477 Britain a "Murdocracy". The Murdoch media game-changer - Stephen Mayne

Britain a "Murdocracy". The Murdoch media game-changer - Stephen Mayne

(1) Murdoch newspapers trying to sideline Australian media inquiry
(2) Britain a "Murdocracy". The Murdoch media game-changer - Stephen Mayne
(3) Letters to BBC re biased coverage (censorship) of 9/11 (no better
than PBS and NPR!!)

(1) Murdoch newspapers trying to sideline Australian media inquiry

From: Paul de Burgh-Day <pdeburgh@harboursat.com.au> Date: Thu, 27 Oct
2011 21:40:24 +1100

The People vs. Murdoch -- 2 days to be heard!

Posted: 27 October 2011

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/australia_media_inquiry/?aaezeab

Murdoch is working to discredit the media inquiry that we fought hard to
win. We have just two days to flood the inquiry with public comments
supporting media reform, and save this historic chance to clean up our
media. Send your message now and forward to everyone:

The media inquiry we fought hard to win is under threat -- Rupert
Murdoch's newspapers are working to discredit and limit the
investigation into his stranglehold on our media. But a flood of public
comments from each of us will set an ambitious agenda and save the inquiry.

Our media is broken. Murdoch owns 70% of Australia's newspapers and weak
regulation lets him manipulate the news we read freely. This media
inquiry is a once-in-a-generation chance to fix this and other problems
with media independence -- it's why we campaigned tirelessly for months
for this moment. One last push can stop Murdoch's attempt to weaken the
investigation for good.

But we only have two days to act. Send a personal message to the media
inquiry and it will be entered into the public record -- pushing a wide
agenda that includes Murdoch and his media monopoly. Then forward this
message to everyone:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/australia_media_inquiry/?vl

Change is in the air -- Murdoch’s power in the UK has collapsed with the
phone hacking scandal, and across Australia there is strong public
support for reform. This is the opportunity we’ve been waiting for, and
Murdoch knows it.

His papers are working overtime to discredit voices that threaten his
power, calling the inquiry the “first step to totalitarianism” and doing
what they can to keep the expert panel’s purview as narrow as possible.
But if enough of us speak out now, we can make sure the media inquiry
makes recommendations to roll back the dangerous concentration of power
crushing the diversity of our media.

Avaaz members worked tirelessly to urge PM Gillard to go ahead with the
inquiry. Now, a strong and far-reaching set of recommendations from the
expert panel will create the political mandate for the government to
save our media. These are within our grasp -- but only if they hear from
us now. Send your message directly to the panel now, and forward widely:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/australia_media_inquiry/?vl

Earlier this year, Avaaz members helped win a media inquiry despite
Murdoch’s stiff opposition. In the UK, we forced Murdoch to drop his bid
for a complete takeover of British broadcaster BSkyB. We’ve been taking
on battles no one thought we could win and reclaiming the media space
for informed public debate. Together we can make this inquiry a defining
victory for press freedom and democracy in Australia and around the world.

With hope,
Stephanie, Laura, Brant, Paul, Emma, Ari, Ricken, Milena and the whole
Avaaz team

More information:

Official Independent Media Inquiry homepage (DBCDE):
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry

Government flags wide-ranging media inquiry (ABC News):
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-13/media-inquiry-launched-in-australia/2897136

PM pressured over media inquiry (The Age):
http://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-pressured-over-media-inquiry-20110817-1iy8d.html

The Murdoch media game-changer (ABC News):
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2798930.html

(2) Britain a "Murdocracy". The Murdoch media game-changer - Stephen Mayne

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2798930.html

The Murdoch media game-changer

Stephen Mayne

18 July 2011

The biggest media scandal in the modern age is exploding and the world's
most powerful family is under siege, yet some key players in Australia
still don't understand that the media power game has changed forever.

How can it not when News Corp shares have tanked more than 20 per cent
since July 6, senior executives are being fired, the British PM is under
enormous pressure, arrests are into double figures, the police chief Sir
Paul Stephenson has quit and the UK is openly pursuing numerous
inquiries into media conduct, ethics and ownership.

