BBC Television programmes  permalink

7/7 Bombings: Conspiracy Roadtrip

Messages: 1 - 50 of 77
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by bigbiloxi (U15443780) on Monday, 1st October 2012

    Really? The BBC couldn't have thought of a more serious title for or a more serious manner of dealing with this event? Is the best you have to offer a reality tv-format treatment of such a profoundly tragic day, complete with hip musical soundtrack?

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Ceiderduck (U14588518) on Monday, 1st October 2012

    The Daily Mail jumped on this this morning. Shockingly enough, a lot of people seem to buy the conspiracy. First I'd ever heard of it was today :

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Shiplu (U14752563) on Monday, 1st October 2012

    They used the wrong photo for Siddique Khan, insted they used a photo of another siddique khan from USA. they simply google siddique khan and used the first photo they saw on google image.

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Ceiderduck (U14588518) on Monday, 1st October 2012

    Oh dear. I had set my recorder to see just how bad it would be - I accidentally recorded BBC4 instead. Curses!

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Monday, 1st October 2012

    It's BBC3 - Channel 4/5 level Ronseal titles are to be expected.

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by bigbiloxi (U15443780) on Monday, 1st October 2012

    Oh my gosh! I just googled the name and you're right! How is it possible the BBC could have made this mistake? It's unbelievable!

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by bigbiloxi (U15443780) on Monday, 1st October 2012

    I'm an American expat and I guess I have yet to master the nuances of the various BBC channels. Guess I'll stick to "Flog It" and "Antiques Roadtrip" from now on...

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by BooBoo2 (U1168789) on Monday, 1st October 2012

    I am sorry but this series (and the previous one regarding 9/11) annoys the hell out of me. Why has the BBC bestowed a platform for Andrew Maxwell to argue his case? So the man does not buy into the idea of a conspiracy, of course that is his right, but to be given the opportunity to voice this with simply the challenge of people who frankly are a sandwich short of a picnic is simply ridiculous.

    So Mr Maxwell can pick and choose some of the conspiracy example and by re-enacting them concludes that he is right? Just because you can reproduce the same results does not disprove the theory but simply tells you it can be done in more than one way. I mean is he suggesting that if he can photo shop an individual onto a photo then all photos with people in them are photo-shopped? Of course not, that would be stupid, but no different to his and many "anti-conspiracy" supporters.

    Of course there are many many nut cases buying to some of the most ludicrous theories but that does not mean that you can bracket all who questions events in the same mould. There are also many scientists, professional (such a pilots) and other reputable people who have questioned events particularly in New York. There is a huge amount of evidence which at least casts some doubt over official explanations. They might be wrong but it would be wrong also just to conveniently ignore them. Perhaps its not so much about being mad to believe in some of the ideas put forward but perhaps naive to not to.

    So will there be a series given to a conspiracy theorist who will present his case to a bunch of staid unquestioning "non-believers"? There are many reputable people who are in the media (as is Mr Maxwell) who could offer the other side of the coin. Will the BBC show impartiality? Will they just stick to the general media assertion that all is above board? Nothing to question so nothing to offer, just blacken the name of opponents by implying that they are social misfits with ludicrous ideas.

    What annoys me is that this is a serious subject and, although you may be surprised to hear that logic tells me that many of the conspiracy theories are far fetched nonsense, this is based on simple research and nil agenda. I would rather question and get what I believe is the right answer than simply be a sheep and believe the establishment. The longer this subject is censored by the media the more the conspiracies become deep rooted in believers. Why not accept a debate between respected people on either side and put things to bed? Or alternative why not move on and not give ammunition to one side. This programme proved nothing and frankly added nothing to the debate - perhaps this stuff should not be for offer from state owned broadcaster.

    Why is the BBC not prepared to give a balanced debate or simply move on?

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by GusMcGuire (U7223549) on Monday, 1st October 2012

    They used the wrong photo for Siddique Khan, insted they used a photo of another siddique khan from USA. they simply google siddique khan and used the first photo they saw on google image.   You'd think they'd have noticed that, since the photo clearly comes from his CV page on a Baltimore University website which includes dates up to 2009 (nearly four years after the 7/7 attacks).

