BBC producer shot dead two hours after

[chemical-licker]

Where is your 'identical comparison' here? 'Ignore the troops' - who did the BBC or Kate Peyton ignore when they took their security from the locals?

I meant ignoring troop's advice. So you agree with all my other points? Good

Please stop calling it 'security from the locals' as if it has some validity; they are a Tribal street gang.

She ignored or the BBC didn't seek professional advice. Dizzily day dreaming no doubt- "oh WOW we're down with the locals, HOW cool."

Have you read the details? I have.

The whole trip was arranged by the BBC.

Interestingly I see a Daily Telegraph (hardly 'liberal') journalist has been kidnapped recently in Somalia. Given you blame dizzy liberal thinking for the death of a BBC producer who followed the suggested security processes, what's your view on the journalist working for a slightly right-wing newspaper who's got kidnapped after ignoring the suggested security advice

Actually, the Journalist was a freelance journalist- the telegraph didn't arrange for the Trip at all.

Colin Freeman British freelance journalist- Here's an article he wrote for , wait for it....the BBC..

apparently he almost got kidnapped in IRAQ; what the old saying again? once is an accident, twice is downright careless.

BBC

And this is interesting, taken from your link-

"The Spanish and British journalists kidnapped in northern Somalia refused a police escort and arranged for their own security through their translators, who are suspected of having abducted them, officials said on Thursday."

So to conclude-

Watch out dizzy liberal thinking's gonna get you killed.

Edited December 1, 2008 by chemical-licker

[ifisurvive]

I meant ignoring troop's advice.

And what "troop's advice" did the BBC or Kate Peyton ignore? Nobody's advice was ignored - advice was followed, therefore your 'identical comparison' is in fact the exact opposite of what happened.

So you agree with all my other points? Good

Um, about a third of my last post was opposing your other point "And IF she refused a flak jacket because she considered herself 'invincible'". Strange how you would ignore that. As for your other points - the first two points are just you producing a ludicrously right-wing opposite to the ludicrously left-wing opinion you have of the BBC and Kate Peyton but can't actually support.

It's impressive how you've managed to take details from her obituary (an obitury - because it's not like everyone always enthuses how fantastic, wonderful and great someone is in an obituary, every toddler was an angel, every teenager was going to be an astronaut, every pensioner lived a life of perfect virtue) saying things like she was generous and paid for people's education and twisted that into her being some mindless idiot wandering around a war zone saying "oh WOW we're down with the locals, HOW cool". I invite you to start a new thread saying that generosity and charity are attributes only found in 'dizzy liberals' and see how many of the more right-wing/conservative posters on the forum agree with you.

Please stop calling it 'security from the locals' as if it has some validity; they are a Tribal street gang.

She ignored or the BBC didn't seek professional advice. Dizzily day dreaming no doubt- "oh WOW we're down with the locals, HOW cool."

Have you read the details? I have.

The whole trip was arranged by the BBC.

"Discussions about security had begun more than two weeks before. They included the local experts in the Somali section and the World Service Trust in Nairobi, with the High Risk Team in London [run by an ex-army officer - real unprofessional and liberal sounding, that], with other correspondents who had recently been to Mogadishu, and with external sources including the UN." Hardly sounds like lack of preperation, ignoring professional advice, and leaving your safety up to dizzy daydreaming.

Please tell me what 'professional advice' you think they avoided - who had the knowledge that they needed to be secure and they didn't bother asking? Once again you ignored my question on what security measures you think they should have taken instead and what expertise do you have that you know better than the list of people above?

Actually, the Journalist was a freelance journalist- the telegraph didn't arrange for the Trip at all.

Colin Freeman British freelance journalist- Here's an article he wrote for , wait for it....the BBC..

apparently he almost got kidnapped in IRAQ; what the old saying again? once is an accident, twice is downright careless.

BBC

Freelance journalist in your 2004 article, Chief Foreign Correspondent for The Daily Telegraph according to 2008 information. Either way, still proof that this stuff happend to non-BBC, non-'liberal' journalists as well - including if they appear to follow less strict security than the BBC provided for their journalists.

And this is interesting, taken from your link-

"The Spanish and British journalists kidnapped in northern Somalia refused a police escort and arranged for their own security through their translators, who are suspected of having abducted them, officials said on Thursday."

So to conclude-

Watch out dizzy liberal thinking's gonna get you killed.

Ah right - I see what you're saying now. If something bad happens to a journalist, whether they work for a liberal organisation or not, whether they are following the suggested security processes or ignoring them, by default if something bad happens it's due to dizzy liberal thinking. All those dizzy liberal BBC journalists in every conflict zone around the world are somehow not getting killed/injured/kidnapped constantly due to some miraculous force and if anything happens to a right-wing jouranlist it's one brief moment where they suddenly had an attack of 'the liberals' that caused their plight. Riiiiiiiiight.

All you've done in this thread is moan about how liberal the BBC is, accuse Kate Peyton of being an idiot because she appeared to have differnet political views to you and give your opinion on what was wrong with the security. Anyone can give their opinion on bad decisions of any event after it happened. All of that doesn't matter because you are saying it was 'dizzy liberal thinking' that was the cause of Kate Peyton's death. That means it is up to you to prove that there was dizzy liberal thinking in the first place and to show that it was the direct cause of her death. Which you've not done. Not even your Daily Mail article and the inquiry being reported on are accusing the BBC / Kate Peyton of 'dizzy liberal thinking', it's just you.

Have you shown that the BBC's level of security was different to any other (non-BBC, non-'liberal') journalist security mechanisms? No.

Have you provided any proof or experience that your opinion on what the BBC did wrong actually has any validation other than 'I think it's right therefore it's right'? No.

Have you provided any realistic alternative to the level of security (including proof that it is superior to the BBC's)? No.

Have you explained how the details that an experienced producer who was following the suggested security, doing the same thing that other non-BBC journalists were doing actually means she ignoring danger and just wandering around thinking "oh WOW we're down with the locals, HOW cool". No.

Have you shown any proof that it was 'dizzy liberal thinking' that was the reason for Kate Peyton's death? No.

[chemical-licker]

I've demonstrated Ms Peyton was a dizzy liberal of the Afrocentric variety.

I've demonstrated the BBC is a liberal organization.

I've demonstrated their security precaution were inadequate, naive and trusting or for want of a better word 'dizzy'

Put them all together and what do you get? dizzy liberal walking into a warzone

Dizzy liberal thinking gonna get you killed.