Only this morning, News Corp shares in Australia plunged another 5 per
cent as investor confidence collapsed in response to all the weekend
drama. A company capitalised at $44.76 billion two weeks ago is now only
worth $35.8 billion. The Murdoch share of this $9 billion wipe-out is
about $1.2 billion and now Bloomberg reports there are stirrings from
independent News Corp directors such as Tom Perkins and Viet Dinh.

While it is the British Labour Party leading the charge against Rupert
Murdoch, Conservative prime minister David Cameron also baldy called
time on political kowtowing to media barons when he said the following
last week:

     Over the decades, on the watch of both Labour leaders and
Conservative leaders, politicians and the press have spent time courting
support, not confronting the problems. Well, it's on my watch that the
music has stopped and I'm saying, loud and clear - things have got to
change.

     In future, politicians have got to stop trying to curry favour with
the media, but instead regulate properly.

     We were all in this world of wanting the support of newspaper
groups and, yes, broadcasting organisations and when we are doing that
do we spend enough time asking questions about how these organisations
are regulated, the malpractices and the rest of it? No, we did not. We
have to.

As part of this "new paradigm", David Cameron has already released full
details of all his meetings with editors, executives and media
proprietors since becoming prime minister and will continue to do so on
a quarterly basis. Why don't Australia's current political leaders
follow suit?

It would also help the debate if past Australian political leaders
confessed to their own wheeling and dealing with the likes of Rupert
Murdoch and his minions.

Ray Martin was only half joking during last night's savage 60 Minutes
assault on News Corp when he described Britain as a "Murdocracy".

When it comes to Murdoch media domination, Australia is even worse - the
worst in the world, in fact.

A long line of Australian politicians have had unhealthy relationships
with the Murdoch and Packer families through the decades.

The connections, deals, endorsements, donations and cross-fertilisation
should now be retrospectively examined. For instance, why shouldn't
former federal communications minister Graham Richardson be called to
appear before a parliamentary inquiry to discuss the millions of dollars
he was paid by the Packer family to lobby and comment after leaving
parliament?

Similarly, Rupert Murdoch's replacement for the now-arrested Rebekah
Brooks as CEO of News International is Tom Mockridge, who went straight
from Paul Keating's office to News Ltd in 1991.

It was Keating's 1986 media ownership changes which cleared the way for
News Corp to develop its ridiculous 70 per cent Australian newspaper
market share courtesy of its 1987 takeover of the Herald and Weekly Times.

The Murdoch press backed Keating at key moments in his subsequent war of
attrition against Bob Hawke, yet Keating has never given a full account
of his dealings with Murdoch, let alone admitted the HWT takeover was a
disaster for Australia's democracy.

On Lateline last Thursday, the best Keating could do was call for
tougher privacy laws and confirm the blindingly obvious that News Ltd
was currently "at war with the Gillard Government".

In fact, Keating defended the 1987 HWT takeover on the basis that his
cross-media ownership laws forced Murdoch to sell his interests in
Channel Ten in Melbourne and Sydney.

These days, the ASX-listed Ten Network Holdings is a much bigger
national network with TV licences in every mainland state capital.

And who is a 9 per cent shareholder, director and CEO of Ten at the
moment? None other than News Corp director Lachlan Murdoch, eldest son
of Rupert Murdoch, who was backed into the job by his great mate James
Packer.

Having controversially wound back Ten's investment in sport and news -
something which critics point out assists the Murdoch-associated Foxtel,
Fox Sports and Sky News - Lachlan abandoned Ten's Pyrmont headquarters
to attend a conference with his father in Sun Valley two weeks ago.

He has now joined his father and siblings in London managing through the
News Corp crisis, which points again to the inappropriateness of his
current gig running Ten.

