Sailors and Marines to possibly get cash for their stories?

[Daniel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6537103.stm

What do you think about it?

I personally have no problem with it as they've been through the experience and the papers will make their money regardless of whether these people get paid.

Don't really get why people are so up in arms about it tbh :mark:

[BeansBeansBeans]

They've been through hell and they don't have the best paid jobs in the world, so why not?

In an era when criminals can make money from book deals, and women like Rebecca Loos can make a career from celebrity kiss and tell stories, we surely can't begrudge these soldiers taking the chance to make a few quid.

[BDunnell]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6537103.stm

What do you think about it?

I personally have no problem with it as they've been through the experience and the papers will make their money regardless of whether these people get paid.

Don't really get why people are so up in arms about it tbh :mark:

Given that this is a perfectly normal occurrence, it neither surprises me nor overly disgusts me. That doesn't stop it looking rather vulgar and cheap, just as anyone who sells their story after an 'ordeal' does, but there you go. It happens.

However, I can understand why some people are criticising this, and I have one particular concern. At the moment, the Ministry of Defence is engaged in a variety of strategies to promote itself to the general public in ways that it feels are more effective (and, to some extent, glamorous and exciting). Personally, some of what I have seen so far in relation to the Royal Air Force is at best misguided and and worst will probably turn out to be a disaster, but that's slightly off topic. I have a feeling that the Government and/or the MoD may have in some way encouraged the selling of these stories to the papers, and maybe the purchase of them by the papers, because it feels it has come across a good opportunity to put a positive spin on its activities in Iraq through the 'daring deeds' of these servicemen. I think this is rather cynical, and am not surprised that one (so far) of those involved has stated that they have no intention of selling their story.

[Drew]

I don't see how you can have a problem with it, really. Unless of course, you are the Iranian government...

[CarlMetro]

I'm quite amazed at the horror reaction we are seeing, nobody critisised Andy McNabb when he made his story into a book or two :s

[Eki]

I have a feeling that the Government and/or the MoD may have in some way encouraged the selling of these stories to the papers, and maybe the purchase of them by the papers, because it feels it has come across a good opportunity to put a positive spin on its activities in Iraq through the 'daring deeds' of these servicemen. I think this is rather cynical, and am not surprised that one (so far) of those involved has stated that they have no intention of selling their story.
I have that same feeling. I also suspect that their stories will in fact be written by military propagandists like with Jessica Lynch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch

"It was unclear what injuries Lynch had at the time of her rescue, but it appears she suffered a head laceration, an injury to her spine, and fractures to her right arm, both legs, and her right foot and ankle. Conflicting reports also existed that Lynch had suffered gunshot wounds to her left arm and right leg. Dr. Harith Al-Houssona, a doctor in the Nasirya hospital, described Lynch's injuries as "a broken arm, a broken thigh, and a dislocated ankle." According to Al-Houssona, there was no sign of gunshot or stab wounds, and Lynch's injuries were consistent with those that would be suffered in a car accident. Al-Houssona's claims were later confirmed in a U.S. Army report leaked on July 10, 2003.[2]

In the book I Am A Soldier Too: The Jessica Lynch Story by Rick Bragg, the author alleges that Lynch was raped anally during her captivity, based on medical records and her pattern of injuries. Iraqi doctors who treated her have disputed the claim because Lynch's clothes were on and showed no sign of having been removed at any point and the degree of her injuries did not indicate rape—although they were not looking for signs of rape at the time. Lynch has no memory of being raped nor of being slapped or mistreated during her captivity."

[Daniel]

I don't know if that's going to happen Eki. But I reckon the one woman from the group will probably end up on page 3 of the Sun at some stage :p

[Hotbikerchic33]

Good Luck to them is what i say why shouldn't they make some money out of it! ;)

[BDunnell]

I'm quite amazed at the horror reaction we are seeing, nobody critisised Andy McNabb when he made his story into a book or two :s

That was slightly different, because there was no suspicion that his writing was 'engineered' by the MoD.

It has just been announced this morning that the MoD is to 'review' the 'outdated' arrangements relating to servicemen/women selling their stories. They are obviously about to deem it OK for them all to do so. This heightens my suspicions that the MoD and/or the Government are to some extent behind the efforts to get these stories into the papers, and I do find that worrying for the reasons I outlined before.

[inimitablestoo]

It's one of those great non-stories which the papers report with the words "sparked outrage" - which essentially means the reporter in question (who is probably outraged that women have been given the vote, let alone allowed to serve in the armed forces) is outraged, and most normal people couldn't give a stuff.

[BDunnell]

It's one of those great non-stories which the papers report with the words "sparked outrage" - which essentially means the reporter in question (who is probably outraged that women have been given the vote, let alone allowed to serve in the armed forces) is outraged, and most normal people couldn't give a stuff.

Normally, I would tend to agree with you, but I sense the MoD's or the Government's hand in this, and that is cynical on their part.