Now to use your Fox example.

If a Fox Journalist was shot in a warzone- and Fox were accused of right-wing incompetence- leading to his/her death. Would you trust Fox's version of events?

Because so far, that's all you've done. Do you work for the BBC or something?

Sorry, BUT what do you think was the cause of Ms Peyton's untimely death?

It was 'unavoidable accident'. A mere coincident.. an 'occupational hazard' with no one to blame.

Just one of those things. a series of magical 'random' events.

Edited December 1, 2008 by chemical-licker

[Bill Hill]

^ lol

Yeah i also get confused, which is the one where they all dress up like US Rappers posing with machine guns?

I know.... I know the answer... all of them.

[ifisurvive]

I've demonstrated Ms Peyton was a dizzy liberal of the Afrocentric variety.

You've demonstrated no such thing. You've attacked a woman for such hideous crimes as generosity and charity. She loved Africa, so what? You seem not to be able to have any scale of liberalism - just 'dizzy liberal' or nothing. There's a pretty vast chasm between the liberal examples you've picked from her obituary and the mindless moron you're trying to paint her.

She had worked in conflict zones previously and lived for years in Johannesburg. If she was the trusting hippy who thought all those nice black men with guns were nothing to worry about and there was no need for security as you're trying to make out she did how the hell did she not get killed long long before Somalia?!

I've demonstrated the BBC is a liberal organization.

So? Again, vast difference between putting a liberal spin on your stories to having a 'dizzy liberal' approach to security and not protecting your journalist because of some misguided belief that everyone is lovely deep down and no one wants to hurt them. By your logic just because the BBC is liberal it must take 'dizzy liberal' attitudes to safety - well the BBC has correspondents in every conflict zone around the world, surely they must all be getting killed/injured/kidnapped constantly. But they are not. Similarly, all those right wing news organisations, they don't take a dizzy liberal approach to their security, no journalists like that will ever get killed/injured/kidnapped. Oh no, wait, they do.

I've demonstrated their security precaution were inadequate, naive and trusting or for want of a better word 'dizzy'

No you haven't, not even vaguely. You've given your opinion on what they did wrong, and what's your opinion based on? Nothing.

You have repeatedly ignored my question on what you think should have been done and what your expertise is to say your opinion is correct.

You accuse the BBC and Kate Peyton of ignoring professional advice yet when given a list of the advise that was taken and asked what professional organisation did they 'ignore' and who they should have asked you avoid the question.

When repeatedly asked to show what the difference was between the BBC's security and the other non-BBC journalist's security - how the BBC's precautions was somehow more 'liberal' than anyone else's you again ignore the question.

You've demonstrated nothing other than your own unsubstanciated opinion and a remarkable ability to put your fingers in your ears when asked to give proof of what you're saying.

If a Fox Journalist was shot in a warzone- and Fox were accused of right-wing incompetence- leading to his/her death. Would you trust Fox's version of events?

Because so far, that's all you've done. Do you work for the BBC or something?

No, I don't work for the BBC. I'm not just blindly believing everything anything the BBC says, but neither am I going to think they're lying about everything simply due to a personal belief in 'dizzy liberalism'. I'm happy to have my mind changed, as I said earlier, if this was just some blind defence of liberalism there's plenty of other threads I could be posting in. Perhaps if you were more concerned with posting facts, proof or logic rather than trying to see how many animated gifs you can fit into one post you'd be having more luck.

Sorry, BUT what do you think was the cause of Ms Peyton's untimely death?

It was 'unavoidable accident'. A mere coincident.. an 'occupational hazard' with no one to blame.

Just one of those things. a series of magical 'random' events.

There's always ways to improve security (especially when looking at something after the event). But similarly nothing is every 100% safe and journalist do sometimes get killed - left wing or right-wing.

But certainly there was no 'dizzy liberal' reason for the death. If Kate Peyton had been told to wear a flak jacket and didn't because she thought the Somalian's were all good deep down and wouldn't hurt her I would be with you calling her an idiot. But she didn't, she followed security protocols and did what every other non-BBC journalist was doing.

If the BBC did something radically different to other news organisation, were less secure because they thought all Africans are nice people who deserve a chance, if you can show your professional advisers who told the BBC to do something that the BBC decided against because they just didn't think those nice Somalians were capable of such bad deeds then I'd be calling them dizzy liberals. But they didn't.

[chemical-licker]

There's always ways to improve security (especially when looking at something after the event). But similarly nothing is every 100% safe and journalist do sometimes get killed - left wing or right-wing.

But certainly there was no 'dizzy liberal' reason for the death. If Kate Peyton had been told to wear a flak jacket and didn't because she thought the Somalian's were all good deep down and wouldn't hurt her I would be with you calling her an idiot. But she didn't, she followed security protocols and did what every other non-BBC journalist was doing.

If the BBC did something radically different to other news organisation, were less secure because they thought all Africans are nice people who deserve a chance, if you can show your professional advisers who told the BBC to do something that the BBC decided against because they just didn't think those nice Somalians were capable of such bad deeds then I'd be calling them dizzy liberals. But they didn't.

yeah nice avoidance with the distractionary waffle, but you didn't answer the question. I'll repeat it.

Sorry, BUT what do you think was the cause of Ms Peyton's untimely death?

Was it an 'unavoidable accident'? A mere coincident..? an 'occupational hazard' with no one to blame?

Just one of those things? a series of magical 'random' events?

Until you answer this question, we're just going around and around.

It's impressive how you've managed to take details from her obituary (an obitury - because it's not like everyone always enthuses how fantastic, wonderful and great someone is in an obituary, every toddler was an angel, every teenager was going to be an astronaut, every pensioner lived a life of perfect virtue)

Yes I know... So we agree the BBC obituary is the best possible version of the person.

we agree, using the BBC's biased version, is the best possible version of the events in Somalia.

Lets have look a the BBC version...

At the time of her death, her friends said the 39-year-old loved to help and her generosity was very African in nature.

Roger Koy arriving at the inquest into Kate's death

The inquest heard Kate Peyton hoped to marry Roger Koy

She paid for people's education and tried to find them jobs, aware that she had more than many other people.

Living with Mr Koy and Chloe in Johannesburg, their house was said to always be full of friends and people passing through from various parts of Africa

Right! She lived in Johannesburg, the murder capital of the world and SO just how did she conducted herself there?

As a dry run for Somalia, I think it's relevant.

I'd hate to hear the worse version or what really happened.