    If he's an American citizen, I think it's entirely possible we can expect a lawsuit to follow. smiley - erm

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by BooBoo2 (U1168789) on Monday, 1st October 2012

    Sorry and just one last thing....

    .... who in heavens thought it appropriate to have an Irish comedian presenting such a programme? I know the BBC are obsessed with using comedians for travel explorations, panel shows, property programmes etc etc but surely such a serious subject matter - and respecting the feelings of those who lost love ones or who were injured - deserved some (political) gravitas (or was none of the "serious" presenters prepared to put their neck on the line). Was this on BBC1 / BBC2? BBC3 does not deserve exclusivity for such a serious topic.

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by bigbiloxi (U15443780) on Monday, 1st October 2012

    Regardless of his citizenship, I would think that some kind of serious response is warranted. This is a inexcusable blunder on the part of the BBC.

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Really? The BBC couldn't have thought of a more serious title for or a more serious manner of dealing with this event? Is the best you have to offer a reality tv-format treatment of such a profoundly tragic day, complete with hip musical soundtrack?  
    The title of the programme is because this programme is one in a series of programmes called 'Conspiracy Road Trip' - Andrew Maxwell takes conspiracy theorists on a road trip in an effort to tackle the truth about their beliefs.

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Really? The BBC couldn't have thought of a more serious title for or a more serious manner of dealing with this event? Is the best you have to offer a reality tv-format treatment of such a profoundly tragic day, complete with hip musical soundtrack?  
    The title of the programme is because this programme is one in a series of programmes called 'Conspiracy Road Trip' - Andrew Maxwell takes conspiracy theorists on a road trip in an effort to tackle the truth about their beliefs.

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

     
    Hilarious....

    The Daily Mail, all of the people who have commented on the Mail site (in one way or the other), and most of the contributors to this thread all seem to have missed the point of this programme by an absolute country mile.

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Piltdown (U6504098) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Andrew Maxwell takes conspiracy theorists on a road trip in an effort to tackle the truth about their beliefs.

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

     


    A worthy aim and something under it's brief to inform and educate the BBC should be doing however I think it may ultimately prove to be futile. Conspiracy theorists are a prime example of the old saying about never arguing with idiots.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    They probably had to have those types of people, especially the two fairly typical blokes. The type who trawl the internet and will grab at any alternative "evidence" while holding other eveidence at arms length, for various reasons. Maybe they need to feel they have some importance in their lives to follow a conspiracy theory, I don't know. A psychiatrist would know better perhaps.

    There has been another BBC production on 7/7 conspiracy which is available on youtube, and you can see from there, what lots of "believers" of conspiracy say. That particular program had, at the end, the martyrdom video made by the men, which was easily ignored by the theorists. For some reason, they didn't cover it in this program, but could have started with it, to gauge how this group of people saw it.

    That other program had the "theory" of bombs under the carriages because of holes in the carriage floors. It's astonishing that people grab at that and had to be told that bombs in carriages would cause a downward/upward/sideways blast and cause a hole in the carriage floor. I'm sure that info is freely available, so they had to be convinced by a face to face meeting. "Oooh I didn't know that."
    If the emotional bloke does a load of research (as he said), you'd have thought he easily could have established that, rather than grabbing tightly to the under carriage bomb. Just a slight piece of thinking would have shown it to be impossible to direct three men, who knew each other, to a particular carriage on different trains in the rush hour, and stand over where the under carriage bomb was. A particular nutty theory.

    It was funny how the girl fed him rubbish theory which he latched on to, and when she confronted him with what she had done, he said, "no you didn't." Eyes firmly shut at that point, knowing he'd been had.

    Still, we end up with the one with the not-quite-there moustache, still hanging on to the threads of conspiracy.

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Maybe they need to have them on the program smiley - winkeye The Daily Mail, all of the people who have commented on the Mail site  

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by MaxSwell (U14436436) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Really? The BBC couldn't have thought of a more serious title for or a more serious manner of dealing with this event? Is the best you have to offer a reality tv-format treatment of such a profoundly tragic day, complete with hip musical soundtrack?  
    The title of the programme is because this programme is one in a series of programmes called 'Conspiracy Road Trip' - Andrew Maxwell takes conspiracy theorists on a road trip in an effort to tackle the truth about their beliefs.

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

     
    Hilarious....