[slinkster]

Each to their own I guess. I was a bit suprised that the MOD allowed it, but I guess perhaps they don't have much say in things like this? I don't know... I don't blame them in the slightest for wanting to talk about it and I'm kinda interested to hear what actually happened after all the staged videos we saw. Personally I'd have more respect and time to listen to some sort of announcement or tv interview with them rather than read it in a tabloid but that's neither here nor there.

[Hazell B]

As plenty of army, navy and air force people before have been made to keep quiet and not allowed to sell their story until after leaving the forces, this is something new. McNabb was, if I remember right, threatened with all sorts by the armed forces before his story was published. Even after it was released under a different name and with 'based on a true story' tagged on the tittle page he was looking at prison time - then the papers gave his name and so on, leading to it being reprinted under Andy McNabb.

I'm of the feeling it's unfair on those in the past, and those who died before getting a chance, that this group has the chance to make money out of doing the job they are already paid for.

Nobody made them sign up. They agreed when doing so that their work was secret and they would only be able to pass on some details of it. They knew they'd be part of the effort should conflict begin.

I've said previously that I am sure this whole hostage thing was engineered by our government, and now it seems more so. Those sailors where there, unknown to themselves, to be caught and held. The point was to gauge Iran and UK reactions, then manipulate UK feeling on the subject. That seems more obvious now, given the stories not only being allowed but encouraged.

[BDunnell]

I've said previously that I am sure this whole hostage thing was engineered by our government, and now it seems more so. Those sailors where there, unknown to themselves, to be caught and held. The point was to gauge Iran and UK reactions, then manipulate UK feeling on the subject. That seems more obvious now, given the stories not only being allowed but encouraged.

I simply do not believe that. Call me naive, but this strikes me as being too far-fetched.

[Hazell B]

I don't care what you believe at the moment. Time may just change your views, along with the details coming out in thirty years' time.

More far-fetched things have turned out to be true. Hitler never was vegitarian, the Germans almost certainly did land on Brit soil (albeit for one night only and partly by accident :p : ) and friendly fire blasted just how many men said to have been shot down by the enemy ......

Next you'll be telling me there's weapons of mass desruction in Iraq, because Tony Blair said so :laugh:

[BeansBeansBeans]

I simply do not believe that. Call me naive, but this strikes me as being too far-fetched.

Stranger things have happened. I certainly wouldn't put it past the Government to attempt to hoodwink the nation. They've done it before.

[Hazell B]

Put it this way - Why have these 15 been allowed to tell their story to whomever they like?

Why where they were they where, without the back-up that's normal?

Why were we told they'd been taken, when normally that information wouldn't have been out?

Why were they named? How come their families seemed happy to be filmed?

Sorry, but the entire thing was just far too open for people not to start questioning it all as staged.

[BDunnell]

I don't care what you believe at the moment. Time may just change your views, along with the details coming out in thirty years' time.

More far-fetched things have turned out to be true. Hitler never was vegitarian, the Germans almost certainly did land on Brit soil (albeit for one night only and partly by accident :p : ) and friendly fire blasted just how many men said to have been shot down by the enemy ......

Next you'll be telling me there's weapons of mass desruction in Iraq, because Tony Blair said so :laugh:

I am perfectly capable of working out that some things are obvious attempts to hoodwink, thank you very much, and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was one of those. Your suggestion that this incident has been concocted is way out of that league — and your idea that, if it was, we would know in 30 years' time is equally far-fetched as the papers relating to such an issue would almost certainly be retained for longer than that rather than being released.

Like it or not, there is genuine tension at present between Iran and the nations of the coalition operating in Iraq. These are not generally the conditions under which two nations get together and test the water by arranging an incident such as this. The Iranian leadership is too fragmented to have made organising such a thing possible, for a start. We had no direct dialogue between ourselves and the more hard-line elements of the Iranian regime, who, if reports are to be believed, were to a large degree responsible for what happened. It ended up coming to a close because of the more moderate voices. Why would the latter have colluded with the British government to stage a kidnapping of our forces, when they are the very people in Tehran who are counselling against an escalation of the 'conflict'? None of this adds up with the conspiracy theory.

Of course, strange things do happen, but everything tells me that this kidnapping was real, and everything is now telling me that the MoD is misguidedly encouraging the sale of the stories.

[BDunnell]

I'm all for questioning the actions of any government, especially when it comes to issues relating to Iraq and the 'war against terrorism', about which we have been told a lot that hasn't been true, but I think it is possible to go too far.


Put it this way - Why have these 15 been allowed to tell their story to whomever they like?

I think I've already answered that. The MoD is currently trying to publicise the work of the armed forces in a more 'exciting' way, through various 'engagement' strategies aimed at increasing public awareness of the services. In addition, the Government is, as we all know, desperate for the media to focus on 'positive' stories from operations in Iraq. This is why I believe the sale of the stories has been encouraged.


Why where they were they where, without the back-up that's normal?

These things happen in war. Troops end up in situations without adequate support. It's hardly unusual.


Why were we told they'd been taken, when normally that information wouldn't have been out?