Seems to me she was indeed acting-

"oh WOW we're down with the locals, HOW cool".

But please people, don't take my word. Please don't.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, may I present to..you Exhibit A!!

Now Jury, ask yourself this, does this seem like a dizzy liberal to you?

Edited December 1, 2008 by chemical-licker

[ifisurvive]

yeah nice avoidance with the distractionary waffle, but you didn't answer the question. I'll repeat it.

YOU are accusing ME of avoiding a question? That's rich. And the 'distractionary waffle' is in fact the entire point of what we are debating. You are accusing 'dizzy liberal thinking' of causing her death. Showing that the BBC is liberal is not the point. Showing Kate Peyton was liberal is not the point. You have to prove that the security that the BBC provided or that actions that Kate Peyton took regarding that security was somehow more 'liberal' than it should have been and that caused her death. You just saying it did does not make it fact!

Otherwise you're just saying if someone has liberal beliefs and works for a liberal company anything that ever happens to them is due to dizzy liberalism, which is a ludicrous argument. Another BBC journalist is killed standing outside the BBC head quarters in London when a car loses control, mounts the kerb and hits them. Damn dizzy liberal thinking strikes again! Equally a BNP counciller is killed when he has a heart attack. Damn fascist right wing thinking to blame there.

We've already seen (in the Colin Freeman example, but many others are available) that bad things can happen to non-liberal journalists working for non-liberal organisations.

Sorry, BUT what do you think was the cause of Ms Peyton's untimely death?

Was it an 'unavoidable accident'? A mere coincident..? an 'occupational hazard' with no one to blame?

Just one of those things? a series of magical 'random' events?

As I said - there's always ways to improve security (especially when looking at something after the event). But similarly nothing is every 100% safe and journalist do sometimes get killed - left wing or right-wing.

For a more specific answer to your question - do I think the BBC should have done something different and that would have prevented Kate Peyton's death? I don't know. That's the major difference between us - you are claiming absolute fact that at BBC did things wrong when you have no idea on whether they did or not. It's what, four times now you've ignored my question for your suggestions on what they should have done differently and what makes your opinion more valid than what they did?

You are typing on the internet with your - correct me if I'm wrong - zero experience of journalist protection in conflict zones and zero knowledge of the best ways to act in Somalia and stating what the BBC did was wrong as if it's a fact. But it's not a fact, it's your opinion and you could be 100% wrong. If you are right then you should be able to show me where the BBC's security was more 'liberal' than other's (which you've ignored), or tell me what private advice they should have listened to but didn't (which you've ignored). You should be able to explain how someone following the suggested levels of security and doing the same as other non-BBC, non-liberal journalists is somehow taking a more liberal, lackadaisical, 'dizzy' approach to their security (which you've ignored).

Right! She lived in Johannesburg, the murder capital of the world and SO just how did she conducted herself there?

Sorry, let me get this right. You are using the fact that she lived for a number of years without being killed in the type of place where you have to take your security seriously and the local Africans kill lots of people as proof that she's the type of person who doesn't take her security seriously when going to a place where the local Africans kill lots of people?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, may I present to..you Exhibit A!!

...

Now Jury, ask yourself this, does this seem like a dizzy liberal to you?

Amazing - a photograph of someone with a work colleague who has a different skin colour to her and another man who has a different skin colour to her. Obvious proof she's the type of person who would walk into a conflict zone and not take her security seriously.

Edited December 2, 2008 by ifisurvive

[chemical-licker]

An 'identical comparison' here would presume she refused a flak jacket because of some liberal ideal, because she thought everyone is nice deep down and no one would want to hurt her. That, of course, is not what happened - she wasn't wearing a flak jacket because it was deemed the safer thing to do. Sure, easy enough over three years and a couple of thousand miles away to laugh at the idea, but if you were in a dangerous situation, were about to slip on a bullet proof vest and someone who knows the area, has lived in the area for a long time without being killed says something like "Don't put that on, it'll only make people more suspicious of you and make them more likely to just shoot you in the head" would you ignore them? The fact is it wasn't a 'liberal' decision, it was a safety decision.

Yeah great safety decision. Really worked well didn't it? Didn't they do well.

All I hear is excuses and the BBC's reasons are and were laughable. Like calling them 'Hotel security' 'Security advisers' or this gem-stepped out of the compound without her 'armed protection officers.'

Wtf, they were a tribal street gang operating a protection racket!

It's obvious something funny is going on because they keep changing the version. Trying to cover up from every angle.

What would I do?

Personally, and you've got to take responsibility of yourself, no one else will before going in or planning a journey into Somalia, I'd ask advice from professional soldiers with experience in Somalia.

EX SAS...people with experience. Independent advice 'not Paul Greeves from the BBC'

I'll ask them this, "Hello, I am thinking of going to Somalia to report about the emerging new hope of the country the BBC thinks exists.

I'm thinking of hiring a local street gang, and following their 'advice' to the letter, including not wearing a flak jacket... or even a thinner concealable flak jacket which were available..what do think my chances of getting shot are? Pretty high I'd say"

what do you reckon their advice would be?

I'd take their advice FIRST. yes

"The threat in Mogadishu is overwhelmingly in possesion of the AK47... against which a lightweight jacket is no protection"

Paul Greeves who headed the BBC's "high risk team"

She was shot with a 9mm round.

"What would an external adviser have added? Would they have done anything differently if an adviser had been there? Probably not."

Paul Greeves.

Probably not? Or maybe it would've made the whole difference.

I'd take ex-SAS with me if I really really had to go and report about the 'emerging hope' of Somalia.

According to the inquest, she was sent there to work on a "couple of colour pieces."

Wow well worth it.

No wonder the BBC wanted to limited the scope of the inquest.

Once the case had been referred to the coroner, the BBC sought to limit the scope of the inquiry. In a series of letters to Ipswich coroner, Peter Dean, seen by The Independent on Sunday, the BBC's lawyers claimed the circumstances leading to Peyton going to Somalia were not relevant to how she died. They did not want the coroner to consider whether Peyton felt under pressure to go, which, at the end of last week's inquest, Dean concluded was "abundantly clear" she did. "We couldn't believe how much money the BBC put into trying to block the inquest," says Peyton.

[ifisurvive]

Yeah great safety decision. Really worked well didn't it? Didn't they do well.

