Tell me I was seeing things, Tell me the BBC did not show a Soldier dying

[NutLoose]

In Afghanistan and his face on the news tonight..:mad:

They were doing an article on the poor soldier that died in Afghanistan today after stepping on a device whilst clearing a road, and as they filmed his comrades trying to get to him you saw the face of a semi seated position soldier in the background slump back as the announcer says he died... :sad: Whatever posessed them to show it, you clearly see his face and his family could have seen that....... Please tell me I have got it wrong :(

[Aerouk]

I've looked at the video a couple of times and can't see anyone that looks injured, all I can see is the medics/jocks around him.

Edit: Do you mean the lad whose head falls back?

[soddim]

I can see where the concern for the family is important but I also think the public need to see the horrors of this conflict so that they can not only understand and appreciate what our forces are enduring but also form their own opinion of the decisions of the politicians to continue our involvement.

[NutLoose]

Yes the one slumping back at about 1.45 on

BBC News - IED expert dies in explosion in Afghanistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8507095.stm)

I realise what you are saying about the public should realise what is going on, but no ones family should watch their child, husband, father die on the news.............. No ones :sad:

Do you think is is him, because if it is I intend to complain.

[Aerouk]

At first I thought that it was a medic perhaps falling back because we was upset, but after watching it I think you're right. The only thing I would add is that the guy on the left doesn't seem to react at all when the soldier slumps back.

I'm really not sure.

[im from uranus]

I think you may have seen someone just lying back, as one may do in such a situation. The person on the immediate left is looking the other way. Surely someone just injured would not be sat upright but lying down. I hope I'm right....

[vernon99]

A little earier in the clip you can see two soldiers a little further to the left, they look to be focussing on something in front of them, I assume they are dealing with the casualty, and the chap who reclines is simply doing so in response to the news of the death?

[im from uranus]

I have to agree with V99, just seen it again on TV, previous is all attention toward the left of screen, the person on the right just reclines, as if to say... :sad:

:{

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I am yet to see the problem here :confused:

[Fast but Safe]

It's not the casualty you see, others are correct in saying he falls back because it's over for his mate.

Soddim, please don't get politics into this. It's the families call if they want to show loved ones faces on national tv.

Admin please delete this thread I can't see this going any further, thanks.

FbS

[Gentleman Jim]

FbS

Admin please delete this thread I can't see this going any further, thanks.

With respect, why have you suddenly become the all encompassing Mod? If the thread is not going to go anywhere then simply don't read it.

Soddim
The horrors of war can be shown without showing families the demise of loved ones on TV.

Gentleman Jim

[barnstormer1968]

When I saw this, I did also think that the engineer may have been shown dying, but was not sure.

I also saw something else, and something maybe the news crew were also trying to point out! (Sorry for the thread drift I am about to make).

The article also showed that to have a SAFER way to detect IED's then American kit had to be there, along with American crews. Once the U.S. kit was disabled, then it was down to British methods, with the results of our approach being shown!

If the reporters had made direct comment to our lack of kit, they would have been breaking BBC rules, this was perhaps another way to get the point across. I am sure the way we deal with IED's is much more relevant to a BBC reporter on the ground, that those who are happy to listen to our politico's spouting on how well equipped we are, but stood somewhere safe in Westminster.

Get well soon to the U.S soldier with the injured arm, and thank you for your support in the mission.
RIP, and sincere thoughts to the Family of the British engineer who paid the ultimate price.

[CirrusF]

I don't see the problem here - anything that gets the reality of what is going on over to the public is good. We are lucky to live in a democracy, but for it to work effectively, then the voters have to be informed.

It is obvious to me that the falling soldier was not dying - any mortally injured soldier would be already prone. But even if I am wrong, I still think the BBC would have been correct to show the shot. The feelings of family, whilst an important consideration, should not dicate the terms that the press should operate under.

[Gentleman Jim]

Cirrus

I disagree entirely.

The feelings of family, whilst an important consideration, should not dicate the terms that the press should operate under.

Easy to say when it is not your family.

And just where does it stop?

My next door neighbour in BKK found out his son was dead because on the local news it showed his son lying on the road in a pool of blood with his throat cut and face beaten in. His shirt was open with multiple cuts and stabs to the chest and stomach. By all accounts the blood was still warm when the press arrived. Nice! I doubt he (my neighbour) will ever stop having the nightmares.

[163627]

My wife and I also saw this on the BBC news last night. To us the real issue was:

1) USMC engineers lead the way clearing the route with protected engineer vehicle.

2) Vehicle hit by IED blast and one marine slightly injured.

3) British soldier takes over on foot with hand-held mine detector.