Yes, it would have been released. We knew about it before when a similar incident occurred a while back, for example. That type of thing simply isn't kept secret any more, and to some extent it never was.


Why were they named? How come their families seemed happy to be filmed?

It is unavoidable that news of their identities will filter out, and then that the names will be released. Again, I see nothing unusual at all in this.

[Hazell B]

These are not generally the conditions under which two nations get together and test the water by arranging an incident such as this. The Iranian leadership is too fragmented to have made organising such a thing possible, for a start.

I cannot be bothered messing about with loads of quotes, but shall ask one thing. Where did I say the UK and Iran got together on this? I didn't, you just jumped to that with no evidence. You see, people have ideas when they get information, as you've just proved.

My idea was that it appeared staged. I didn't say who by, other than the UK government. Yours was different. It just happened to pop into my tiny female brain when I first heard about them being taken. Feel free to patronise me about it - I'm capable of taking it :laugh:

I think the UK's leading people allowed some sailors to be out there just to see what would happen. It would test the water with Iran and with us at home. Some of the Navy may have known what was happening, but I don't think those on that ship did. For all I know they may have been trying to get Brit hostages taken for months and failed until now. The US have said they thought US personnel where being lined up to be taken, but had covered their backs (I saw this on a News 24 item, so how true it is is anyone's guess) and that Iran had been trying to take either UK or US Navy staff hostage for some time.

I'm fairly sure I'm entittled to my views, or is that too far-fetched? As for being proved right when the papers come out, I don't care either way. By then worse things will have happened and been covered up or opened up.

[BDunnell]

I cannot be bothered messing about with loads of quotes, but shall ask one thing. Where did I say the UK and Iran got together on this? I didn't, you just jumped to that with no evidence. You see, people have ideas when they get information, as you've just proved.

My idea was that it appeared staged. I didn't say who by, other than the UK government. Yours was different. It just happened to pop into my tiny female brain when I first heard about them being taken. Feel free to patronise me about it - I'm capable of taking it :laugh:

I think the UK's leading people allowed some sailors to be out there just to see what would happen. It would test the water with Iran and with us at home. Some of the Navy may have known what was happening, but I don't think those on that ship did. For all I know they may have been trying to get Brit hostages taken for months and failed until now. The US have said they thought US personnel where being lined up to be taken, but had covered their backs (I saw this on a News 24 item, so how true it is is anyone's guess) and that Iran had been trying to take either UK or US Navy staff hostage for some time.

I'm fairly sure I'm entittled to my views, or is that too far-fetched? As for being proved right when the papers come out, I don't care either way. By then worse things will have happened and been covered up or opened up.

I wasn't attempting to be patronising — just to disagree with you. I think I'm entitled to that. You are quite right to say that you didn't suggest collusion between the UK and Iran, and for that I apologise.

However, I still think that none of the questions you posed afterwards offer any sort of evidence that it was set up by anyone. All the answers are perfectly straightforward.

If it was an attempt by the British military/government to see what would happen (which I don't think it was), it has backfired spectacularly. It is certain that there is now much less sympathy than there was for those involved, though having just seen a particularly absurd comment from Richard Littlejohn on the front of tomorrow's Daily Mail, as shown just now on News 24, not all of the criticism is fair.

[Hazell B]

However, I still think that none of the questions you posed afterwards offer any sort of evidence that it was set up by anyone.

Questions don't tend to offer evidence. They offer questions ... ;)



.... not all of the criticism is fair.

It never is, whatever the subject.
Which is exactly why I don't buy newspapers and do question stories now. Anna Nicole Smith wasn't doing illegal drugs, Brad Pitt isn't the perfect man, the grassy knoll wasn't a knoll because Shergar was buried under it and the UK government has some smart, motivated, secretive guys working us like muppets at times.

[BDunnell]

Questions don't tend to offer evidence. They offer questions ... ;)

Fair enough, but as I said, the factual answers to those questions demonstrate that there was no conspiracy on anyone's part.

[Hazell B]

How do you know they are facts?

It's rather like saying the whole Navy are happy with stories being sold. They plainly aren't, yet at first we were told they were. I'm pretty sure some sailors on board that ship won't be pleased if details about them come out, yet we won't hear about it. Facts aren't always facts these days, they're half stories and quotes taken from half a comment.

[BDunnell]

How do you know they are facts?

It's rather like saying the whole Navy are happy with stories being sold. They plainly aren't, yet at first we were told they were. I'm pretty sure some sailors on board that ship won't be pleased if details about them come out, yet we won't hear about it. Facts aren't always facts these days, they're half stories and quotes taken from half a comment.

To me, the answers are quite obvious. The reason they were allowed to tell their stories is because the MoD thought it would be good publicity. That's enough of a dodgy ulterior motive as it is; I can't see any way in which it indicates a set-up. The circumstances of the incident strike me as being normal, if unfortunate, and it is normal practice for us to know that such things happen and then the names of those involved. I simply don't get how any of those elements of the story indicate something more 'sinister'. Questioning the official line is great, as I said, and I'm all for it as you know, but there are limits.