The point about the flack jacket was in counter to you saying Kate Peyton acted in a 'dizzy liberal' way that lead to her being killed. Being told the safest thing to do and then doing what you have been told is the safest thing to is not a 'dizzy liberal' action. As I asked - if you were in a dangerous situation, were about to slip on a bullet proof vest and someone who knows the area, has lived in the area for a long time without being killed says something like "Don't put that on, it'll only make people more suspicious of you and make them more likely to just shoot you in the head" would you ignore them? (Especially if it's the advice everyone else seems to be following.)

Just because she ended up being killed does not by default make the advice 'wrong', nor does it by default make it 'liberal' (especially as all the other 'non-liberal' journalist were doing the same). For all we know if the BBC had decided they were going to ignore advice and wear flack jackets anyway that could have made them more suspicious to your 'tribal street gangs' (especially if they were the only one's wearing them!) and their car could have ended up getting an RPG launched at it killing Kate Peyton and the reporter and the driver and anyone else in there.

What would I do?

Personally, and you've got to take responsibility of yourself, no one else will before going in or planning a journey into Somalia,... I'd ask advice from professional soldiers with experience in Somalia.

EX SAS...people with experience. Independent advice 'not Paul Greeves from the BBC'

...

I'm thinking of hiring a local street gang, ...and following their 'advice' to the letter

...

I'd take ex-SAS with me if I really really had to go and report about the 'emerging hope' of Somalia.

Thank you for finally answering one of my questions. Admittedly you only answered half of it, but it is something at least.

As a reminder: "Discussions about security had begun more than two weeks before. They included the local experts in the Somali section and the World Service Trust in Nairobi, with the High Risk Team in London, with other correspondents who had recently been to Mogadishu, and with external sources including the UN." so you saying they were following just the advice of a 'local street gang' to the letter is completely inaccurate. Also you can see there were 'external sources including the UN' involved so there was some independent advice in there too (for all we know professional soldiers with experience in Somalia were one of those external sources). Taking the advice of your own journalists and other non-BBC journalists (look more independent advice!) who have been there and/or are still there and have managed to not get themselves killed also seems like a pretty sensible non-dizzy thing to do.

You'd ask ex-SAS guys for their advice - had the SAS been in Somalia at that point? Maybe they had been, but I'd assume you'd be happy with any non-African soldiers to ask anyway. How do you get their advice? Do you think you (or rather Kate Peyton) personally would be able find ex-SAS guys with Somalia experience and call them up for advice? I doubt it. If anyone would have the ability to source that kind of advice it would be the High Risk Team in London (who you don't know whether they actually did or not, and you appear not to trust, whether they did or not anyway).

Interesting you seem to dismiss Paul Greeves - any reason other than he works for the BBC and therefore must be a dizzy liberal idiot with no idea what to do? You want to talk to ex-SAS people, he is ex-Army. His team is responsible for the safety of journalists in conflict zones past, current and future - given the BBC is in pretty much every conflict zone going if he was as inexperienced and pointless as you seem to think then surely BBC journalists would be constantly dropping like flies the world over. But they're not.

You also suggest you'd take ex-SAS with you. Fair enough. Are you sure you'd actually be able to take them with you? Just ring up the Somalian authorities and say 'we're popping into your country with a load of highly armed mercenaries because we don't trust you Jonny Foreigners, you alright with that?'. Assuming you can get all your armed guards there is it possible that, given there's a range of different armed factions in Somalia already suspicious of each other, they would all be hostile to a group of armed foreigners invading their 'tribal gang' turf and it would all end up in a hail of bullets? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know - but neither do you.

Ultimately, as you haven't said otherwise, you are just giving your own, personal opinion on matters you have no experience on. Even if you did everything you said you still have absolutely no proof that all your independent advice would not have come up the exact same security advice and methods that the BBC ended up doing anyway! You're just assuming the BBC was wrong because it was the BBC.

Additionally, given you have not proved what the BBC did was in any different, and specifically somehow more 'liberal', than the security taken by any other journalists in the same situation you have no substance to base your 'dizzy liberal thinking' claim on.

Once the case had been referred to the coroner, the BBC sought to limit the scope of the inquiry. In a series of letters to Ipswich coroner, Peter Dean, seen by The Independent on Sunday, the BBC's lawyers claimed the circumstances leading to Peyton going to Somalia were not relevant to how she died. They did not want the coroner to consider whether Peyton felt under pressure to go, which, at the end of last week's inquest, Dean concluded was "abundantly clear" she did. "We couldn't believe how much money the BBC put into trying to block the inquest," says Peyton.

Yes, "the circumstances leading to Peyton going to Somalia", not "the security levels taken when going to Somalia". The article/inquiry is discussing whether or not Peyton in some way felt she had to go to Somalia to show she was commited to her job, it's not about, nor is it attacking the security levels.

Edited December 3, 2008 by ifisurvive

[chemical-licker]

Otherwise you're just saying if someone has liberal beliefs and works for a liberal company anything that ever happens to them is due to dizzy liberalism, which is a ludicrous argument. Another BBC journalist is killed standing outside the BBC head quarters in London when a car loses control, mounts the kerb and hits them. Damn dizzy liberal thinking strikes again! Equally a BNP counciller is killed when he has a heart attack. Damn fascist right wing thinking to blame there.

Ok phew finally got there. Say what you really mean. No really

So you're comparing Mz Peytons death to a heart attack, and a road accident!.

Can we take it then, in your, humble opinion Mz Death was an unavoidable accident. Could've happened to anyone.

You accept the BBC tried their very best to prevent this, and you especially found- Anthony Hudson, the lawyer for the BBC informative, honest and forthright.

Ok, yet we have contradictory version of events..

For example

BBC World Service reporter Mohammed Olad Hassan, who was also working with Peyton in Somalia when she was killed, said in a statement read out at the hearing that armed security guards had not been told that the party was leaving their hotel and were caught unawares.

Funny, the bbc said they were with her when she got shot.

Here the BBC have been accused of playing hardball-

The ultimate cause of Peyton's death was a combination of bad luck and momentary carelessness & dizzy liberal thinking She was killed by a gunman, having stepped out of the compound without her armed protection officers. "She should not have been standing in the street," says Hartley. "She should not have made the decision to leave the compound."

Armed protection officers!?! love it that's like saying a gang of LA Gangsta's are really an 'armed deployment swat team' but that's the BBC for you.

She should not have made the decision to leave the compound.

Edited December 3, 2008 by chemical-licker

[ifisurvive]

Ok phew finally got there. Say what you really mean. No really

So you're comparing Mz Peytons death to a heart attack, and a road accident!.

