Martin Bashir, the BBC, and the Diana interview.

"Damning findings about Martin Bashir’s 1995 Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales, means the governance of the BBC and how it operates will have to be examined, according to a senior government minister.

The comments by the justice secretary, Robert Buckland, came as the Metropolitan police said they would “assess” the contents of John Dyson’s report “to ensure there is no significant new evidence”, after previously deciding not to begin a criminal investigation.

The Met said it had determined in March that “it was not appropriate to begin a criminal investigation into allegations of unlawful activity in connection with a documentary broadcast in 1995, but should any significant new evidence emerge it would be assessed”.











https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/government-considers-bbc-shake-up-after-damning-diana-report/ar-AAKe32a?ocid=msedgntp

Surely not another BBC cover up.

Or should it not be noted that garnering information was very different a quarter of a century ago....and the fact that Martin Bashir was bending the rules (or breaking the law) to get possibly the biggest scoop of the 20th century....was more accepted then than it would be now...so did the means justify the end?

Prince William speaks out...

A bit of professional self-flagellation:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God,
the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do unbribed,
there’s no occasion to.

Humbert Wolfe

Fred Moletrousers wrote:A bit of professional self-flagellation:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God,
the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do unbribed,
there’s no occasion to.

Humbert Wolfe

I was hoping you and Ben would have something to say in here.

Her death was a Final Destination of events from Charles cheating, this interview and the Queen's demanding they be divorced to her not wearing a seat belt and having a drunken driver.

Personally I'm fed up of scoops and interviews, the wealthy, celebrity and royals especially but all of us in general are entitled to a private life that should be just that unless something illegal is going on. I have little interest in it all. When celebs and royals are out and about doing something official press coverage is fair enough its their 'bread and butter' after all to be seen and reported on. Lately though we have an exclusive report - and hours of it, if a celeb farts.

What exactly did the BBC do wrong? I’m a tad confused.

Had to refresh my memory on this one -- Bashir faked documents and lied his way into the interview, according to an inquiry.

I'll just say this -- sometimes journalists will use a bit of deception to get a scoop, that's part of the business. On several occasions, even though I was seasoned enough to know uniformed cops weren't supposed to speak to me, I would approach a young officer, be very friendly and see if I couldn't wheedle something out -- but never without identifying myself as a journalist, and always going with the generic attribution, "police said."

But falsifying documents and telling flat-out lies is above and beyond the acceptable cheekiness in journalism, so if this is true, it's totally unacceptable.

I still feel guilty about calling a business to ask some questions for a story without identifying myself as a journalist. I only did it once, in 1997, but I still feel about about it.

What lies were told? What documents were faked?

eddie wrote:What lies were told? What documents were faked?

Honestly haven't looked into it enough to answer your questions without a link, since I don't really care about Princess Diana or an interview done back in 1995.

I think it was along the lines of he said, she said, they said that we all said...

Original Quill wrote:I think it was along the lines of he said, she said, they said that we all said...

So just your general everyday media story then.

Syl wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:A bit of professional self-flagellation:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God,
the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do unbribed,
there’s no occasion to.

Humbert Wolfe

I was hoping you and Ben would have something to say in here.

OK, Syl. Here goes. it appears that Bashir may well face a criminal investigation concerning the alleged use of fraudulent documents, and if it is proved that such methods were used to secure the interview I, for one, could never condone it. In fact I feel that there is much about modern journalism that is wrong...doorstepping, lazily using social media comment and gossip as “real” news, using media celebrity status to attempt to influence opinion under the guise of reporting, chequebook journalism...the list is a long one.

As a hack of the old school of journalism my own choice was to stay in the provincial Press, which though lacking in glamour at least did an honest and essential job in reporting on local and regional news, holding those in authority to account and investigating matters of interest and concern to readers.

And I like to think that in all my years in newspapers, and latterly in broadcasting, I followed two rules laid down by great men of the past - “Comment is free, but facts are sacred” (the great social reformer and editor of the then Manchester Guardian C P Scott) and “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (Voltaire - though disputed.)

Of course I then sold my soul of professional purity for a mess of potage, turned poacher into gamekeeper...and entered the smarmy but better paid world of public relations!

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I think it was along the lines of he said, she said, they said that we all said...

So just your general everyday media story then.

Basically, yes.  I have to confess that I don't really understand the British standards when it comes to journalism and falsehoods.  We have the First Amendment, and that makes it an open field.

I have no idea on what basis Bashir would bring charges.  In the US, liable is a civil matter...and you must show actual damages.  The only thing that is criminally taboo is State and military secrets, etc.

Interesting posts from the two pro's....thanks.
Both condemn Bashir for the methods he used, I do wonder though whether he is the fall guy here.