Oh, and we already know that one of the people involved was unhappy with the idea of the stories being allowed to be sold. You are quite right when you say that any disagreement among them on that score will be pushed to one side by the MoD.

[CarlMetro]

the factual answers to those questions demonstrate that there was no conspiracy on anyone's part.

The only factual answers we have are those which have been released by the government. That is not to say that they are the truth. One thing is for certain, it took the focus away from Iraq for a while.

[Hazell B]

As Carl says, the 'facts' are only what we are told. We have no proof either way.

David Kelly would be the man to ask on that score ....

[BDunnell]

The only factual answers we have are those which have been released by the government. That is not to say that they are the truth. One thing is for certain, it took the focus away from Iraq for a while.

I know that this is not to say that the official answers are the truth. As someone who has, in a previous job, been involved in looking into the actions of Government departments, this is something of which I'm fully aware.

All I am saying is that none of the circumstances of this incident and the way in which details of it have been brought into the public arena indicate to me that there was any great conspiracy afoot here. It is fact that incidents like this happen, as unfortunate as they are — after all, they have occurred before. It is fact that we always get to know about these incidents and the identities of those involved. None of these things are unusual.

[BDunnell]

As Carl says, the 'facts' are only what we are told. We have no proof either way.

David Kelly would be the man to ask on that score ....

But it is possible to consider whether those facts are indicators of a conspiracy, and I don't think they are. The way in which the stories were allowed to be sold does indicate an attempt to manipulate the situation, as I have said all along, but the fact that we knew that the incident had happened and the fact that we got to know the names are perfectly normal.

[Hazell B]

It is fact that we always get to know about these incidents and the identities of those involved.

No, it isn't :mark:

I'm pretty sure that 22 Troop, or whatever the SAS are called, don't tend to talk much :laugh:

It's fact that we don't always get to hear about what happens. I can live with that. So long as I don't feel I'm being fed bull to make me take another war quietly.

[BDunnell]

No, it isn't :mark:

I'm pretty sure that 22 Troop, or whatever the SAS are called, don't tend to talk much :laugh:

But we have always known whenever British forces (excluding the SAS and SBS for obvious reasons) working on the waterways on the Iraq/Iran border have been involved in these incidents. We knew when it happened before, and we have now heard about it again. On balance, I very much doubt that there have been other incidents in which British non-special forces have been kidnapped by the Iranians without us knowing. There is no reason for it.


It's fact that we don't always get to hear about what happens. I can live with that. So long as I don't feel I'm being fed bull to make me take another war quietly.

As I have kept saying, I know full well that we don't get to hear everything that happens in conflicts such as this. I am merely pointing out that there are limits to how much can be read into these happenings. I do believe that there are reasons for doubting the official version of the death of David Kelly, for example, but this does not mean that I automatically think that this is a conspiracy too.

[Daniel]

and now the MoD has banned servicepeople from selling their stories. Power to the peop.... Errr I mean power to the tabloids!

[raphael123]

To suggest this kidnap was a plot by the government, Tony Blair being our leader is absurb to say the least! I think someone's been watching too many movies!

You've asked a few questions, and said this shows that it doesn't add up. BDunnell has answered those questions, which the answers to were common sense to say the least!

Your entitled to think it was staged, but the evidence against that theory far outweighs the fact it was just a kidnapping incident, not a staged kidnapping given the ok by Tony Blair. Some people seem to want to cook up theories and conspiracies for the sake of doing it, adding complications to things.

To say the only facts are what we're told is also a bit silly.

[raphael123]

Forgot to actual state my opinion on the actual topic in hand.

I don't see any problems with them selling their stories, as long as it doesn't compromise the situation out there. If your offered 100k to tell your story, and people are interested in hearing your story, and it doesn't put any of the current troops in danger - why not?

Why begrudge someone a one off lump sum when they've been putting their life at risk for our country? It's a bit harsh. We don't begrudge people like Jodie Marsh, or other Kiss and Tell girls, or we don't begrudge John Terry getting 100k A WEEK for playing football, yet someone who risks their life everytime they go to work, people don't like the fact they are trying to make a one off lump sum.

Maybe it's jealousy, but I would do the same in their situation. God I'd even do it for 50k! As long as it doesn't put others in harms way it's fine. I don't think the fact it's harsh on the families who have their family still in war, I'm sure they are happy to see people return home safely. Or do they think they begrudge other families a happy ending, just because their son/daughter is still out on war? I have a friend over there, and I don't think it's wrong to see families celebrating the return of a loved one.

[BDunnell]

Forgot to actual state my opinion on the actual topic in hand.

I don't see any problems with them selling their stories, as long as it doesn't compromise the situation out there. If your offered 100k to tell your story, and people are interested in hearing your story, and it doesn't put any of the current troops in danger - why not?

Why begrudge someone a one off lump sum when they've been putting their life at risk for our country? It's a bit harsh. We don't begrudge people like Jodie Marsh, or other Kiss and Tell girls, or we don't begrudge John Terry getting 100k A WEEK for playing football, yet someone who risks their life everytime they go to work, people don't like the fact they are trying to make a one off lump sum.