No, read the whole post, don't just cherry-pick parts. My point was your argument had no logic - if your argument was true then the examples I gave would also be true. They were illogical examples to show the illogic of your argument.

Ok, yet we have contradictory version of events..

For example

BBC World Service reporter Mohammed Olad Hassan, who was also working with Peyton in Somalia when she was killed, said in a statement read out at the hearing that armed security guards had not been told that the party was leaving their hotel and were caught unawares.

Funny, the bbc said they were with her when she got shot.

That's not contradictory. The full quote is "(The) security team were away from the vehicle. The hotel security fixer had not informed the security team or the driver in advance that we were coming out of the hotel - as I believe he should," said Mr Hassan. "We had to wait for the driver to open the door." So the security team were with her when they had got shot. As in had travelled from their hotel to the government hotel with her, which is what the original BBC statement had been. Also, you're quoting from a BBC employee, which hardly suggests a BBC cover up.

The ultimate cause of Peyton's death was a combination of bad luck and momentary carelessness & dizzy liberal thinking She was killed by a gunman, having stepped out of the compound without her armed protection officers. "She should not have been standing in the street," says Hartley. "She should not have made the decision to leave the compound."

Adding your own personal opinion into a quote from a news article does not magically validate your opinion. Again you have provided nothing that shows 'dizzy liberal thinking' in her actions. The full version of your quote, above, says it was the hotel fixer who made the mistake of not telling the guards they were coming out. She may not have known they were not immediately ready. Even if she did all she was doing was walking to her car with her escort still very close by, in an area where other guards were around, including those for the government officials, and where other journalists were as well. Nothing 'dizzy' there.

I'm sure when you've been Googling for your quotes you must have come across the findings of the inquiry, odd that you've not mentioned them. The inquiry concluded against the BBC in that they thought Kate Peyton had felt under pressure to go to Somalia else her contract may not have been renewed. So she didn't wan't to go - doesn't quite match your opinion she was aimlessly wandering around thinking "oh WOW we're down with the locals, HOW cool." The same inquiry also found "The BBC's risk assessment procedure was, however, found to have been "good" and "careful"".

Armed protection officers!?! love it that's like saying a gang of LA Gangsta's are really an 'armed deployment swat team' but that's the BBC for you.

Again, your personal opinion, based on nothing other than... your personal opinion. Also if you're going to mock the BBC for their phrasing you might want to check the person you're quoting is a BBC employee. He's not.

[chemical-licker]

As a reminder: "Discussions about security had begun more than two weeks before. They included the local experts in the Somali section and the World Service Trust in Nairobi, with the High Risk Team in London, with other correspondents who had recently been to Mogadishu, and with external sources including the UN." so you saying they were following just the advice of a 'local street gang' to the letter is completely inaccurate. Also you can see there were 'external sources including the UN' involved so there was some independent advice in there too (for all we know professional soldiers with experience in Somalia were one of those external sources).

As a reminder, that is taken from the BBC's lawyer statement.

Which we agreed was the 'best' possible version of events in favour for the BBC.In other words completely Biased.

And yet they admit they had discussions with the UN.. to use, like you have tried to, as evidence they took external advice.

I wonder what the advice was? Couldn't have been favorable to the BBC otherwise they would of used it, once again to their advantage during the inquest. So they probably ignored the advice.

I wonder if the UN's advice was....

1- Don't go!

2- If you go, wear a flak jacket.

Interestingly, the advice from the UN to UN personnel operating in Somalia is to wear a flak jacket at all times.

Of course the BBC knew better, considered wearing a flak jacket to be counter-productive.

Counter-productive to what? Living if shot?

[Bill Hill]

BBC World Service reporter Mohammed Olad Hassan, who was also working with Peyton in Somalia when she was killed, said in a statement read out at the hearing that armed security guards had not been told that the party was leaving their hotel and were caught unawares

Do we have any evidence or know the reason, why the Islamic assassin targeted Mz Peyton and not Mohammed Olad Hassan?

wait, I think I might have a theory.

[ifisurvive]

As a reminder, that is taken from the BBC's lawyer statement.

Which we agreed was the 'best' possible version of events in favour for the BBC.In other words completely Biased.

And yet they admit they had discussions with the UN.. to use, like you have tried to, as evidence they took external advice.

I wonder what the advice was? Couldn't have been favorable to the BBC otherwise they would of used it, once again to their advantage during the inquest. So they probably ignored the advice.

I wonder if the UN's advice was....

1- Don't go!

2- If you go, wear a flak jacket.

No, that statement is not taken from the BBC's lawyer, it's taken from a BBC article. It would certainly be preferable to hear information from sources other than the BBC, but as I said earlier just because the information is from the BBC does not by default make it false nor 'completely biased'. I will happily belive thier information is not accurate if you can show me other sources which prove otherwise, but you haven't.

You are basing your UN argument on small snippets of second hand information you've read in news articles. You do not know what was presented at the trial, you don't know that the BBC didn't show the UN's advice. Even if the statement was made at the trial (which it wasn't) for all you know the next sentance after that quoted in the newpaper could have been "Here is the advice provided by the UN". You also have no idea what the UN advice was. So basically your argument is your own, personal, biased opinion based on an unproven assumption, based on a false assumption. Hardly compelling.

On the other hand the inquiry, held in a legal context, heard first hand all the statements made, was able to see all the evidence given in the trial and would be able to demand further proof if anything did not seem right. The inquiry's conclusion : "The BBC's risk assessment procedure was, however, found to have been "good" and "careful"".

Interestingly, the advice from the UN to UN personnel operating in Somalia is to wear a flak jacket at all times.

Of course the BBC knew better, considered wearing a flak jacket to be counter-productive.

Of course journalists are not UN personnel, their roles and actions are different. UN personnel are probably also told to wear blue helmets and carry guns, doesn't mean journalists should. I tried to Google your comment but couldn't find anything specific - could you provide a link? After your previous displays of cherry picking quotes it would be useful to see the full context.

Again, it's just your opinion that BBC thought they 'knew better' - you have no proof that the UN, or anyone else, recommended their journalists wear flak jackets or that not wearing flak jackets was the wrong thing to so.

[chemical-licker]

(ifisurvive @ Nov 26 2008, 07:15 PM) Does seem a bit dense. A lot more information on the circumstances of the attack and the level of security here - again, doesn't sound like she was wandering around in a tutu, hugging the heavily armed locals, thinking they were all jolly good sorts deep down and assuming her journalist badge would give her immortality.

yes it does seem a bit dense doesn't it. Thanks for the link.... is it a link to the BBC again?

yep...

