’ll do our best to reply as soon as we can, but the time needed
depends on the nature of your complaint. If we can’t reply as soon as
we’d like (usually within 10 working days) we’ll let you know. For full
details of our complaints process please visit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/.
Here are the details of your complaint:
----------
YOUR COMPLAINT:
Complaint Summary: Biased reporting of chemical injuries in Idlib
Full Complaint: Early on Friday 7 April 2017 I heard on BBC Radio 4's
Today programme of an alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian
Government in Idlib, allegedly at the town of Khan Sheikhun. At that
time and ever since then BBC Radio has reported this event as if it were
the Syrian Government that dropped chemical weapons. No evidence was
adduced. According to Peter Ford there have been no Western reporters in
the area. We have heard various voices on the radio purporting to come
from Idlib and purporting to give reports of these "attacks". It's
indisputable that the area is completely under the control of
anti-Government forces. The Government has no presence there. The BBC
has made no effort, it seems, to judge the truthfulness of these
anomalous reports. It would be sensible for the BBC to make contact with
the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to get their
view. There have been similar allegations before trumpeted by the BBC
without any evidence being provided. I have email correspondence with
the OPCW which clearly shows that Organisation's scepticism about BBC
coverage and Mr de Bretton-Gordon. In recent days the BBC has referred
to the "red line" crossed by the Syrian Government at Ghouta claiming
that the attack was made by the Syrian Government. No evidence has ever
been produced that this is so or indeed whether there was any chemical
weapons attack at all. Those making this claim, including the US and UK
Governments, stated that there were between 281 and 1,729 casualties. No
credence can be placed on such a large range especially as no medical
evidence was produced. Those supporting this claim were highly partisan
including the UN which had been supportive of the "rebels" from the
beginning. The OPCW, the obvious impartial arbiter, did not support
these allegations. The Syrian Government gave full access to the area to
investigate the allegation. This is in stark contrast to the lack of
access afforded to the site of the Idlib tragedy.
----------
Thank you again for contacting us,
BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Dear Mr Bennett
Thank
you for contacting us about our coverage of the alleged chemical attack
in Khan Sheikhoun on 4th April. We appreciate that you feel our
reporting of this story was biased against the Syrian government.
BBC
News covered the suspected chemical attack in Syria, which killed more
than 80 people, comprehensively and in depth. Our reporting featured
eye-witness accounts, detailed analysis of evidence of the use of
chemical weapons, reaction from organisations such as the UN, and the
facts surrounding the incident.
At no point have we stated that
the Syrian government launched this attack, but our coverage has
reflected the assertion by many Western powers that the Assad regime was
responsible. When covering this story, we have always included the
Syrian government’s denial of their involvement. We have also reported
the explanation from Russia, Syria’s ally, for this event.
We
will of course continue to report the political and diplomatic
ramifications of this alleged chemical attack, presenting impartial and
accurate facts to our audience, and reflecting the viewpoints of the
main powers involved.
Thanks again for contacting us.
Kind Regards
BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Transcript of BBC Radio 4's "The World Tonight" broadcast 4 April 2017:
Ritula Shah:
Many people would have been asleep
when the planes hit the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun which is about
30 miles south of the village of Idlib.
Images on social media showed
people lying on the ground and rescue workers hosing down almost
naked children squirming on the floor. This appeared to be a chemical
attack in which at least 58 people died. Later, activists said
aircraft fired rockets at local clinics treating survivors. This part
of Northwest Syria is a rebel stronghold and it's been under heavy
bombardment by pro-Government forces but Syrian Government forces are
suspected of being behind today's attack; a claim they've denied.
"Anass" is a member of
the White Helmets, a Syrian rescue organisation. He described what
he'd seen. His words have been translated by a member
[name not disclosed] of the BBC
Arabic Service.
Anass:
At 6:30 in the morning warplanes
targeted civilian areas with four rockets. These warplanes are from
the [indistinct] 22 and they are from the Syrian Army.
Ritula Shah:
After those air strikes, what
happened?
Anass:
The air strikes targeted the
northern neighbourhood and then a rescue team arrived with the
ambulances to tend to the wounded. What happened is that this rescue
team were affected by the gas that was over there and so they had to
send another rescue team to save the first rescue team which were
choking and then to tend to the other wounded.
Ritula Shah:
What were the kind of
symptoms that people were showing?
Anass:
People directly knew that it was a
gas attack because there were some symptoms like coughing, heart
shaking, suffocation, eye redness and they had some stuff coming out
of their mouths.
Ritula Shah:
And this was early in the morning
so presumably people were asleep.
Anass:
Yes, it's true most of them
were still at their homes and they had to go in and rescue them. Some
of the injured just came out to the streets and they were tended to
at the streets but then they had to send a rescue team of about 12
people to the houses and save other people that were affected by the
gas attack.
Ritula Shah:
And those people who were then
taken to medical facilities, how are they being treated?
Anass:
There aren't very good medical
equipments to tend to the wounded. Some of the civilians, they
volunteered and they tried to rescue others. What they tried to do is
to try to help people on their way to the hospital by undressing
them, by putting some water on them so that they won't be contagious
and then when they reach the hospital they give them some spray
through the nose.
Ritulah Shah:
There have been many pictures of
children suffering. Give us a sense of who has been worst affected by
this attack.