Since taking the long handle to Murdoch, British Labour leader Ed
Miliband has seen his polls ratings soar by 7 per cent. On Sunday he
made his boldest pronouncement yet, suggesting that media companies be
limited to no more than 20 per cent of the British newspaper market.
Given News Corp has about a 40 per cent share, Labour is effectively
advocating a break-up of its UK newspaper interests.

Hmmm, where does that leave News Corp's 70 per cent market share in
Australia? Such a dominant position Down Under allows this New
York-based company to pick and choose which voices are heard by the
masses in any public debate.

For instance, on Saturday I read Andrew Bolt's column in the Herald Sun
railing against Bob Brown's call for a media inquiry and submitted a
letter for publication in today's paper.

Alas, as occurs every time I submit a letter to the Herald Sun, the
editor refused to publish. So, here it is:

     Letter to the editor of the Herald Sun responding to Andrew Bolt column

     Why is Andrew Bolt railing so hard (July 16) against Bob Brown,
distorting his comments by claiming the Greens leader espouses views
which represent a "first step to totalitarianism"?

     Senator Brown is primarily concerned about the concentrated media
power held by this paper's owners, News Ltd - a power that can enable
the company to nationally promote and distribute a right wing
reactionary commentator like Bolt, who the Herald Sun proudly declares
is "Australia's most read columnist".

     As a former business editor of the Herald Sun who spent eight years
at News Ltd, I'm concerned about the global ethics of News Corporation
after the British phone hacking scandal, and that the company has
excessive and ever-growing power in Australia.

     No other western democracy has a foreign-domiciled company which
controls 70 per cent of the newspaper market. If British politicians can
oppose News Corp moving to 100 per cent ownership of BSkyB, why aren't
we having a debate as to whether News Corp managed Foxtel should be
allowed to take over Austar for $2.7 billion and create an Australian
pay-TV monopoly?

     Similarly, I'm concerned that Rupert Murdoch's eldest son Lachlan
Murdoch has been appointed a director and Acting CEO of Channel Ten
whilst remaining a News Corp director.

     This unhealthy concentration of media ownership and power is the
core of the debate advanced by Senator Brown, not some desire to
compulsorily acquire all privately owned media to create a government
media monopoly, as occurs in totalitarian societies.

     Stephen Mayne

     Manningham

The events in Britain make it blindingly obvious that the Federal
Parliament should review both media regulation and media ownership, just
as News Ltd is commendably reviewing all payments over the past three
years to check if News Corp's UK tabloid practices polluted its
Australian division.

It was John Howard who last attacked media diversity when he secured
control of the senate in 2005 and weakened ownership restrictions,
triggering a wave of media takeovers.

News Corp wasn't particularly active in the consolidation, although in
April 2007 it paid more than $200 million to buy the Sydney-based Hannan
family's FPC stable of 25 magazines and 13 community newspaper,
including The Wentworth Courier in Malcolm Turnbull's affluent seat.

However, the past two years has seen a sudden burst of Australian
expansion activity by the Murdochs.

Firstly, in November 2009 Lachlan Murdoch paid about $120 million for a
50 per cent stake in the DMG radio business, which owns the Nova stable.
This was followed by his move on Ten late last year.

You then have the long campaign that the Murdoch-influenced Sky News has
run to knock the ABC off for the Government's $223 million Australia
Television contract.

The biggest moves have been through Foxtel, which will grow its
subscriber base substantially after agreeing to shell out almost $500
million for the live broadcast rights to every AFL game, except the
Grand Final, over the next five years.

Foxtel is 25 per cent owned by News Corp which has management control
and this AFL rights deal was quickly followed by the attempted $2.7
billion Austar takeover to create a pay-TV monopoly.

The ACCC is currently deliberating over this but it would be amazing if
it didn't get dragged into some sort of parliamentary process as well.

Tony Abbott has predictably shown no interest in any media inquiry and
why would he given that News Ltd has transformed itself into a war
machine against the Gillard Government and carbon pricing.