Maybe it's jealousy, but I would do the same in their situation. God I'd even do it for 50k! As long as it doesn't put others in harms way it's fine. I don't think the fact it's harsh on the families who have their family still in war, I'm sure they are happy to see people return home safely. Or do they think they begrudge other families a happy ending, just because their son/daughter is still out on war? I have a friend over there, and I don't think it's wrong to see families celebrating the return of a loved one.

As I said, under normal circumstances I wouldn't have a problem with them selling their stories, because, as you say, this sort of thing happens all the time.

However, would you really sell your story in this fashion? I ask because it's all very well telling your story in a way that describes the incident accurately for posterity — hence my lack of objection to people who write serious books about their time in the forces, or their role in particular campaigns — but this is rather different to selling your tale to a tabloid newspaper, or a crappy news-based magazine show on ITV. The view that the MoD put forward about wanting those involved in this situation to tell their own stories is really naive. Do they really think that Faye Turney will have the story of events reproduced in a faithful manner by The Sun, or is it being re-told 'in her own words' in tabloid journalese? My money is on the latter.

[raphael123]

For 100k, yes I would :)
And I think Sir Trevor McDonalds show is far from crap :)

I don't begrudge her the fact she's sold her story to The Sun of all tabloids. I think she's done it for the want of money rather than wanting to share her experiences, hence why she's sold it to the Sun, which as you point out, isn't the most reliable source. I would do the same though, so can't critizise her for it.

[Mark]

Trevor Mc is indeed far from being crap. Especially when he does the interview himself, usually it's just him introducing someone else.

[BDunnell]

For 100k, yes I would :)
And I think Sir Trevor McDonalds show is far from crap :)

I don't begrudge her the fact she's sold her story to The Sun of all tabloids. I think she's done it for the want of money rather than wanting to share her experiences, hence why she's sold it to the Sun, which as you point out, isn't the most reliable source. I would do the same though, so can't critizise her for it.

I have to disagree about Tonight With Trevor McDonald. I think it's an absolute joke, but each to their own.

[raphael123]

I like the guy, and respect him. He carried out the interview with Faye and I thought it was a pretty good interview. I don't watch his show every week, but whenever I do I tend to enjoy it :)

What would other people do in Faye's situation? Accept the 100k or reject the offer from the Sun and ITV? Just curious? I'm guessing a lot would be dependent on the personal circumstances. If I was a high earner and didn't need 100k, I probably wouldn't be fussed. As things stand I wouldn't think twice about rejecting it.

[Mark]

What would other people do in Faye's situation? Accept the 100k or reject the offer from the Sun and ITV? Just curious? I'm guessing a lot would be dependent on the personal circumstances. If I was a high earner and didn't need 100k, I probably wouldn't be fussed. As things stand I wouldn't think twice about rejecting it.

Given her position and the fact that she's very unlikely to be a high earner, I don't think there is any realistic situation where you could turn down £100,000. I don't know her wages but I'd imagine she'd take about 4-5 years to earn that much money, there is no way you can not accept that, especially when you have a family to support.

[BDunnell]

I like the guy, and respect him. He carried out the interview with Faye and I thought it was a pretty good interview. I don't watch his show every week, but whenever I do I tend to enjoy it :)

As I said, each to their own. I think that programme is the worst form of tabloid news television, and that he is at best a lightweight, mediocre interviewer. This sort of interview with someone who is now little more than tabloid fodder is about his limit. The likes of Jon Snow, Martha Kearney and Gavin Esler are skilled, searching interviewers; Trevor McDonald isn't.


What would other people do in Faye's situation? Accept the 100k or reject the offer from the Sun and ITV? Just curious? I'm guessing a lot would be dependent on the personal circumstances. If I was a high earner and didn't need 100k, I probably wouldn't be fussed. As things stand I wouldn't think twice about rejecting it.

I consider it rather vulgar when done in this way. So too does at least one of the other servicemen who was held captive — he has been quoted using exactly that word.

For me, money wouldn't come into it. I might be prepared to give an interview to something serious like Channel 4 News or Newsnight, but not to those outlets that may be acceptable forums for the likes of Jade Goody but not someone involved in a major international incident. Still, I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would ever join the armed forces, so that's entirely hypothetical.

[BDunnell]

Given her position and the fact that she's very unlikely to be a high earner, I don't think there is any realistic situation where you could turn down £100,000. I don't know her wages but I'd imagine she'd take about 4-5 years to earn that much money, there is no way you can not accept that, especially when you have a family to support.

Not everyone would want to have £100,000 under any circumstances. I wouldn't consider it in any way strange or irresponsible if she had turned it down, for example if she didn't like where the fee was coming from (though I realise that this was never likely). It's an old cliche, but money isn't everything.

[Mark]

Not everyone would want to have £100,000 under any circumstances. I wouldn't consider it in any way strange or irresponsible if she had turned it down, for example if she didn't like where the fee was coming from (though I realise that this was never likely). It's an old cliche, but money isn't everything.