(ifisurvive @ Nov 26 2008, 07:15 PM) The full quote is "(The) security team were away from the vehicle. The hotel security fixer had not informed the security team or the driver in advance that we were coming out of the hotel - as I believe he should," said Mr Hassan. "We had to wait for the driver to open the door." So the security team were with her when they had got shot.

According the bbc... the tribal gang sorry highly trained security team of 8 armed men were with her at the time. Yet none of them managed to fire a shot back.

She was killed with a 9mm round right? suggesting close contact.

(ifisurvive @ Nov 26 2008, 07:15 PM) No, that statement is not taken from the BBC's lawyer, it's taken from a BBC article

quoting the BBC's lawyer.

So you agree with the inquiry's findings that the BBC did pressure her, but the security and preparation was good and careful; which is still a matter of opinion. The judge just ruled in their favor, Big deal.

You're missing the greater picture, why did the BBC send her, why was she in Africa in the first place?

These life decisions ultimately led to her death.

(ifisurvive @ Nov 26 2008, 07:15 PM) Of course journalists are not UN personnel, their roles and actions are different. UN personnel are probably also told to wear blue helmets and carry guns, doesn't mean journalists should

adequate.

Desperate...

(ifisurvive @ Nov 26 2008, 07:15 PM) It would certainly be preferable to hear information from sources other than the BBC, but as I said earlier just because the information is from the BBC does not by default make it false nor 'completely biased'. I will happily belive thier information is not accurate if you can show me other sources which prove otherwise, but you haven't.

Pretty hard considering most of the info comes from the BBC, at least I've used other sources.

Of course the BBC is biased in this case. duh.... we both agreed.

I have demonstrated this numerous times throughout the thread by highlighting the biased language used.

Of course they are going to paint the 'best series of events' Is that hard to comprehend?

Again irrelevant.. as

You're missing the greater picture, why did the BBC send her, why was she in Africa in the first place?

These life decisions ultimately led to her death.

Edited December 4, 2008 by chemical-licker

[chemical-licker]

No, read the whole post, don't just cherry-pick parts. My point was your argument had no logic - if your argument was true then the examples I gave would also be true. They were illogical examples to show the illogic of your argument.

Sorry I'll explain my logic.

One dizzy liberal + one Liberal organisation + African civil war= predictable death

[ifisurvive]

According the bbc... the tribal gang sorry highly trained security team of 8 armed men were with her at the time. Yet none of them managed to fire a shot back.

She was killed with a 9mm round right? suggesting close contact.

Close contact is only 'suggested' in your own mind. Firstly '9mm' does not mean close contact as you can have 9mm machine guns. If you mean that she was shot with a pistol that does not suggest close contact either - the gun man could easily have been 20m away with decent accuracy.

As for 'none of them managed to fire a shot' - I'm sure you've read what happened and know that where it happened there were many people's security teams in the same place, as such the atmosphere was fairly relaxed. A single shot was fired and it's thought the gunman was in a car that then drove off before anyone even knew what was happening. Completely understandable 'none of them managed to fire a shot'. It appears you have to imply your own version of events - again with absolutely no proof - in order to validate your own objection.

quoting the BBC's lawyer.

Please can you explain how a BBC article written in 2005 managed to quote a BBC lawyer in 2008?

So you agree with the inquiry's findings that the BBC did pressure her, but the security and preparation was good and careful; which is still a matter of opinion. The judge just ruled in their favor, Big deal.

Fantastic. Whether the security and preperation was good and careful is "a matter of opinion". Of course the inquiry's 'opinion' is a legal judgement based on hearing all the statements, seeing all the evidence, being able to demand any proof or further information where they see necessary. Your opinion is from limited, second-hand points and consists of weak arguments with absolutely zero proof, based on a pre-conceived bias. And you pretend these are equal.

You're missing the greater picture, why did the BBC send her, why was she in Africa in the first place?

These life decisions ultimately led to her death.

I'm not missing the greater picture at all. This has already been discussed and I've already shown how your argument has the equivilence of blaming 'dizzy liberal thinking' on a BBC reporter getting hit by a car outside the BBC headquarters, or saying no right-wing journalist can ever get killed - i.e. it has no logic.

Desperate...

Coming from someone who has just completely made up his own version of events based on no evidence whatsoever, just that it fits his pre-conceived view better; from someone who's reponse that a legal, detailed inquiry concluded differently than his own, unproven, biased opinion with 'Big Deal'; from someone who's responded to logical arguments and questions with repeated phrases and smiley faces; from someone who suggests a photograph somehow proves thier viewpoint; from someone who's been asked to provide a link to back up his statement and show it's full context and has failed to do so - that's pretty rich.

Pretty hard considering most of the info comes from the BBC, at least I've used other sources.

When searching for information on this I have looked through plenty of non-BBC sources, so I've been using just as many other sources as you. But basically here you are admitting that you cannot find anything that actually proves that the BBC's version is in any way incorrect.

Sorry I'll explain my logic.

One dizzy liberal + one Liberal organisation + African civil war= predictable death

I'm aware of what your 'logic' is. Sadly, what you are stating and what you are actually providing are two different things.

You've not shown Peyton was a 'dizzy liberal'. Sure, you've shown she was a liberal person, but generosity, charity and a love of Africa does not equal 'someone who would walk into a war zone with little regard for her personal safety because of her ludicrously liberal beliefs let her believe that everyone is lovely deep down and no one would hurt her', which is what you are saying. Indeed Peyton had been in conflict zones before with the BBC without getting her self killed and had lived for years in a place where you have to take your safety around the 'local Africans' very seriously without getting herself killed. These facts actually show the direct opposite to the 'dizzy' view you're accusing her of having, but you don't care.

Again, showing the BBC to be a liberal organisation is meaningless given non-liberal organisations do the same things and because the BBC sends it's reporters all over the place without them all getting killed.

What you are doing is effectively accusing someone of a crime then just repeatedly trying to prove motive whilst never actually proving the crime ever happened. And, as discussed in the above two paragraphs, you're not even showing any real motive either.

Realistically, your 'logic' is:

"Peyton was the type of liberal person I don't like" + "the BBC is a liberal organisation that I don't like" = "I blame the death on an extrememly exaggerated version of liberalism even if there is no proof to back that view up".