4) Apparently second IED explodes (off camera) and kills British soldier.

The point being why are the British doing this on foot when specialist vehicles can be used? Surely we don't think we are still in Northern Ireland and are looking to disarm these devices in order to obtain the evidence necessary to arrest the bomb maker and take him to court? Or is it still as I suspect a lack of kit?

[CirrusF]

My next door neighbour in BKK found out his son was dead because on the local news it showed his son lying on the road in a pool of blood with his throat cut and face beaten in. His shirt was open with multiple cuts and stabs to the chest and stomach. By all accounts the blood was still warm when the press arrived. Nice! I doubt he (my neighbour) will ever stop having the nightmares.


And so how is that any different from if the parents had been first to arrive on the scene themselves? The press coverage didn't cause or worsen the violence.

[thunderbird7]

Showing the death of a serviceman is no more or less traumatic than showing the death of a teenager in a car crash. Showing it BEFORE NOK have been informed is another matter.

Well do I remember the pretty horrific news reports after Sir Galahad which must have been just as bad for families but if it educates people and politicians of the consequences of sending blokes off to war, then it serves its purpose.

[Vox Populi]

My next door neighbour in BKK found out his son was dead because on the local news it showed his son lying on the road in a pool of blood with his throat cut and face beaten in. His shirt was open with multiple cuts and stabs to the chest and stomach. By all accounts the blood was still warm when the press arrived. Nice! I doubt he (my neighbour) will ever stop having the nightmares.

Sorry I have to cast a lot of doubt on this story. The pictures you describe are far too graphic to be shown on British television news. The chances of getting TV pictures back from Afghanistan and on local tv news before kniform also very unlikely. I cannot speak for other organisations, but BBC VERY mindful about releasing names and details before MOD gives the nod.

[It's Not Working]

Vox

Gentleman Jim did say BKK!!

[soddim]

Soddim, please don't get politics into this. It's the families call if they want to show loved ones faces on national tv.

Sorry, but there are some extremely sensitive people on this website and many really need to take a reality pill.

Our troops are getting killed and maimed because our politicians decided to send them to fight in Afghanistan. What little you see of this conflict on TV can only serve to better inform you of the reality of that conflict.

It is the potential viewers of those images who will soon elect the next government and they need to know what they are doing.

As for 'It's the families call', don't be stupid. How on earth are you going to go about getting that sorted if you are reporting a hot news story?

Soddim
The horrors of war can be shown without showing families the demise of loved ones on TV.

The coverage in question here was completely in order - nobody is shown getting killed or maimed and there was no graphic detail as is evidenced by those trying to work out if they saw the casualty or not.

I would hope that nobody in our military would be so soft as to suggest that the media do not show the realities of war because the public need to know and our politicians need to learn not to enter into it lightly.

[dead_pan]

I would hope that nobody in our military would be so soft as to suggest that the media do not show the realities of war because the public need to know and our politicians need to learn not to enter into it lightly.

Well said. I'm all in favour in showing the public the realities of war our troops are fighting, with appropriate safeguards of course - one would hope the beeb wouldn't be so insensitive as to show any such footage without the consent of the relatives involved.

Incidentally, the footage was no less graphic than that shown late last year at the beginning of the BBC prog about the RIR trooper who lost his legs. That was truly awful.

[Vox Populi]

Vox

Gentleman Jim did say BKK!!

Yes he did, apologies.

[Tankertrashnav]

The point being why are the British doing this on foot when specialist vehicles can be used? Surely we don't think we are still in Northern Ireland and are looking to disarm these devices in order to obtain the evidence necessary to arrest the bomb maker and take him to court? Or is it still as I suspect a lack of kit?



Someone has raised this very point on another thread and was warned that answering it would have security implications. Obviously if someone steps on an IED then there's little that can be done, but what is the rationale for guys attempting to disarm them at great risk to their lives, when they could be treated in the same way as "blinds" on grenade/mortar shoots and taken out with a bit of plastic explosive? No doubt someone will tell me I don't need to know the reason for this, but considering the number of these guys who are getting killed I hope the reason is a bloody good one.

[Fortyodd2]

WRT Thunderbird7's comments about the Sir Galahad footage - the difference in 1982 was that the footage was not shown until at least a week after the attack occurred - due to the need for the video tapes to be sent the 8000 miles back to the UK.

[svermeul]

The vehicle driven by the USMC contingent which detonated the first IED is manufactured by BAE Landsystems, given the close relationship that exists between BAE and the UK MOD why have a number not been purchased for deployment in Afghanistan? A vehicle manufactrued by a Bristish owned company, which by some accounts are doing a commendable job in reducing US casulaties from IED incidents, yet it doesn't seem like the UK armed forces are interested in procuring it. You guys seem to pump millions into BAE on projects that are late, over budget or not fit for purpose, yet here is a product that is needed and delivers as advertised and yet none procured.