No doubt he did have documents forged to gain the confidence of Diana's brother, which led to an introduction, which led on to the infamous interview.

But the forger worked for the BBC, and the BBC has once again been involved in a major cover up, maybe not as horrendous as the Saville saga, but one that 25 years later, warrants a thorough investigation.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

So just your general everyday media story then.

Basically, yes.  I have to confess that I don't really understand the British standards when it comes to journalism and falsehoods.  We have the First Amendment, and that makes it an open field.

I have no idea on what basis Bashir would bring charges.  In the US, liable is a civil matter...and you must show actual damages.  The only thing that is criminally taboo is State and military secrets, etc.

Bashir is not bringing charges, and it's not just an everyday media story.
It has highlighted the BBC organisation, the BBC news programme Panorama, and their prized journalist ( at that time) Martin Bashir, to be involved with illegal practices, lies and deceit, in order to gain an interview that was watched by 20 million people on one night.
An interview that had huge repercussions for all involved.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

So just your general everyday media story then.

Basically, yes.  I have to confess that I don't really understand the British standards when it comes to journalism and falsehoods.  We have the First Amendment, and that makes it an open field.

I have no idea on what basis Bashir would bring charges.  In the US, liable is a civil matter...and you must show actual damages.  The only thing that is criminally taboo is State and military secrets, etc.

Bashir would not be the one bringing the charges, he would be the defendant, and possibly along with other BBC senior staff.

I gather there are four possible offences that might be considered by the police and Crown Prosecution Service: Fraud (obtaining money or pecuniary advantage by deception); Forgery (procuring falsified documents with intent to deceive); Blackmail (potentially making an unwarranted demand with menaces) and that good old catch-all Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Also, certain senior staff could, in theory, be investigated for the offence of aiding and abetting a crime.

I would be surprised if even your admirable First Amendment was not legally subservient to such criminal charges, Quill.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Basically, yes.  I have to confess that I don't really understand the British standards when it comes to journalism and falsehoods.  We have the First Amendment, and that makes it an open field.

I have no idea on what basis Bashir would bring charges.  In the US, liable is a civil matter...and you must show actual damages.  The only thing that is criminally taboo is State and military secrets, etc.

Bashir would not be the one bringing the charges, he would be the defendant, and possibly along with other BBC senior staff.

I gather there are four possible offences that might be considered by the police and Crown Prosecution Service:  Fraud (obtaining money or pecuniary advantage by deception); Forgery (procuring falsified documents with intent to deceive); Blackmail (potentially making an unwarranted demand with menaces) and that good old catch-all Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Also, certain senior staff could, in theory, be investigated for the offence of aiding and abetting a crime.

I would be surprised if even your admirable First Amendment was not legally subservient to such criminal charges, Quill.

Thank you, Fred, for correcting my post.  This sounds like what we would call in the US, a racketeering case, under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act.  Only, usually the "money or pecuniary advantage" is received from a victim, not from a lawful enterprise like journalism.  But fraud works; it is an "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right", and the value might be interview.

With blackmail, a person threatens to reveal embarrassing or damaging information if a money (or value) demand is not met.  The threat is usually direct, and not used in a scheme or enterprise...ie, Diana was not coerced into the interview by some threat of some disclosure.  Conspiracy goes to the manner (two or more persons agree to some illegality), rather than to the end; obviously, there is conspiracy here.

This could work under a civil RICO case, but it might be lost under the higher standards of a criminal RICO case.  With the UK, it depends on what tools (laws) are available to a prosecutor.

Forged documents of bank statements apparently showed that senior courtiers and associates of the royal family  were being paid by the security services  to sell information about Diana.  Bashir showed them to the princesses' brother Earl Spencer, in order to get closer to Diana.

She was already paranoid (with reason) that people meant her harm....the way Bashir gained her trust was solely through lying to her, painting himself as the good guy who would give her a fair chance to tell her story.

Earl Spencer has already said that if Bashir had not lied to him making him believe that the Princess was being spied on, even plotted against, and showing the forged documents to back up his claims, he would have never introduced him to his sister and the interview would never have taken place.

The interview  televised on the BBC programme Panorama, probably did more damage to the Royal family than anything else in the last 100 years.

This is now having a knock on effect on more high ranking people who were involved in the following cover up, no doubt others will follow

Todays news....

"Lord Hall has resigned as chairman of the National Gallery after being heavily criticised in the Dyson investigation into the BBC’s handling of the Martin Bashir scandal.

The move follows mounting pressure on the former BBC director-general to go after it was found the corporation presided over a cover-up following Bashir’s “deceitful behaviour” in securing an interview with Princess Diana in 1995.