You are right, but I think it would only be a problem if it was seen as a gross breach of trust, but IMO it wasn't, it may have been slightly 'not the done thing' but when you are talking about pay off the mortgage kind of money then the outcome is inevitable.

[raphael123]

Given her position and the fact that she's very unlikely to be a high earner, I don't think there is any realistic situation where you could turn down £100,000. I don't know her wages but I'd imagine she'd take about 4-5 years to earn that much money, there is no way you can not accept that, especially when you have a family to support.

My sentiments exactly :)

[raphael123]

As I said, each to their own. I think that programme is the worst form of tabloid news television, and that he is at best a lightweight, mediocre interviewer. This sort of interview with someone who is now little more than tabloid fodder is about his limit. The likes of Jon Snow, Martha Kearney and Gavin Esler are skilled, searching interviewers; Trevor McDonald isn't.



I consider it rather vulgar when done in this way. So too does at least one of the other servicemen who was held captive — he has been quoted using exactly that word.

For me, money wouldn't come into it. I might be prepared to give an interview to something serious like Channel 4 News or Newsnight, but not to those outlets that may be acceptable forums for the likes of Jade Goody but not someone involved in a major international incident. Still, I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would ever join the armed forces, so that's entirely hypothetical.

Vulgar is a harsh word. One of the captives may have used that word. The lead guy has come on TV and defended her though. I think it just shows at the end of the day it's a personal choice, and will vary greatly between each individual.

I think the reasons as to why she did it are completely understandable. I don't think she should be critizised for it. I'm not saying you don't understand why she did it, but there are some people who don't seem to get the gist of why she did it - which is ignorant.

Anyway, just to conclude. I don't think she deserves critizism in the way she has done for doing what she's done (which isn't something bad!) for perfectly good reasons.

[BDunnell]

You are right, but I think it would only be a problem if it was seen as a gross breach of trust, but IMO it wasn't, it may have been slightly 'not the done thing' but when you are talking about pay off the mortgage kind of money then the outcome is inevitable.

I don't see it as a gross breach of trust, but I do consider it unadvisable. Still, if she wants to be splashed over various cheap media outlets, fine.

[BDunnell]

Anyway, just to conclude. I don't think she deserves critizism in the way she has done for doing what she's done (which isn't something bad!) for perfectly good reasons.

Indeed. If anyone deserves criticism, it is the Ministry of Defence for allowing this to happen in the first place, for what I believe to be ill-advised PR-driven reasons. They have obviously realised their mistake, which is good.

[EuroTroll]

I'm not in tune with the discussion about this topic, but here's (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=84619&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fshows%2Fthe_daily_show%2Fvideos%2 Fmost_recent%2Findex.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true) something... amusing. :)

I have to say he has a point.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mr. Dunnell, you and I agree on this one. I have no problem with the people selling their story if they are civilians, but I think until they leave the service, the brass should stick to the previous policy.

AS for whether this was a setup as Hazell describes, it is truly amazing that you can be so cynical to think this way Hazell. Why? Simply that it would take the most calculating and cold structure of miltary officers to cook up a scheme and actually expect people to carry it out. No way that would happen. Contrary to what you believe, most military people don't blindly follow orders and I know the first duty of any officer is to bring home his people safely while accomplishing the task at hand. Putting 15 people including a woman in harm's way for the Iranians to do what they wish is just pure folly and would go against every fibre of any moral officers thinking. You might find one loser willing to make such an order, but it would take much more than that for this to happen as a setup.

Also take note, Iran released the pic of the GPS with the co-ordinates where they picked up the sailors, and it was determined that it was Iraqi water. Then the pic was taken off the net and replaced by one that showed the co-ordinates in Iranian waters. Now, was this too a setup? Hardly, it was a no mind fool of a officer in Iran who is no doubt busting bricks somewhere for his screw up now.

Sometimes things are what they are, and now the sailors and marines are home. While I would love to see their stories sold, not while they are in uniform. God knows they all could use the dough, and in England, some unscrupulous "journalists" would love to use these people for pay, but when you wear the uniform of your nation, the military brass has final say.

[Eki]

I'm not in tune with the discussion about this topic, but here's (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=84619&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fshows%2Fthe_daily_show%2Fvideos%2 Fmost_recent%2Findex.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true) something... amusing. :)

I have to say he has a point.

I saw an interview where Faye Turner told that when an Iranian woman came and measure her she thought she was measured for a coffin. I think the logical explanation was that she was measured for an unmatching track suit.

[Hazell B]

AS for whether this was a setup as Hazell describes, it is truly amazing that you can be so cynical to think this way Hazell. Why? Simply that it would take the most calculating and cold structure of miltary officers to cook up a scheme and actually expect people to carry it out. No way that would happen. Contrary to what you believe, most military people don't blindly follow orders ......

Can I just point out a few things here.