John Howard, who remains Abbott's mentor and close adviser, made these
very strong comments on Insiders yesterday:

     I mean, the media has been inquired to death in this country.
They'd better be careful. They might have a revisitation of that famous
appearance of Kerry Packer before the media senate inquiry where he
really bashed them up. I mean, heavens above. Let the media do its job.
We don't want another inquiry.

Such sycophancy to media moguls is precisely what David Cameron is
saying should end. British politicians are no longer afraid of powerful
bullies like Rupert Murdoch, yet John Howard reckons our crop should "be
careful" for fear of being "bashed up".

Such language makes you believe Hugh Grant when he told 60 Minutes last
night that the Murdochs were almost running a protection racket in Britain.

British politicians have had enough, but it remains to be seen whether
their Australian brethren will follow suit and openly investigate the
question about whether News Corp, or anyone else for that matter, should
be allowed to dominate the Australian media scene.

Perhaps the best way to focus the mind is to ask whether Coalition
politicians would be concerned if someone else took control of News Corp.

Chinese government companies are buying up plenty of Australia's
resource companies. Would News Corp be okay for Beijing to control?

After all, it was said to be News Corp's second biggest voting
shareholder, Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who helped finish off
Rebekah Brooks when he criticised her performance in an interview with
the BBC last Thursday.

If King Abdullah's nephew added to his existing 7 per cent interest by
buying the Murdoch family's 39 per cent voting stake, would anyone be
concerned? Of course they would.

And given the revelations about the way News Corp systematically abused
its power over British democracy and the police, we should also be
having an inquiry as to whether this particular company is fit and
proper to exert so much influence in Australia.

Stephen Mayne is a shareholder activist, business journalist, local
councillor and publisher of The Mayne Report. He can be reached by email
on Stephen@maynereport.com or on Twitter @maynereport.

(3) Letters to BBC re biased coverage (censorship) of 9/11 (no better
than PBS and NPR!!)

From: Gary Kohls <gkohls@cpinternet.com> Date: 28 October 2011 02:42
Subject: London Attorney Paul Warburton's two most recent letters to the
BBC regarding their appalling biased coverage (actually censorship) of
the truths of 9/11(which has been no better than the US MSM, including
PBS and NPR!!)

Office of the Director - General of the BBC
5th Floor
BBC White City Building 10th October 2011
Media Village
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS

Dear Mr Thompson,

I am taking the opportunity to escalate my complaint to the BBC over its
continued biased stance in its 9/11 coverage. I attach the letter from
BBC Audience Services dated 23rd September, which gives me your address
and invites me to write this letter if I choose. I so choose. I am
sending this letter by recorded delivery as your Audience Services tell
me they have not received a previous letter from me.

On a procedural point, I have been in correspondence with the BBC over
the past 6 months on this issue. My main aim was to encourage the BBC to
present more objective treatments of 9/11 rather than simply buttressing
the Official Account. I started writing in March in the hope that it
would influence your plans for the 10th Anniversary. I failed to do
that.  Instead, the BBC went to great lengths to try and cement that
position in the British public's mind in recently aired programmes such
as ‘Conspiracy files 9/11 10 years on’,  ‘BBC 9/11 Question Time
special’ and ‘9/11 Road Trip’. I have separately complained about those
recent programmes to your Audience Services dept.

Although I have given the BBC considerable material over those 6 months,
your complaints department have not dealt with the substance of my
complaint. To isolate the issue for you: Your attached letter of 23rd
September states, " We continue to believe our coverage and programme
relating to the September 11th attacks have been clear, accurate , fair
and impartial and clearly you disagree. We have looked at many different
perspectives and have accordingly heard widely contrasting views on the
subject." I strongly insist that your broadcasting on this topic has not
been fair and impartial. Before I again get to the substance of my
complaint, I want to clarify our positions.

The BBC is publicly funded and to that extent you do owe a duty of care
to fee payers in the material that you present to the British viewing
public, especially so on items that have huge moral and political
consequences. You also have a Royal Charter, which not only imbues you
with a great degree of trust from the public but also clearly states
that you will be fair and impartial in your broadcasting of news and
which most certainly will not be politically biased in any portrayal of
events.