In a statement, Lord Hall said: “I have today resigned as chair of the National Gallery. I have always had a strong sense of public service and it is clear my continuing in the role would be a distraction to an institution I care deeply about. As I said two days ago, I am very sorry for the events of 25 years ago and I believe leadership means taking responsibility.”

Lord Dyson, a former judge, found Lord Hall conducted a “woefully ineffective” investigation in 1996 and had wrongly concluded Bashir simply suffered a “lapse” and was an “honest and honourable man”.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/lord-hall-quits-national-gallery-role-in-wake-of-martin-bashir-scandal/ar-AAKgCu3?ocid=msedgntp

See, there's a lot of speculation going on there. Speculation is what causes a jury to doubt. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt...so a criminal trial could be lost. Here are the weak areas:

What was going on in Diana's mind...

What motivated Spencer...

The effects of the interview is post-motive and probably not relevant (except for causation >> damages)...

Knock on effects are post-motive and probably not relevant (except for causation >> damages)...

A cover up is not illegal in itself; it only shows a post-motive consciousness of guilt.

I've done a little research and it appears that there were fake checks from protective services (the government).

That's probably where the criminal aspect comes into play.

At first I couldn't see much in the way of criminal activity. Just shitty behavior by the press to get an interview.

Original Quill wrote:See, there's a lot of speculation going on there.  Speculation is what causes a jury to doubt.  The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt...so a criminal trial could be lost.  Here are the weak areas:

What was going on in Diana's mind...

What motivated Spencer...

The effects of the interview is post-motive and probably not relevant (except for causation >> damages)...

Knock on effects are post-motive and probably not relevant (except for causation >> damages)...

A cover up is not illegal in itself; it only shows a post-motive consciousness of guilt.

Depends on what happens as more crap hit's the fan.
So far the police have not launched an investigation against anyone.

But....forging documents IS a criminal offence, so that would be a start I suppose.

Late August 1995
Martin Bashir asks Matt Wiessler, a freelance designer, to make fake bank statements purporting to show payments to Earl Spencer’s former head of security from the intelligence services. These statements are subsequently shown to the earl in September. The Dyson report exonerated Mr Wiessler as being “entirely reputable”.

14 September 1995
A meeting between Earl Spencer and Martin Bashir. Earl Spencer says Mr Bashir showed him a second set of bank statements purporting to show payments from the intelligence services into the accounts of the private secretaries of Princess Diana and Prince Charles. Lord Dyson says it is likely that Martin Bashir created these statements himself.

Maddog wrote:Late August 1995
Martin Bashir asks Matt Wiessler, a freelance designer, to make fake bank statements purporting to show payments to Earl Spencer’s former head of security from the intelligence services. These statements are subsequently shown to the earl in September. The Dyson report exonerated Mr Wiessler as being “entirely reputable”.

14 September 1995
A meeting between Earl Spencer and Martin Bashir. Earl Spencer says Mr Bashir showed him a second set of bank statements purporting to show payments from the intelligence services into the accounts of the private secretaries of Princess Diana and Prince Charles. Lord Dyson says it is likely that Martin Bashir created these statements himself.

The graphic artist who did the mock up bank statements had worked for the BBC, he says he was duped by Bashir into forging the documents.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:Late August 1995
Martin Bashir asks Matt Wiessler, a freelance designer, to make fake bank statements purporting to show payments to Earl Spencer’s former head of security from the intelligence services. These statements are subsequently shown to the earl in September. The Dyson report exonerated Mr Wiessler as being “entirely reputable”.

14 September 1995
A meeting between Earl Spencer and Martin Bashir. Earl Spencer says Mr Bashir showed him a second set of bank statements purporting to show payments from the intelligence services into the accounts of the private secretaries of Princess Diana and Prince Charles. Lord Dyson says it is likely that Martin Bashir created these statements himself.

The graphic artist who did the mock up bank statements had worked for the BBC, he says he was duped by Bashir into forging the documents.

Yeah, and the type of documents and who was represented matters.

If I have a fake law degree on my wall, and you sleep with me because you assume I'm a lawyer isn't going to land me in jail.

If I create fake documents from a government entity, especially intelligence services, and show them to you, I might be in a world of trouble.

This is basically impersonating the government to gain access to someone.

It would be like me showing you false documents that I was with the IRS and you owed money, and I could help you make it go away if you helped me.

Hmmmm the plot thickens. The royal family are all in tatters at the moment.

I see Harry has been talking to the press about his father, Charles.

After Princes William and Harry gave emotional statements yesterday about the way their mother was tricked and the following cover up, her brother is now asking for the police to investigate again.



"Princess Diana's brother has written to the Metropolitan Police chief to ask the force to look again at the circumstances surrounding her BBC Panorama interview, Sky News understands.

