UK Channel takes up controversial issues and projects them to suit their pre-planed object and in doing so it does not stop short of showing the factual information, but goes beyond to falsify the information to fit into their planned intention.
It was what they did with the documentary it presented in its TV Channel on « jihadist preachers in mosques » called the Undercover Mosque. The West Midland Police in UK reported the Channel 4 to industry regulator Ofcom over the way an undercover programme was edited.
West Midlands Police carried out an investigation into three speakers in the programme- Undercover Mosque. The Crown Prosecution Service, speaking about the programme said, it “completely distorted ” what the speakers said.
Of course the spokesman for the Channel 4 Gavin Dawson said, « We believe the offensive views expressed by the people revealed in the programme speak for themselves.
We didn't put these words into people's mouths and all extracts were carefully contextualised….. » ( But this is what they are completely capable of doing.)
Another Mosque presented in the programme was the Green Lane Mosque in Small Heath, Birmingham. The spokesman speaking for the UKChannel 4 said that, « It investigated mosques run by organisations claiming to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths .»
After the programme was presented by the Channel 4, the spokesman for the Green Lane Mosque said , that, « ….he had been shocked by the programme and was thankful the mosque's name had been cleared…. ».
Abu Usamah, one of the preachers featured in the programme, said he was shocked when he saw himself depicted. He added, that, “ It was the fact that Green Lane Mosque has a 33-year-old tradition of preaching and teaching the moderate version of Islam. To try and demonise the efforts of these people by taking their comments out of context was shocking. “
« The Channel 4 Dispatches website, in a piece about the programme, said the reporter had attended talks at mosques and found preachers "condemning the idea of integration into British society, condemning British democracy as unIslamic and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers". »
Isn’t this typical of what the Channel 4 is doing now with the video footage of summary execution of naked men with their hands bound, being propped upright to be shot by a man wearing clothes similar to those of a soldier ?
The West Midlands Police later said that,….. it acknowledges some parts of the programme may have been considered offensive……but there was not enough evidence to bring charges. But damage was already done .
When Channel 4 was accused of “Islamophobia”, the Channel 4 deputy head of news and current affairs, Kevin Sutcliffe, dismissed accusations of Islamophobia…, stating that it would remain "fearless" in its coverage.
It was later reported that, Mr. Sutcliffe, one of five panelists involved at a sometimes heated session at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh international television festival about the portrayal of Islam in the media, said , "…We have a rounded view and approach to this issue ... we are quite fearless about what we want to say and when we want to say it," he added.
Fearless indeed…..In short that is UKChannel 4, with its pants down.
Then there was the UK Channel 4, programme « The Great Global Warming Swindle ». The documentary was welcomed by the « global warming sceptics » But the document was later criticised by the Scientific Organisations and a Scientist who was interviewed in the film, whose research had been used to support the film’s claim.
After viewing the programme in Channel 4, they said the film presented by the Channel 4 had misused and fabricated data, relying on out-of-date research, employing misleading arguments and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It is a habit with UK Channel 4 to fabricate, and put words in to mouths of persons already filmed. And this is the Video footage prepared by a “proven fabricators of false data” and doctoring films , that the new UN Rapporteur, Prof. Christof Heyns said « appears to be authentic », after having same tested by three US forensic experts at the Geneva sessions of the UNHRC in June 2011
This is how UK Channel 4 fabricates documents, and how the UN Officials for some unknown ulterior reasons said, “ appears to be authentic” The US forensic experts seem to have been easily fooled by the technicians of the Channel 4 adept in fabricating false documents.
A Critic and a TV Reviewer James Walton speaking about Channel 4 had said, "one of the things that gets me angry is Channel 4's use of the mentally ill for entertainment - in shows like How Clean is Your House, where plainly some of the people have mental problems, or Fat Pets or Wife Swap. I get this recurring image of Channel 4 programme makers sitting round the Groucho saying, 'We've found this marvellous working class fat person for the show!'."
There are many more instances of the Channel 4, presenting false, doctored documents for a gullible British TV Viewers. The Channel 4 now has the expertise to make any false documentary video footage look true, and make any true video footage look false.
The video footage of the Channel 4 of the alleged summary killing of the naked men with their hands bound by a man wearing a dress like a soldiers uniform, should not have been allowed to be presented at the Geneva UNHRC Sessions held in June, 2011. The Sri Lanka delegation to the session had gone unprepared and raised no objection to the presentation of this video footage which is without any doubt a completely a faked video.
It was a pity that we did not have Dr.Dayan Jayatiklleke at least as a member of that Sri Lanka Delegation to the UNHRC. He would have certainly not allowed the video footage to have been presented.