I write as both a lawyer and a Christian. What I do as a lawyer is to
assess my clients’ cases in terms of both the strengths and weakness of
their cases. If I don’t do that, my opponent in court most certainly
will latch on to the weaknesses, and so will the judge. I am experienced
in sifting and presenting evidence. If my clients’ cases are weak, I
tell them so and then do the best I can with them. The hundreds of cases
I have won at first instance or on appeal demonstrate that I have
understood well the nature of evidence, procedural fairness, and
ultimately the goal - justice.  As a Christian, I am motivated by the
fact that a profound evil was unleashed on the world on 9/11. If the
official account of 9/11 is false, as I believe, then the evil is even
worse than generally understood. There is such a volume of evidence that
speaks against the Official Account that any person of good conscience
cannot help but speak out.

You claim that your presentations have been fair and impartial. However
you do need to present both sides of the argument. What you cannot do is
to sweep under the carpet evidence which tends towards an explanation
different from that of the official story, however uncomfortable the
implications may be of that evidence. You do not need to make a finding
on the contradicting evidence, but you do need to lay it out. The
British public can make their own minds up.

I will now list my problems with your coverage of the 9/11 attacks. I
cannot list everything as this letter would end up as a book but I will
highlight discrepancies and patterns which show you at the BBC have not
been fair and impartial.

The Pentagon Strike

You did not interview April Gallop or present her evidence. She was in
the Pentagon at the time of the strike and said she saw no aircraft
wreckage. Neither did you interview or present the evidence of Bob Pugh,
who arrived on the scene shortly after the strike and who also said
there was a lack of wreckage. Neither did you show Russ Wittenberg, a
pilot who had flown Boeing 757s for over 30 years and who states that
the alleged hijackers could not have performed that manoeuvre at the
Pentagon.

These are three examples of the kinds of people you could have treated
in “Conspiracy Files 9/11 - 10 years on.” The fact that you did not
treat such people contradicts your claim of having been fair and impartial.

Elite RAF pilots in WWII spent months perfecting low level tree top
flying in training as part of the Pathfinder missions. For you to
continue to stress the plausibility that a novice pilot could fly so
accurately into the Pentagon wall stretches belief into incredulity.

Shanksville

We have all seen images of aircraft remains at crash sites. Two recent
ones are the Russian crash involving the ice hockey team and the one
involving the Polish Government. It was manifestly obvious from film
footage in each case that a plane had crashed. But we don’t see any
similar debris at the alleged crash site near Shanksville. If you are
going to debunk conspiracy theories, this was an easy one to debunk -
the Official conspiracy theory. But you chose not to go with the
rational explanation  - that there was no plane there.

WTC 7

In this instance you interview an expert who validates the official
version. But you don’t tell the public that he has a conflict of
interest - he was awarded the contract to clear up the Ground Zero site
after the attacks. Pertinently you don’t ask other explosive experts who
say that WTC 7 came down in a controlled demolition, e.g., Danny
Jowenko. This again shows that you were not presenting both sides of the
case without bias.  WTC 7 fell at near free fall speed. NIST now accept
this but neither they nor the BBC can explain it without the explosives
theory.

WTC 1 and 2

Your staff aggressively interviewed Prof Niels Harrit in his Danish
home. What Prof Harrit is profoundly good at is Chemistry. His and his
eminent team's findings on the dust at Ground Zero have massive
implications. What your interviewer did was to badger him on opinions
about other elements of 9/11 such as the Pentagon strike and the death
of Osama Bin Laden. Prof Harrit was not qualified to speak on those
issues and he stuck by his guns not to be drawn on those subjects. What
the raw ugly footage of that  interview shows – Prof Harrit filmed
himself being interviewed, as he told the BBC from the beginning - is a
BBC that is not being fair or impartial.

On the issue of Prof Harrit’s scientific paper, you approached Prof
Pistorious, who states that the Red/Grey chips discussed by Prof
Harrit’s team may not be evidence of explosive material but instead
could be paint primer commonly used in New York on major structures. But
you then did not follow the logical conclusions.