Anass:
Around 200 injured from this
attack. Most of them are children and women. Children screaming and
crying and there are around 70 people dead and it's expected that the
number will rise.
Ritulah Shah:
Well, pro-Syrian Government
journalists have reported that there was an explosion at a rebel-held
poison gas factory. The UN believes that today's attack came from the
air. The rebels don't have access to an air force. The Syrian
Government does but a member of the Syrian Parliament, Faraz Shahabi
denied that Government Forces were responsible.
Faraz Shahabi:
We are used to these fabrications
and fake news for six years now. We don't need to use chemical
attacks. Actually, we gave up our chemical arsenal two years or three
years ago. What we know for sure, that we don't use any chemical
weapons because we don't have and we don't need to use chemical
weapons. We have enough destruction power to [indistinct] any place
we attack. We don't need to use chemical weapons.
Ritula Shah:
If confirmed, this would be one of
the deadliest chemical attacks in Syria's civil war. It's been widely
condemned by, among others, the French and British Governments. The
Trump Administration has repeatedly said that it doesn't want to see
the end of the Assad Government as a priority but today it called the
attack “reprehensible” and in a brief statement the White House
Spokesman, Sean Spicer, blamed the attack directly on the Government
of Bashar al-Assad.
Sean Spicer:
Today's chemical attack in Syria
against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible
and cannot be ignored by the civilised world. These heinous actions
by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past
Administration's weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in
2012 that he would establish a “red line” against the use of
chemical weapons and then did nothing.
Ritula Shah:
The United Nations Special Envoy
on Syria, Staffan de Mistura, said the UN, possibly in the form of
the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons or OPCW,
would try to find out what had happened.
Staffan de Mistura:
We have not yet any official or
reliable confirmation. What we have understood, it was a chemical
attack and it came from the air. We are being, and we will be,
stimulating all those who have the capacity of finding out,
technically, what did happen. OPCW is an obvious, for instance,
candidate for doing so in order to be able to be much more precise.
What we do know is that it was a horror.
Ritula Shah:
Well, Ralf Trapp is a former
senior official with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons and is now an independent consultant on disarmament of
chemical and biological weapons. I asked him what conclusions can be
drawn from the evidence we have so far about the attack in Khan
Sheikhoun.
Ralf Trapp:
This is very difficult to say. I
mean, the evidence is certainly consistent with the use of a toxic
chemical and I've seen speculations in the media already that this
may have been sarin. Now, this is not easy, in fact it's impossible,
to establish simply from the video images but it clearly looks like
the use of a toxic chemical. It looks like a large amount has been
used because the numbers that we've heard about victims are
significant. The symptoms that are described which include things
like fainting, vomiting, foam building, constricted irises and so on,
they're all consistent with an organophosphate or something similar,
an agent that acts on the nervous system.
Ritula Shah:
How then is it possible to find
out what may have been used. Which nerve agent?
Ralf Trapp:
I understand that the number of
the victims have in fact been brought to Turkey for medical
treatment. That means that they are accessible to investigators so
you can undertake a medical examination and you can take blood
samples and other types of biological samples and if it was indeed sarin then it will be possible to establish that from a chemical or
biochemical analysis of the blood with a very high degree of
certainty.
Ritula Shah:
Is there anything that can be
drawn from the fact that so many people appear to have been affected?
Ralf Trapp:
Well, that suggests that it was
not an isolated incident. It was not a single weapon that was used
and that a significant amount of material was involved which, again,
is indicative of a well planned operation and something that involved
significant amounts of toxic material.
Ritula Shah:
There are suggestions that because
this was an air attack that the finger is being pointed at either
Syrian Government forces or possibly a Russian plane but yet in 2013
it was suggested that actually Syria had given up its chemical weapon
stockpiles as part of an international plan. How do you reconcile all
those disparate facts?
Ralf Trapp:
It's not easy to do that. What we
do know is that the material, the weapons as well as the equipment
that Syria declared in 2013 when it joined the Chemical Weapons
Convention, they all have been verified, they have been inventoried
and they have been destroyed so it's none of those weapons or pieces
of equipment. Whether the Syrian State has kept some of its stockpile
hidden, whether in the meantime somebody else has started
manufacturing these items, that we can't simply tell from the
information we have so far.
Ritula Shah:
There have been previous chemical
attacks in Syria. What do we know about those?
Ralf Trapp:
Well, we know quite a bit about
the attacks in 2013. That was thoroughly investigated by the UN
Secretary General and his mechanism and that of course has, as you
already said, led to the decisions to eliminate Syria's chemical
weapons program. Beginning in 2014 we then had allegations of the
use of chlorine gas and also of mustard agent in Syria. These have
been investigated by the OPCW in the form of a fact-finding mission
and, on a number of occasions, they could in fact confirm the use of
either chlorine gas or an agent that would release chlorine and also,
in one case, the use of [indistinct] mustard in a situation where it
was highly likely that it was used by ISIL. In fact that was
confirmed by the joint investigation mechanism. So, the use of these
improvised chemical devices, even after the removal of the Syrian
chemical weapons program, is fairly well documented but so far what
we've seen where relatively small incidents and improvised devices
which had an impact but they are, as far as I can see from the
numbers, they are not the same scale as this incident today where
apparently significant numbers of people were killed or injured.