Even after its presentation the Sri Lanka Delegation did not even attempt to show the apparent falsity of the Video, despite the assertion of the US experts who seem to lack real expertise in “Video fabrication”.
A soldier who shoots a civilian would have knocked him off with the but of his gun and shot point blank to kill without getting some other soldier to keep the man seated up right for him to shoot !!!.
There were two of these documents in which the persons shooting were speaking in Tamil in one and in the other which is the same in which the words spoken in inaudible Sinhala had been “fed” in to the Video. Why did not the Sri Lanka Delegation make investigations before attending the UNHRC Sessions and got the two copies and presented them at the Session, to prove that what had been presented by Navineetham Pillai was a fake ?
A document presented at a high level forum like that of the UNHCR Session, to accuse a Sovereign State for War Crimes, should have been properly introduced giving the names of the persons who filmed the scene, the names of the persons who had been killed by shooting, where it was taken , whether there were other witnesses to the incident, and the circumstances under which the UK TV Channel 4 came into possession of them.
Without such information the presentation of the video footage should have been rejected by the Sri Lanka Delegation.
Now the damage has been done, and the UK Channel 4 will be presenting on the 14th June,2011 another “ faked” longer film on the infamous incident “hatched by the Channel 4” to fool the apparently naïve UK viewers.
The Channel 4 should be challenged and the presentation of the video footage at the UNHRC Session should be made an occasion to pass a vote of no confidence on Navineetham Pillai the Commissioner of the UNHRC.
But we should at least at this stage question why this continued vendetta against Sri Lanka by the UKChannel 4 adducing mean, lowly, crude, and most unethical methods to discredit, the government and the armed forces of Sri Lanka ? Is it to satisfy a client who is ready to pay to bring the Government of Sri Lanka before a tribunal accused for War Crimes ?
Of course money may be one consideration, as the TV Channel4 pays for itself in much the same way as most privately run commercial stations. The Channel has its financial problems .
« In 2007 due to severe funding difficulties, the channel sought government help and was granted a payment of £14 million over a six-year period. The money would have come from the television licence fee and would have been the first time that money from the licence fee had been given to any broadcaster other than the BBC. The plan was scrapped by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Andy Burnham, ahead of "broader decisions about the future framework of public service broadcasting".The broadcasting regulator Ofcom released their review in January 2009 in which they suggested that Channel 4 would preferably be funded by "partnerships, joint ventures or mergers »
Therefore, this vendetta against the Government and Armed Forces cannot be put as a normal media tactic to increase the number of viewers by which a TV Channel’s popularity is measured, and which would help it to get more business enterprises to use the Channel to diffuse publicity for their products and services, thus increasing its income.
But it is more likely that “popularity” seeking is not the object in UK Channel 4’s vendetta against Sri Lanka, perhaps there is another source to get “an easy buck” from a client who is ready to pay for discrediting Sri Lanka and its Government.
In this respect , the client behind all the Channel 4 activities against Sri Lanka, is undoubtedly the pro-terrorist Tamil diaspora living in large numbers in UK with a Bank account full of “blood money” to pay any one who is prepared to carry any destabilizing media publicity against Sri Lanka. There is a waiting queue to receive the “blood money”- the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and many more.
The UNHRC Navineetham Pillai too appears to be a partner in the pro terrorist Tamil, diaspora and UK Channel 4 conspiracy against Sri Lanka. Navineetham Pillai’s hands are not very clean in the matter.
Why did Navaneethan Pillai drop accusations of human rights violations against Bharain ?
In Sri Lanka there was a “war” against ruthless terrorists who would stop at nothing in its terrorist campaign in Sri Lanka, which at the last phase of its stand against the brave Sri Lanka Armed Forces was holding civilian Tamils as a human shield and the Sri Lanka Army while facing a barrage of artillery fire by the terrorists braved the way to rescue the 300 000 civilians from the clutches of the terrorists, but yet the UNHRC Navineetham Pillai accused the Government of Sri Lanka and its armed forces for human rights violation at that last phase of the military operations against the terrorists.
But Navineretham Pillai conveniently dropped the accusations against Bharain which had no terrorist problem but yet was accused for torture of civilians. Why ? Was it because the man involved in the torture and the first accused is a British Citizen ?
It has bee reported that, “Officer Ian Henderson, British, Head of Bahraini Security and Intelligence Bureau (1966-2000) tortured citizens horribly. He also exiled dissidents and human rights activists out of country for long years. He caused the detention of many young people for merely opposing state polices during his era. He also killed dozens of young activists during clashes between security forces and citizens calling for human rights,”
(Bahraini victim of torture said. http://mail.google.com/mail/?source=navclient-ff&shva=1#inbox)