1. If components of that paint react violently at 430 degrees, which
Prof Harrit has shown in tests then ....

2. Why hasn't there been a major safety alert in New York to show the
paint is dangerous, for example .....

3. If there is a fire on such things as the Manhattan Bridge (the paint
is on the cables) it is likely to turn into a spectacular pyrotechnic
event !

Surely you could have arranged to have run your own tests on the paint.
Prof Pistorious does not have a scientific paper to back his claims. He
merely says "the scientific community haven’t taken the time to bother
to rebut Prof Harrit." So, we have on the one side a peer-reviewed
scientific paper authored by many scientists who worked on this paper
for over a year, and we have on the other side a professor who simply
suggests, on the basis of no evidence, and even in the face of
contradictory evidence, that the Red/Grey chips may be paint.

Given these facts, why in the world would the BBC use valuable time in
its program to present the views of Prof Pistorius? It appears that the
BBC simply wanted to try to discredit Prof Harrit. We know many
firefighters heard explosions in the Twin Towers before the Towers
disintegrated but you chose not to seek their testimony.

Conclusion

One thing you are very keen to say in much of your 9/11 coverage is the
distress caused to 9/11 families with this constant talk of new
investigations. Your programmes give the distinct impression they want
to be left alone. What you fail to show the British public is that it is
actually some of the victims families who themselves are calling for
fresh investigations into the events of 9/11. Bob McIlvane is a fine
example of this. In my view, that is the greatest offence your 9/11
coverage has caused. You have denied a voice to the people hurting the
most and offended the most.

I do appreciate the serious position the BBC will find itself in if this
coverage of yours is proved to be seriously in error. There may come a
time of national introspection on how and why we got so far down the
wrong road. It wasn't just the media that took the wrong turn on 9/11
but the media should not make it worse. Would you please address the 11
questions raised in my letter to the BBC Trustees dated 7th July and
referred by them to you.

Yours Sincerely
Paul Warburton

Countersigned by

Gary Kohls MD                  Medical Professionals for 9/11Truth
Prof Niels Harrit               Emeritus Professor University of Copenhagen
Prof David Ray Griffin            9/11 Author and campaigner
Chris Black                            International lawyer

CC'd
Prof Graeme MacQueen             Assoc Professor McMaster University
Prof Jim Fetzer             Founder of Scholars for 9/11Truth
Phil Zimmerman               Director Christians for 9/11Truth
Kevin Barrett                          Lecturer and Radio Broadcaster
Janice Matthews                    Director of 9/11Truth.org
Richard Gage              Head of Architects and Engineers for 9/11Truth
Bob McIlvane                         9/11 campaigner and family member
of a son lost on 9/11.
James Gourley                       Attorney and Head of 911Studies
Annie Machon                      Former MI5 agent
Ian Henshall                           Author and head of Reinvestigate 9/11
Noel Glynn                              Quakers for Truth on Terror
Peter Drew
Adrian Mallett
John Yates
Tony Gosling                          Radio Broadcaster
Steve Clifford             Head of Evangelical Alliance
Michael Meacher MP
Stella Creasy MPTom Watson MP                  Member of Parliament's
Media Committee
2 The Lindens
Prospect Hill
London E17 3EJ

Office of the Director - General of the BBC
5th Floor
BBC White City Building 27th October 2011
Media Village
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS

BBC's 9/11 Coverage

Dear Mr Thompson,

I wrote to you over 2 weeks ago with an escalated complaint and sent
that letter by first class recorded post. I have not received a reply to
date. Considering the seriousness of the issues I have raised and the
delay in previous replies to me from BBC Audience Services over this
complaint I did not want more time to slip.