    The Daily Mail, all of the people who have commented on the Mail site (in one way or the other), and most of the contributors to this thread all seem to have missed the point of this programme by an absolute country mile. 
    No, not hilarious at all. The truth of the matter is the BBC are using these ludicrous conspiracy theories as the drive for entertainment. It's got nothing to do with debunking; the misguided and juvenile producers obviously feel these "theories" are sexy telly - when in fact they are complete rubbish and deserve no analysis at all. There is no point to these programs (I watched the 9/11 trip), they offer no insights, only disrespect to the families of those who were killed.

    BBC3 once again shows itself to be more childish than CBBC.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Reservoir Hamster (U14288323) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    There is a huge amount of evidence which at least casts some doubt over official explanations.  
    There isn't.

    What there are in any complex event are anomalies. Anomaly hunting is what conspiracy theorists do to build up their spurious cases. The huge number of variables involved in an event like 7/7 inevitably produces many oddities and strange coincidences. The fact that there was some kind of simulated bomb attack exercise going on at the same time was such a coincidence. The fact that some CCTV cameras stopped working at the time of the bombings is taken by the conspirators as evidence of a conspiracy, not a bizarre coincidence.

    Most people have not been trained to think critically and can't spot logical fallacies. Another one is the naive assumption. Tony and John thought they "knew" that a homemade bomb couldn't blow the roof of a London bus. The experiment proved them wrong and to their credit they admitted they had been wrong. But if they'd been humble enough to admit in the first place that they knew nothing about bombs then they wouldn't have needed such an explosive demonstration that they didn't know what they were talking about.

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by fibonaccispiral (U15433518) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Hello

    I cannot really comment on the program in question but did it mention the programme the BBC aired almost a year to the day before 7/7 that tackled almost the exact events of that fateful day. I'm am not saying the BBC were involved in any way, shape or form but the programme discussed what would happen if three tube trains and a bus was blown up by terrorists. That is an extremely eerie coincidence and speaking of coincidences what about the fact a guy who worked for a consultancy was running exercises on July 7th at the exact same area at the exact same time the bombs were exploded is also an eeire coincidence. Which, in fact, is the same as to what happened on 9/11 where norad were running exercises on the same day, at the same time playing out the exact same incident. Eerie indeed.

    I think the BBC should do a proper investingation using serious investigators instead of comedians to put this theory to bed once and for all.

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by BooBoo2 (U1168789) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Hilarious....

    The Daily Mail, all of the people who have commented on the Mail site (in one way or the other), and most of the contributors to this thread all seem to have missed the point of this programme by an absolute country mile.  


    Well pray tell Oh Great Seer what was the point of the programme? please enlighten us; put us poor intellectual mortals out of our misery. And does your sniggering hilarity extend to those who lost loved ones at the bombings? ... after all they also voiced their anger at the programme or maybe they too are simply complaining for the sake of it.

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by BooBoo2 (U1168789) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    There is a huge amount of evidence which at least casts some doubt over official explanations.  
    There isn't.

    What there are in any complex event are anomalies. Anomaly hunting is what conspiracy theorists do to build up their spurious cases. The huge number of variables involved in an event like 7/7 inevitably produces many oddities and strange coincidences. The fact that there was some kind of simulated bomb attack exercise going on at the same time was such a coincidence. The fact that some CCTV cameras stopped working at the time of the bombings is taken by the conspirators as evidence of a conspiracy, not a bizarre coincidence.

    Most people have not been trained to think critically and can't spot logical fallacies. Another one is the naive assumption. Tony and John thought they "knew" that a homemade bomb couldn't blow the roof of a London bus. The experiment proved them wrong and to their credit they admitted they had been wrong. But if they'd been humble enough to admit in the first place that they knew nothing about bombs then they wouldn't have needed such an explosive demonstration that they didn't know what they were talking about. 


    I wonder what it is like living a life where everything is a coincidence, everything is driven by luck, nothing by deliberate actions.

    So, for example, to you the fact that the airline which hit the Pentagon did the most extraordinary manoeuvres beyond the ability of most experienced commercial pilots is simply down to an “oddity”; I mean pilots interviewed expressing their dismay at what happen are simply cranks fuelled by their inane agendas…. Or have they raised a serious point which warrants mainstream investigation. You see in every day life things like accidents are normally thoroughly investigated and not simply put down to “oddity” or “coincidence”. Evidence gathered and conclusions made. To me the blinkered believer of all official explanations is just as idiotic as those who see conspiracy in everything.