I just thought it - I'm no conspiracy theorist as a rule!
I did not at any point mention Tony Blair, or indeed any name, as the plot master (or whatever you'd call him).
I said "one or two" higher up people had simply placed personnel in positions where they may be taken, not that this lot were the specific crew. I didn't suggest the crew knew they were sitting ducks at all - in fact I said they wouldn't know. Their superiors wouldn't know, either IMO. Just the strategy guys who make up these plans with no thought for the disposable human beings at the end of the chain. Orders to go and do something seemingly fairly routine would be followed, just the outcome would be different to normal.


raphael, please read my posts before calling me silly. ;)

[Tomi]

More interesting story would be the one of the Aussie, who was at the consentration camp in Guantanmo, but he too is not allowed to tell for some reason.

[BDunnell]

Mr. Dunnell, you and I agree on this one. I have no problem with the people selling their story if they are civilians, but I think until they leave the service, the brass should stick to the previous policy.

AS for whether this was a setup as Hazell describes, it is truly amazing that you can be so cynical to think this way Hazell. Why? Simply that it would take the most calculating and cold structure of miltary officers to cook up a scheme and actually expect people to carry it out. No way that would happen. Contrary to what you believe, most military people don't blindly follow orders and I know the first duty of any officer is to bring home his people safely while accomplishing the task at hand. Putting 15 people including a woman in harm's way for the Iranians to do what they wish is just pure folly and would go against every fibre of any moral officers thinking. You might find one loser willing to make such an order, but it would take much more than that for this to happen as a setup.

Also take note, Iran released the pic of the GPS with the co-ordinates where they picked up the sailors, and it was determined that it was Iraqi water. Then the pic was taken off the net and replaced by one that showed the co-ordinates in Iranian waters. Now, was this too a setup? Hardly, it was a no mind fool of a officer in Iran who is no doubt busting bricks somewhere for his screw up now.

Sometimes things are what they are, and now the sailors and marines are home. While I would love to see their stories sold, not while they are in uniform. God knows they all could use the dough, and in England, some unscrupulous "journalists" would love to use these people for pay, but when you wear the uniform of your nation, the military brass has final say.

I would also add that while I remain no supporter of the conflict in Iraq and believe that we have been told many untruths about it, and other aspects of the 'war against terrorism', I am more prepared to believe the British version of events than the Iranian one. This is based on our previous record in such things.

Did we exaggerate the numbers of Argentinian aircraft we shot down in the Falklands campaign? No. The Argentinians exaggerated the numbers of British ones they downed, though. The same goes in relation to the Iraqis in the first Gulf War and the Serbians in the Kosovo conflict. Of course, I am not saying that we hear the full version of events, nor that we should believe everything we hear from official sources. However, in spite of the often dreadful conduct of the UK and US in relation to the conflicts in which we are currently engaged, no-one can deny that British military accounts of conflicts in recent history have been marked by a veracity that those we have fought would do well to emulate if they hope to be credible.

(This, by the way, makes the Americans' ongoing refusal to officially acknowledge that the F-117 'stealth fighter' that was lost in Kosovo was sho down all the more pathetic.)

[BDunnell]

More interesting story would be the one of the Aussie, who was at the consentration camp in Guantanmo, but he too is not allowed to tell for some reason.

Absolutely. Guantanamo is one of the scandals worth focusing on.

[Malbec]

I have no problem with the people selling their story if they are civilians, but I think until they leave the service, the brass should stick to the previous policy.

That pretty much sums up my position on this one.

There are pretty obvious issues here, especially since 4 servicemen died on the day these guys were flown back. Market forces being what they are, I suspect the relatives of the dead servicemen will not receive anything like the cash the Iranian hostages will. Is that fair? What kind of message does that send out to other servicemen?

Is it right that the details of their capture be left up to the tabloids who are the likeliest to be able to pay to put their own spin on?

[Malbec]

Oh and for the guy who was comparing the sailors to footballers and other 'celebrities', IIRC people who sign up to the armed forces are contractually obliged not to discuss details of their job to outsiders including the media. I fail to see how it should be different for someone stuck in barracks on Salisbury plain as for someone stuck in Tehran for a few days.

Something to do with the official secrets act IIRC.

These guys knew they were not to talk to the media. Being involved in an international incident shouldn't change that. If they didn't like those terms, they shouldn't have signed up.

[BDunnell]

Oh and for the guy who was comparing the sailors to footballers and other 'celebrities', IIRC people who sign up to the armed forces are contractually obliged not to discuss details of their job to outsiders including the media. I fail to see how it should be different for someone stuck in barracks on Salisbury plain as for someone stuck in Tehran for a few days.

Something to do with the official secrets act IIRC.

These guys knew they were not to talk to the media. Being involved in an international incident shouldn't change that. If they didn't like those terms, they shouldn't have signed up.

I ought to point out that, in recent times, the MoD has become absurdly sensitive about serving personnel doing freelance work, whether written or photographic, for publications which touches on anything to do with the service they work for. For instance, serving RAF pilots are not allowed to have anything published under their own name (pseudonyms are also on dodgy ground) about the RAF, including photos taken on deployments and ordinary work, in aviation magazines and other publications. This is simply ridiculous, because none of it to my knowledge touched on anything that shouldn't have been in the public domain.