Edited December 5, 2008 by ifisurvive

[chemical-licker]

I'm not missing the greater picture at all. This has already been discussed and I've already shown how your argument has the equivilence of blaming 'dizzy liberal thinking' on a BBC reporter getting hit by a car outside the BBC headquarters, or saying no right-wing journalist can ever get killed - i.e. it has no logic.

No, we've been through this. I've conceded a right-wing reporter can get killed.

The equivalent in this case would be a dizzy liberal reporter being sent to a road accident black spot by a liberal organisation. The organisation wanted her to report on the emerging hope or lack of car accidents.

Once there, the dizzy liberal reporter steps out in front of a car fascinated by the african driver.

Where she is killed. I'm not saying she was fascinated by the 'killer' just the exotic culture which has been

confirmed numerous times.

Your logic is

Mz Peyton was a liberal with an African fixation which is irrelevant because she was a conscientious and aware person.

+

BBC are a liberal yet conscientious, totally trust worthy organisation.

+

African civil war.

=

Accidential, unavoidable unpredictable death. Just one of those acceptable risks.

You also explicitly trust and accept the bbc version of events and anyone who contradicts them must

supply hard irrefutable hard evidence in accordance to the British legal system or the scientific method, depending upon how you feel.

Edited December 5, 2008 by chemical-licker

[InHuman]

*sigh*

It's funny when people think they are making some PROFOUND point but are really just digging a hole they can't get out of (but still manage to throw dirt at passers by)..

[chemical-licker]

*sigh*

It's funny when people think they are making some PROFOUND point but are really just digging a hole they can't get out of (but still manage to throw dirt at passers by)..

yeah i know what you mean

[Bill Hill]

It's like Louis Theroux (BBC reporter) when he went to Philadelphia.

Did anyone watch that? lol

Basically the premise of the program was a bbc liberal reporter goes in and reports on the gangs. I don't get the guy all; I mean, does he deliberately act like a plonker?

The only reason that guy survived is because of Philadelphia's finest which I suspect, as a condition, was the only reason they were allowed to film in the first place.

There's a great moment, when the gangstas and the Police both laugh together, at louie and his questions.

[Splodgenessabounds]

It's like Louis Theroux (BBC reporter) when he went to Philadelphia.

Did anyone watch that? lol

Basically the premise of the program was a bbc liberal reporter goes in and reports on the gangs. I don't get the guy all; I mean, does he deliberately act like a plonker?

The only reason that guy survived is because of Philadelphia's finest which I suspect, as a condition, was the only reason they were allowed to film in the first place.

There's a great moment, when the gangstas and the Police both laugh together, at louie and his questions.

I don't see why Theroux did that, when I need to learn about gangs I go to Ross Kemp . I think LT is brilliant though.

[ifisurvive]

The equivalent in this case would be a dizzy liberal reporter being sent to a road accident black spot by a liberal organisation. The organisation wanted her to report on the emerging hope or lack of car accidents.

Once there, the dizzy liberal reporter steps out in front of a car fascinated by the african driver.

No, again your example is a statement of what you want to believe rather than a reflection of the facts of the matter. 'Lack of car accidents' is an exaggeration. Yes, the BBC sent them there to report the emerging hope, but that's the point - 'hope' that the new government would bring peace. It's easy to see three and a half years later that things haven't changed but that doesn't mean at the time people didn't hope it would happen. Other countries have pulled themselves out of civil wars before and unless you're suggesting Somalia will be in conflict until the end of time, something will eventually bring peace, someday that 'hope' will be right, it just wasn't three and a half years ago. Your example of 'lack of car accidents' implies the BBC thought there was a 'lack of violence' in Somalia, which quite obviously they didn't as they prepared for that violence.

'Steps out in front of a car' implies her direct actions caused her death when we have repeatedly seen she followed the suggested security recommendations. 'Fascinated by the African driver' is inaccurate as well because, though she loved Africa in general, the inquiry has ruled she felt pressured to go - she was not 'fascinated' by Somalia, she did not want to go there.

Your logic is

Mz Peyton was a liberal with an African fixation which is irrelevant because she was a conscientious and aware person.

Mostly, yes. You seem to think 'liberal' and 'conscientious and aware' are not mutually compatible yet you've never provided any reasoning for that. 'Fixation' is exaggeration again. If Peyton had spent her entire lifetime in the UK - reading books on Africa, thinking how fabulous it must be but never actually going there and seeing the reality - if she'd requested to be sent from London to Somalia so she could soak up all that local African-ness, you'd at least have a point. Yes, she loved Africa, but this was a woman who had lived in Africa for many years, had actually reported on the disease, the strife, the killings, someone who lived in a place in Africa where there is brutal violence and African killing Africans and foreigners daily. How you manage to think she'd seen all that and suggest she'd think Somalia would be a fluffy playground where she wouldn't have to care about her security makes no sense whatsoever.

BBC are a liberal yet conscientious, totally trust worthy organisation.

Again, you seem to think 'liberal' and 'conscientious' and 'trust worthy' are not mutually compatible yet you've never provided any reasoning for that. I don't deem the BBC, or any organisation, to be 'totally' trustworthy. But there's nothing unrealistic in the statements they have made and there is absolutely no proof that anything they have said is wrong. You on the other hand seem to think just because the BBC is liberal they are immediately untrustworthy. You are accusing them of lying and you completely make up your own version of events, not based on any logic or any evidence, just because it fits your established viewpoint of their 'liberalism' better.

You also explicitly trust and accept the bbc version of events and anyone who contradicts them must supply hard irrefutable hard evidence in accordance to the British legal system or the scientific method, depending upon how you feel.

I don't explicitly trust the BBC, and as I said previously, I have viewed just as many different sources on this as you. But there is nothing to suggest their version of events is incorrect and you've never provided any reason to show it is incorrect other than saying the BBC is liberal, which is not sufficient.

The only time I've brought up the 'legal system' is when pointing out that a legal judgement has been made that disagrees with your personal opinion - a judgement that was based on far far more information and evidence than yours is and - given they found against the BBC about the pressurisation aspect - obviously has no pro-BBC bias when making that judgement.

You're attacking me for demanding evidence and logical argument to convince me of something? Damn right I demand that - I make no apologies that pre-conceived bias, non sequitur and pretty pictures are not enough. If that's all it takes to convince you of something then I hope you're never given jury duty.