    I ask again why not have a proper debate which does not involve just the caricature of a crazy person on one side and the smug know-it-all on the other?

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by pc1973 (U13716600) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Yawn, Yawn

    Let me guess you think 9/11 was an inside or Jewish job, man never landed on the moon or perhaps that Princess Diana was murdered by Prince Philip.

    I never knew or heard of any theory regarding 7/7 before. It just goes to show that people will make a conspiricy theory about anything.

    I really can't see what they get out of it, a sense of self importance perhaps looking down on all us gullible fools who happen to believe official events based on the evidence we can see.

    The worst thing is when there is a genuine conspiracy it will be harder to expose becouse of all the rubbish abounding on the internet crying 'wolf' over everything.

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    I ask again why not have a proper debate which does not involve just the caricature of a crazy person on one side and the smug know-it-all on the other? 
    There was one, it's called the 9/11 report - the thing is, it being based in the realms of reality and not speculating on controlled demolition (which isn't even remotely practical with thermite) and the like, it's not particularly interesting to people who are looking not at the overarching story of security failings that led to the tragic deaths of thousands of people dying but are rather looking to winkle out something that - to their untrained eye - doesn't look "right".

    Really, I think before 9/11 everyone felt that conspiracy theories were fairly harmless, people wearing their tinfoil hats, talking about how the Moon landings were faked (despite all evidence to the contrary) and things that could be looked on merely as eccentricity... Now that it's implicating (at least) the complicity of the US government in the deaths of thousands of its own citizens, it's far less wholesome.

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Andy (U14048329) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Hilarious....

    The Daily Mail, all of the people who have commented on the Mail site (in one way or the other), and most of the contributors to this thread all seem to have missed the point of this programme by an absolute country mile.  


    Well pray tell Oh Great Seer what was the point of the programme? please enlighten us; put us poor intellectual mortals out of our misery. And does your sniggering hilarity extend to those who lost loved ones at the bombings? ... after all they also voiced their anger at the programme or maybe they too are simply complaining for the sake of it.
     
    Oh please...do get over yourself.

    The programme is part of a series looking at conspiracy theories and their adherents. I don't know whether any of the relatives actually saw the programme or whether they just have the Daily Mail's account of what it contained. But, do tell me, do you think that the Mail knows full well that the BBC weren't "suggesting" that the bombings were a state conspiracy, or do you think that their journalists were too lazy and sloppy to actually check?

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Reservoir Hamster (U14288323) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    To me the blinkered believer of all official explanations is just as idiotic as those who see conspiracy in everything. 
    The burden of proof remains with you to prove your case. If you've got some serious evidence that the American and British governments murdered their own people, then produce it.

    When you say that the airliner that hit the Pentagon "did the most extraordinary manoeuvres", you cannot infer anything about the possible involvement of the US government in the attack. I wasn't aware anyway that it did make "extraordinary manoeuvres" but even if it did, a half-trained, unskilled pilot on a suicide mission is more likely to fly the plane in "extraordinary" ways than a skilled pilot, wouldn't you say? But God knows anyway how you make the jump from a weird bit of flying to implicating the American government in mass murder. Don't you see how illogical you are?

    Earlier you criticised the use of a comedian to present this programme. In my view a comedian is ideal. Most top class comedians in my view are highly intelligent. They have to be. To be funny most humour has to be TRUE. And comedians get a lot of laughs because they can usually see through claptrap better than the rest of us.

    And a word about coincidence. If you win the lottery tonight you might feel that there is something more than luck at work. You might feel there is some special meaning in the event, that you have been singled out by God for some special good fortune. Or something of that kind. But somebody somewhere had to win it. There is nothing extraordinary about your win when you change the perspective.

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Earlier you criticised the use of a comedian to present this programme. In my view a comedian is ideal. Most top class comedians in my view are highly intelligent. They have to be. To be funny most humour has to be TRUE. And comedians get a lot of laughs because they can usually see through claptrap better than the rest of us.  

    That is true. How can you satirise real life without knowing real life? (not that satire was done in this program).