The MoD has also been making ever more strenuous efforts to edit material about its activities by non-service personnel, often deleting anything of real interest in favour of corporate blandness, and insisting that information which is already well into the public domain be left out on spurious 'security' grounds. All of this makes me all the more irritated that the MoD seriously believed it was a good idea for these stories to be sold, and that the tabloids who were clearly going to buy them would be the best outlets.

[airshifter]

Oh and for the guy who was comparing the sailors to footballers and other 'celebrities', IIRC people who sign up to the armed forces are contractually obliged not to discuss details of their job to outsiders including the media. I fail to see how it should be different for someone stuck in barracks on Salisbury plain as for someone stuck in Tehran for a few days.

Something to do with the official secrets act IIRC.

These guys knew they were not to talk to the media. Being involved in an international incident shouldn't change that. If they didn't like those terms, they shouldn't have signed up.

I can't speak for the contracts of other countries, but here in the US there is no contract obligation limiting freedom of speech, other than safeguarding of classified information.

Even with information I had at my disposal in classified forms could be discussed to the extent it became public information. I simple couldn't confirm or deny that the classified version was in line with what was made public information.




Once the entire thing was a major media event, it's doubtful they could say anything we didn't already know. Unless they said something of a classified nature, here in the US they would not be kept from doing so.

[raphael123]

I think the comparison between celebrities and footballers etc, was made to point out the fact that people don't seem to begrudge them 100k a week for singers, or people who kick a ball. However someone who has been fighting a war for our country, gets a one off 100k payment, and people begrudge them it, whatever the past conduct of other sailors have been in the past.

PS: Contract obligations? I thought they were cleared to sell their stories? And a % of what they earned is going to families who have members of their families in the navy etc.

Hazell, I read your posts. I think your idea that this kidnapping plot was staged by the 'UK government' (your words!) is silly. End of. As DBunnell, and more recently Mark, have ripped that idea to pieces. It doesn't add up. I think someone's been watching too many movies :)

[Malbec]

I can't speak for the contracts of other countries, but here in the US there is no contract obligation limiting freedom of speech, other than safeguarding of classified information.


I believe there's a big difference in the way information is handled by the US and UK militaries. Over here there is a much stricter line prohibiting people discussing or informing the media about what would appear to be minor issues.

I suspect this is at least partly due to the experience in the UK of being targetted by the IRA. One of my friends who had a military father told me that an IRA sniper team was caught in Germany with a map of their base and rather chillingly the name, rank and role of every officer living on a particular street plus the number of children living there etc.

This attitude to secrecy has always been the case, and the army has been quite proactive in prosecuting anyone who steps outside the line which is why British military memoirs have been quite a rare occurrence (Bravo Two Zero excepted, and there was a big legal fight over that one too).

That they have suddenly decided to abandon that restraint over this one issue is highly suspect to me.

[BDunnell]

I believe there's a big difference in the way information is handled by the US and UK militaries. Over here there is a much stricter line prohibiting people discussing or informing the media about what would appear to be minor issues.

I suspect this is at least partly due to the experience in the UK of being targetted by the IRA. One of my friends who had a military father told me that an IRA sniper team was caught in Germany with a map of their base and rather chillingly the name, rank and role of every officer living on a particular street plus the number of children living there etc.

This attitude to secrecy has always been the case, and the army has been quite proactive in prosecuting anyone who steps outside the line which is why British military memoirs have been quite a rare occurrence (Bravo Two Zero excepted, and there was a big legal fight over that one too).

That they have suddenly decided to abandon that restraint over this one issue is highly suspect to me.

It depends what the issue is. It was acceptable until recently for UK service personnel to write about UK service topics of a non-sensitive nature. Now, a new paranoia has set in, partly because the top brass are concerned about people doing this in work time, but also because they are desperate to create 'brands' out of the armed forces, and don't want anything from internal sources to be published without it representing the official PR line.

[airshifter]

Dylan,

Information is in general, passed only to those with appropriate access and on a "need to know" basis. Obviously many things are not discussed at all, or made public information.

As suggested above by BDunnell, the major concern for the military branch is that individual statements made are not taken as representing the official view of the government or that branch of the armed service.

At the point the information becomes public and/or is declassified, it is not uncommon to have it spread through the media. I've seen on public TV here in the US interviews with British and other special forces about the Gulf War, and missions that were at the time no doubt highly classified and secretive. Those things which remain highly classified after the action are guarded and protected by security requirements, and in most cases the public will never know the reality of it for many, many years.

[BDunnell]

As suggested above by BDunnell, the major concern for the military branch is that individual statements made are not taken as representing the official view of the government or that branch of the armed service.

The trouble is in the UK that this had never to my knowledge caused a problem, yet people who think they know about PR have told the MoD that it is. It is, as I think I suggested before, ironic that it thought that selling these stories to the tabloids was acceptable in the light of this.