Earl Spencer's request to Scotland Yard Commissioner Cressida Dick comes days after a damning report which found the broadcaster covered up "deceitful behaviour" used by journalist Martin Bashir to secure the controversial 1995 scoop."






https://news.sky.com/story/earl-spencer-asks-met-police-to-look-again-at-circumstances-of-dianas-panorama-interview-with-martin-bashir-12313545

I don't mind the deceit nearly as much as I'm bothered by the fact that Bashir fed into her paranoia and made her think terrible things were going on in her family with her as the target.

Ben Reilly wrote:I don't mind the deceit nearly as much as I'm bothered by the fact that Bashir fed into her paranoia and made her think terrible things were going on in her family with her as the target.

The interview she was tricked into giving had a knock on effect on the rest of her life.
It alienated the royal family, the queen demanded a divorce, her HRH title was withdrawn, and she didn't trust her security. So when her sons say the 'unethical practices' ultimately took her life,  it's not such an exaggeration.

Syl wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I don't mind the deceit nearly as much as I'm bothered by the fact that Bashir fed into her paranoia and made her think terrible things were going on in her family with her as the target.

The interview she was tricked into giving had a knock on effect on the rest of her life.
It alienated the royal family, the queen demanded a divorce, her HRH title was withdrawn, and she didn't trust her security. So when her sons say the 'unethical practices' ultimately took her life,  it's not such an exaggeration.

She was tricked into believing the British Government was after her. Or at least spying on her using her aids.

It was pretty shitty, and I can see where it rises to a crime and is more than just deceit or lies.

Martin Bashir has spoken out defending himself.

"Martin Bashir has said he ‘never wanted to harm’ Princess Diana with his bombshell Panorama interview, adding: ‘I don’t believe we did.’ The journalist’s reputation is in tatters following Lord Dyson’s report that he used ‘deceitful behaviour’ to land his world exclusive 1995 sit-down chat with the Princess of Wales. Bashir has maintained Diana was never unhappy about the content of the interview and said they continued to be friends after the broadcast, with the princess even visiting his wife Deborah at St George’s hospital in Tooting, south London, on the day she gave birth to the couple’s third child, Eliza. ‘I never wanted to harm Diana in any way and I don’t believe we did,’ Bashir said. ‘Everything we did in terms of the interview was as she wanted, from when she wanted to alert the palace, to when it was broadcast, to its contents … My family and I loved her.’ He said he is ‘deeply sorry’ to the Dukes of Cambridge and Sussex, but disputes William’s charge that he fuelled her isolation and paranoia."


https://metro.co.uk/2021/05/23/diana-interview-martin-bashir-doesnt-believe-he-harmed-diana-14629576/

Padoras box is well and truly opened now.

I wondered how long it would take before Michael Jacksons family spoke up.
I don't remember the details, but I do remember watching Bashirs interview with Jackson and wondering why the heck he agreed to it. Bashir seemed to further destroy Jacksons already ruined reputation....and I'm sure that wasn't the intention promised.

Seems he used his connection with Diana to secure his involvement with Jackson and other celebrities.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jacksons-family-threaten-sue-24165400

eddie wrote:Hmmmm the plot thickens. The royal family are all in tatters at the moment.

I see Harry has been talking to the press about his father, Charles.  

One day, Meghan will get bored with him. He's got fuck all between his ears when it comes to common sense. You can be educated, well spoken, rich, etc but still not be streetwise or smart. When he's got nothing left to offer her, she'll divorce him and blame his family, and the British racist public and the paparazzi and...

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm the plot thickens. The royal family are all in tatters at the moment.

I see Harry has been talking to the press about his father, Charles.  

One day, Meghan will get bored with him.   He's got fuck all between his ears when it comes to common sense.  You can be educated, well spoken, rich, etc but still not be streetwise or smart.   When he's got nothing left to offer her, she'll divorce him and blame his family, and the British racist public and the paparazzi and...

I wonder how much child support he can get out of him?

I wonder how their spawn will turn out? She doesn't seem like the motherly type.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm the plot thickens. The royal family are all in tatters at the moment.

I see Harry has been talking to the press about his father, Charles.  

One day, Meghan will get bored with him.   He's got fuck all between his ears when it comes to common sense.  You can be educated, well spoken, rich, etc but still not be streetwise or smart.   When he's got nothing left to offer her, she'll divorce him and blame his family, and the British racist public and the paparazzi and...

It is a shame that Harry didn’t stay in the Army. He would almost certainly have been confirmed as Major by now (his courtesy rank on resigning his commission) and well in line for promotion to Lt. Col. A staff appointment would have been almost inevitable and the crossed baton and sword of a Major General would have been in reach. What if, eh?