[chemical-licker]

No, again your example is a statement of what you want to believe rather than a reflection of the facts of the matter. 'Lack of car accidents' is an exaggeration. Yes, the BBC sent them there to report the emerging hope, but that's the point - 'hope' that the new government would bring peace. It's easy to see three and a half years later that things haven't changed but that doesn't mean at the time people didn't hope it would happen. Other countries have pulled themselves out of civil wars before and unless you're suggesting Somalia will be in conflict until the end of time, something will eventually bring peace, someday that 'hope' will be right, it just wasn't three and a half years ago. Your example of 'lack of car accidents' implies the BBC thought there was a 'lack of violence' in Somalia, which quite obviously they didn't as they prepared for that violence.

Hope for lack of car accidents... get it? hope...... not there were not any car accidents. They were hoping.

At least get it right before you start ranting, because it could save you writing a whole load of waffle.

You are accusing them of lying and you completely make up your own version of events, not based on any logic or any evidence, just because it fits your established viewpoint of their 'liberalism' better.

er No, we only have the BBC's version of events. do you know of any other?, then please supply a link, because I can't find any. Where's all those other independent Journalists you claim were milling around?.

I'm saying, you are using only the BBC's version. I'm saying it's biased. Of course it is. Do you know what happened? No... Do I know what happened NO.... but it's obvious in Somalia people get killed. Journalists get killed.

link african affairs

Six journalists have been killed in Somalia during the last year, while many others have been attacked . Journalists in Somalia risk their lives daily, suffering violent assaults and harassment in Mogadishu, one of the world's most dangerous cities.

She had worked in conflict zones previously and lived for years in Johannesburg. If she was the trusting hippy who thought all those nice black men with guns were nothing to worry about and there was no need for security as you're trying to make out she did how the hell did she not get killed long long before Somalia?!

To answer your question, by sheer luck...Guardian

Once, on her arrival in Jerusalem, she was checking into the Hilton hotel when a suicide bomber blew himself up on the street outside. Moments earlier she had been a few feet away, collecting her luggage from the taxi. Minutes later, she was reporting the event that had almost taken her own life.

I don't explicitly trust the BBC, and as I said previously,

So you keep saying. Although what you say and what you do are two different things entirely.

all through the thread we have examples of you trusting them explicitly..

I wasn't quite as cut and dry as journalists wandering around Somalia with 8 bodyguards and no flack jacket though. Comments on the incident from the news link I posted previously:

"The courtyard of the Sahafi was full of militia and their technicals [pick-up truck, usually with a heavy machine gun bolted to the top accompanying the government delegation. In fact they were spilling out onto the street and there were technicals either side of the hotel entrance and plenty of armed men in the street. But the atmosphere was relaxed, with the militia lounging in the back of their pick-ups or chatting under the shade of the trees which lined the road."

New link you posted previously. Sounds promising..

I'll find it btw is the bbc?

yep... sigh... it is the BBC. Cunningly calling it a news links instead of the bbc, hoping no one would notice.

Edited December 7, 2008 by chemical-licker

[ifisurvive]

Hope for lack of car accidents... get it? hope...... not there were not any car accidents. They were hoping.

At least get it right before you start ranting, because it could save you writing a whole load of waffle.

Actually your statement was "The organisation wanted her to report on the emerging hope or lack of car accidents" so I did get it right in that context. Add an 'f' to make it 'for' then all you need to do is remove the last sentence of the paragraph you quoted and the rest is still perfectly relevant and correct.

I'm saying, you are using only the BBC's version. I'm saying it's biased. Of course it is. Do you know what happened? No... Do I know what happened NO.... but it's obvious in Somalia people get killed. Journalists get killed.

The whole point of this discussion is that you say 'dizzy liberal thinking' caused Kate Peyton's death. You've just admitted you don't know what happened, but somehow you are still stating as fact it must have been 'dizzy liberal thinking' that caused it. You've just admitted that journalists get killed in Somali (i.e. other non-BBC, non-liberal journalist), but stating as fact 'dizzy liberal thinking' caused Kate Peyton's death. All you're doing here is proving my point.

To answer your question, by sheer luck...Guardian

Once, on her arrival in Jerusalem, she was checking into the Hilton hotel when a suicide bomber blew himself up on the street outside. Moments earlier she had been a few feet away, collecting her luggage from the taxi. Minutes later, she was reporting the event that had almost taken her own life.

Let me get this right. In your own post above you admit 'journalists get killed'. In a previous posts we've seen a Telegraph (non-liberal organisation) journalist has been kidnapped recently in Somalia and you provided a link yourself showing that the same journalist had almost been kidnapped in another conflict zone previously. And yet you're stating that because Peyton had almost been blown up previously (whilst performing the 'dizzy liberal' action of checking into a hotel!) that somehow this validates your opinion?

You are saying that in the various conflict zones she'd been to before Somalia she'd been wandering around with no care about her security because she thought everyone was lovely and managed not to get killed due to sheer luck? You're saying she managed to live in one of the most violent cities in the world for three years, aimlessly wandering around thinking all the heavily armed men killing other people would not hurt her because she was showing an interest in their culture, without coming to harm due to sheer luck?

New link you posted previously. Sounds promising..

I'll find it btw is the bbc?

yep... sigh... it is the BBC. Cunningly calling it a news links instead of the bbc, hoping no one would notice.

It's interesting you're accusing me of somehow twisting words. Let's look back at post #65 where you quoted me and said "Thanks for the link.... is it a link to the BBC again?". Of course what you quoted was from 37 posts previously, before we had got into this discussion and was from a post not addressed to you. Of course I'd only posted two links in the thread, one from a non-BBC source, one from the BBC and that was the original BBC link yet somehow you're saying it's a link to the BBC again, like it was some new link. Of course that quote of mine that you've just posted, asking "I'll find it btw is the bbc?", that comment was again not addressed to you and was quite explicitly referring back to that original BBC link. Twisting words indeed.

er No, we only have the BBC's version of events. do you know of any other?, then please supply a link, because I can't find any. Where's all those other independent Journalists you claim were milling around?.

I remembered when I had been Googling previously I had come across a very brief non-BBC article from near the time it happened. Checking my History this is that link. Not as detailed as the BBC article, but it does say "Several foreign reporters are based at the hotel, which is heavily guarded, according to CPJ sources", which supports the BBC information about other non-BBC reporters being around, the numerous armed guards being around, and the gunman speeding off in a car. Also, that source is The Committee to Protect Journalists - not exactly a source to defend the BBC if they had not taken reasonable security precautions.

Searching about I also found this non-BBC link. Again, not as detailed, but supports the pistol shot from a car and other journalist being around.