[Op_Twenty]

I agree with Soddim. Al Jazeera show fatalities, many British ex-BBC Journos work for Al Jazeera, where's the difference? If we're not careful we'll have a public even more detached from our conflicts than they already are and it's a lot easier to vote for sending our young men and women abroad if your conscience hasn't got to see the result of your decision. If you can't handle the consequences of military action then don't vote for it. Soon we'll have our returning troops being delivered in the dark hours to avoid adverse press coverage - as in the USA, at least we haven't started that yet. It is so important for this country to face up to the fact that if you are going to engage in a war then young people, mostly the underprivileged in society, will die; it's not pleasant but it is a fact. Why do we shy away from that? Any educated society should be responsible for its actions. Casualties, as unfortunate for the families as they are - I really mean that, because it must be truly, truly awful - by being shown on TV - may go some way to making voters and politicians less cavalier with our country's soldiers.

Just my opinion guys, an emotive subject and I'm sorry if anybody is offended by my views - I wouldn't post if I thought that might be the case.

[Gentleman Jim]

Op_Twenty

If you can't handle the consequences of military action then don't vote for it.


All those who voted for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, one step forward..march.....................sound of tumbleweed!



Gentleman Jim

[Chugalug2]

I agree with those who say that there is nothing to see on this video, I'd be shocked and surprised if there were, for the convention is well known and observed on UK TV I think. To those who call for a "cinema verite" I would indeed commend it for those who do send our young men and women to war. Personally I baulk at the intro that even such edited pieces as this one attract that "I should warn you that there are scenes of violence and conflict in this clip", etc, so that sitting in the comfort and security of our suburban lounges we are not suddenly and unexpectedly disturbed. Having said that though, I don't think that there is a widespread misapprehension of what is the reality of this war. The sad and frequent processions through Wootten Bassett, the terribly maimed yet youthfully resilient patients at Headley Court are nightly shown on our tv's. If even more intense images were portrayed it would lead I think to a Vietnam style reaction where the graphic images night after night in US homes led to the political imperatives for withdrawal. Some might say good thing, but if the technology and freedom to broadcast uncensored had allowed it in WW2 would we have persevered? Would not the terrible suffering of the Merchant Seamen, the dreadful deaths of tens of thousands of bomber crews, the terrors of existence in the blitzed cities, etc all be seen as a reason to sue for peace and let the Nazis carry out their dreadful agenda unhindered by us? You need good reasons (very good ones!) to start wars and compelling ones to stop them before attaining your aims. "Shocked and outraged of Clapham" does not sufficiently cover either. Lastly and perhaps most importantly the NoK do matter and matter a lot. There is a tendency to patronise at the very least when they complain of lack of kit, poor leadership, or of simply being lied to. In this war at least they have been proved right time and again, but only in environments outside of the MOD/military complex. They need respect. Not showing their loved ones' final moments on nationwide TV should be a given in that respect.

[EnigmAviation]

Soddim,

Well said, - only one minor correction - HMG didn't send them to WAR in Ghaffanistan - Dr John Reid said at the time they were only going peacekeeping and that "not one shot would be fired in anger "

We all know whether that was true now don't we !

They don't just cheat on Expenses..............

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

What do you expect in a war?

We laugh when we see US Video of guys getting the chop.

A simple moral:

Don't start a war.

[Tankertrashnav]

We laugh when we see US Video of guys getting the chop.




Do we? That's an extraordinary statement BB, or am I missing some subtext here. Care to amplify?

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Tanker

OK. There's a lot of stuff on you tube showing the US blowing folk to pieces. It's widely available.

I admit it's no laughing matter, to me at least, but there will be plenty of our ex colonials a cheering and a whooping at seeing the baddies get their just desserts.

Like I said...........:sad:

[barnstormer1968]

I don't like to watch Youtube videos of folks 'getting the chop' (Or killed, as I like to call it in my old fashioned way), and generally try to stay away from anything like that.

I certainly don't laugh at it either. Any involvement in 'nasty business', may have left me excited, euphoric or relieved, but that was more related to my own well being/survival, and not at some death related comedy moment.

Just my two penneth, as I did not want to be labelled in BB's 'we'.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Barnstormer et al.

Sorry. I should not have said 'We laugh' in my post above.

Mea Culpa. Sorry.

You're right. It's no laughing matter.

What I meant to draw attention to was the fact that there is a great deal of footage around of our so called enemy getting killed. And a distinct lack of outrage.

I wish we'd never started this war.