At the recent Occupy movement at St Paul’s I was able to talk to people
about the serious issues facing the world today. The facade of the 9/11
Official Account was one such issue. Whilst being very angry the youth
there did not fully comprehend the full scale of the Banking/Financial
scams taking place in the City (although some traders in their suits
were kind enough to come out of their offices and explain how it was
being done in graphic detail.) You may also be aware that Amnesty
International is calling on Govts (Canada recently) to arrest George
Bush on Torture charges. The point I am making is that we are living in
a fast moving game where younger generations are becoming more empowered
and challenging the current order of things with good reason.

I believe a lot of the western media, many politicians and many in the
church (all leaders of society, all with a responsibility to speak the
truth) have misunderstood the signs of the times and have gone down a
wrong road supporting a status quo that is dangerous. So apart from
requesting a reply to my basic questions to the BBC over the past 6
months over its biased 9/11 coverage may I also invite you to consider
the BBC's position for when not only the financial tsunami arrives but
also the moral one that will bring with it much debris in its wake.

Please do not read this letter as a threat. I am only stating something
fairly obvious. When it happens there will be many people on the outside
who will end up on the inside and many on the inside who will end up on
the outside. My cc list is a list of people who are gatekeepers to
numerous networks containing thousands of activists worldwide. Most
support me and understand my work. I have a file of correspondence from
leaders over the years who have turned their backs on the salient issues
of our day with huge ramifications for others. All of them chose not to
confront the evil on their doorstep. I do not consider myself to be a
self appointed leader but I do sense a gaping moral vacuum in this
country. As simple as it seems I just want to live in a safe world where
I can expect my children to return safely from the sweet shop with their
ice creams free from the threat of internal dangers from within western
countries. I wish that for all children everywhere. To that extent I do
set myself up as a protector to my children and others outside of the
powers that be.

Would you please address the 11 questions raised in my letter to the BBC
Trustees dated 7th July and referred by them to you.

Yours Sincerely
Paul Warburton

CC'd with covering letters

Gary Kohls MD                  Medical Professionals for 9/11Truth
Prof Niels Harrit               Emeritus Professor University of Copenhagen
Prof David Ray Griffin   9/11 Author and campaigner
Chris Black                              International lawyer
Prof Graeme MacQueen             Assoc Professor McMaster University
Prof Tony Hall            Professor of Globalisation Studies Lethbridge
Uni. Author of "Earth into Property"
Prof Jim Fetzer             Founder of Scholars for 9/11Truth
Phil Zimmerman                  Director Christians for 9/11Truth
Kevin Barrett                            PhD Lecturer and Radio Broadcaster
James Corbett                          Broadcaster and campaigner
Janice Matthews                     Director of 9/11Truth.org
Richard Gage                           Head of Architects and Engineers
for 9/11Truth
Bob McIlvane                         9/11 campaigner and family member
of a son lost on 9/11.
James Gourley                          Attorney and Head of 911Studies
Elizabeth Woodward                   Writer and retired medical Librarian
Rob Balsamo                            Pilots for 911Truth
Erik Lawyer                             Firefighters for 911Truth
Jacob Hornberger                   The Future of Freedom Foundation
Prof Michael Andregg                       Justice and Peace Studies
Programme Duluth
Jimmy Walter                           US Businessman and 9/11 activist
William Rodriguez                     9/11 Survivor and campaigner
Peter Lavelle                            Russia Today Presenter
Yukihisa Fujita              Japanese Politician
Annie Machon                          Former MI5 agent
Ian Henshall                              Author and head of
Reinvestigate 9/11
Noel Glynn                               Quakers for Truth on Terror
Robin Ramsay                          Author of "The Rise of New Labour"
Peter Drew                               9/11 Truth campaigner

Adrian Mallett                          9/11 Truth campaigner
Tony Rooke                             9/11 Truth campaigner
John Yates                               9/11 Truth campaigner
Tony Gosling                            Journalist and Radio Broadcaster
Dr David Halpin                          The Dr Kelly Campaign
Steve Clifford                           Head of Evangelical Alliance
Michael Meacher MP
Stella Creasy MP
Tom Watson MP                  Member of Parliament's Media Committee
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Tony Lloyd MPBBC Trustees