Why Were We Lied to By the BBC ?

[misty]

The pertinent point being 'a long time ago'. As of this morning we know that MS did ask the BBC for a retraction and they obliged.

I do wonder if as well as asking MS and his wife to help in the construction of efits Oakley interviewed them as well. Perhaps that is the reason the the PI's report was withheld ?

According to the article, it was actually the journalist who asked why the BBC had refused to correct the programme content, based on what MS had told her. The BBC obliged the journalist, not Martin Smith.
It is not my opinion that the Oakley report was withheld because of the Smiths.

[Alice Purjorick]

Yet, as was pointed out a long time ago, MS never appeared to ask for a correction from the Sunday Times who published the same retraction of opinion as the BBC.

Does that make it one all on aggregate?
Looks to Charon [or Kharon depending upon whether the school you attended played cricket or conkers] for a ruling..... 

p.s you should be a happy bunny, the Toffees are being pineappled.

[Robittybob1]

The pertinent point being 'a long time ago'. As of this morning we know that MS did ask the BBC for a retraction and they obliged.

I do wonder if as well as asking MS and his wife to help in the construction of efits Oakley interviewed them as well. Perhaps that is the reason the the PI's report was withheld ?

Do we have a written text transcript version of the request for a retraction and the transcript text of the retraction?

[faithlilly]

According to the article, it was actually the journalist who asked why the BBC had refused to correct the programme content, based on what MS had told her. The BBC obliged the journalist, not Martin Smith.
It is not my opinion that the Oakley report was withheld because of the Smiths.

Martin Smith contacted Panorama after the programme was broadcast and complained that he had been misrepresented. The BBC refused. Perhaps the Times did too. Thankfully the BBC has no corrected their mistake. It does make you wonder though where Bilton got the information from and why he didn't verify that information instead of attempting to interview some poor bewildered Portuguese citizen.

[misty]

Martin Smith contacted Panorama after the programme was broadcast and complained that he had been misrepresented. The BBC refused. Perhaps the Times did too. Thankfully the BBC has no corrected their mistake. It does make you wonder though where Bilton got the information from and why he didn't verify that information instead of attempting to interview some poor bewildered Portuguese citizen.

Do you have an alternative cite for MS contacting Panorama prior to Gemma O'Doherty interview?

[jassi]

Of course. That explains why they spoke to Gemma O'Doherty recently - according to what she wrote; they also apparently confirmed that Mary Smith did address Smithman in passing. No direct quotes, though.

No doubt she asked nicely, and being fellow Irish, they were happy to oblige   

[faithlilly]

Do you have an alternative cite for MS contacting Panorama prior to Gemma O'Doherty interview?

Do you think that the BBC would have issued a retraction if MS had retracted his identification?

[misty]

Do you think that the BBC would have issued a retraction if MS had retracted his identification?

I think the BBC would be more likely to issue a retraction following a formal complaint by MS than via an email from a journalist who had spoken to him. What do you think?

[Robittybob1]

Martin Smith contacted Panorama after the programme was broadcast and complained that he had been misrepresented. The BBC refused. Perhaps the Times did too. Thankfully the BBC has no corrected their mistake. It does make you wonder though where Bilton got the information from and why he didn't verify that information instead of attempting to interview some poor bewildered Portuguese citizen.

What! did he try and interview Goncalo?

[faithlilly]

I think the BBC would be more likely to issue a retraction following a formal complaint by MS than via an email from a journalist who had spoken to him. What do you think?

I really don't care. What does interest me is that the retraction was made.

[Robittybob1]

No doubt she asked nicely, and being fellow Irish, they were happy to oblige   

Since you have "no doubt" I must presume that is an opinion, but I'm not sure it is all that PC.

[misty]

I really don't care. What does interest me is that the retraction was made.

And the retraction is absolutely irrelevant as MS stated in his original deposition to the PJ  that he would be unable to recognise the man he saw again. If an innocent father was to come forward, the Smith family would be unable to confirm that he was definitely the man they saw.

[slartibartfast]

I really don't care. What does interest me is that the retraction was made.

You wonder if they have approached the Sunday Times yet? I suppose it depends how it got in that story in the first place.

[Robittybob1]

And the retraction is absolutely irrelevant as MS stated in his original deposition to the PJ  that he would be unable to recognise the man he saw again. If an innocent father was to come forward, the Smith family would be unable to confirm that he was definitely the man they saw.

Who said that Misty?  No one person should be allowed to say that for a group.  IMO there is a problem here. 

[misty]

Who said that Misty?  No one person should be allowed to say that for a group.  IMO there is a problem here.

Group collaboration does not seem to be an issue in certain quarters when it comes to the evidence of the Smith family IMO. Certainly the description of Smithman's clothing was a collective effort.