    Many comedians over the last few scores of years have had to have a better grasp on history and politics than the rest of us, in order to succeed, and that is just mentioning two subjects.

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Hastur1 (U14272072) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    So we must always accept the official version as any "conspiracy theory" has to have the burden of truth - it is dangerous to accept everything our leaders say eg Tony Blair and his WMD, Maggie and the Belgrano. It is only a couple of weeks when one of the biggest cover ups in recent UK history showed that the "conspiracy theorists" on Hillsborough were proven right.

    As for the programme expect the usual suspects, wild eyed, eccentric story tellers who cannot string any sort of logical argument together. What better way to discredit any question that our leaders have told us everything.

    A good conspiracy theory is logical and often provocative and gets you to think and talk about what happened so you reach your own opinion

    Reply to this message 27

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by fibonaccispiral (U15433518) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    You have to admit that a 100 story building collapsing into its own footprint through the path of maximum resistance ie through the huge steel columns that held up the building smacks of demolition. The official story states that a pancake effect of the floors collapsing onto the ones below it was how it fell but thinking logically surely that would delay the collapse each time a floor fell onto the one beneath it. The buildings fell at free fall speed or through the path of least resistance suggesting the columns were destroyed as it fell. No other steel framed building in the world collapsed due to fire yet on 9/11 not one, not two but three buildings fell due to fire.

    I hate to even think that there was a conspiracy by the Government to kill their own citizens but those who do not know history are destined to repeat it. Look at the Lusitania, Pearl harbour, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all these brought the US into a war, 9/11 seems no different.

    The BBC should show their strength and and look into it, they are one of the most respected broadcasters on the planet.

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Sophia (U15410782) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    I think what BBC did was provide something that is of interest to a large group of people, and that's pretty much within their remit. Conspiracy's can be very uncomfortable for people, many just prefer the status quo, but sometimes the event itself starts to look a bit like a conspiracy theory, so I think it's healthy to draw some light on it. Once it's balanced with the opposing side of the conspiracy.

    I think we're all wearing tin hats until something is properly and thoroughly investigated. The common thread is that many major conflicts have occurred right after a disaster where the truth of the matter was heavily questioned. Is BBC not playing an important investigative role?

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    The biggest flaw in these conspiracy theories - beyond the fact that such a conspiracy would involve the cooperation of thousands of participants, all willing to carry out an attack on their own country - was that it was carried out by the administration of GWB who had barely been in office long enough to break in the new seat in the Oval Office.

    Unless you want to believe that it was actually set up during the Clinton administration and GWB just agreed to go along with it because he was an agreeable bloke.

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    To me the blinkered believer of all official explanations is just as idiotic as those who see conspiracy in everything. 
    The burden of proof remains with you to prove your case. If you've got some serious evidence that the American and British governments murdered their own people, then produce it. 

    Yes, that's the rather tiresome problem with these "official explanations", they're backed up with this boring thing called "evidence". Now, it goes without saying that governments are not always truthful and that there is a precedent for deception but if there is one constant of cover-ups it is that they are exposed. Given that Watergate couldn't be kept quiet, you'd think that the monstrous conspiracy required for 9/11 to have been an inside job would have lasted about a week before one of the tens of thousands of people involved let the cat out of the bag.

    Earlier you criticised the use of a comedian to present this programme. In my view a comedian is ideal. Most top class comedians in my view are highly intelligent. They have to be. To be funny most humour has to be TRUE. And comedians get a lot of laughs because they can usually see through claptrap better than the rest of us. 
    Comedians are well suited to this kind of topic as they don't have to be confrontational to make a point, which is advantageous. Can't say that I've ever heard or seen Andrew Maxwell outside of this show but I think he's the right mix of jovial and provocative.

    And a word about coincidence. If you win the lottery tonight you might feel that there is something more than luck at work. You might feel there is some special meaning in the event, that you have been singled out by God for some special good fortune. Or something of that kind. But somebody somewhere had to win it. There is nothing extraordinary about your win when you change the perspective. 
    People that believe in conspiracy theories have a statistically significant preponderance toward a deeply flawed understanding of probability.

    The fact the people in the programme were amazed that they could make the journey shows that we're not dealing with people imbued with particularly potent intellects.

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Sophia (U15410782) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    To me the blinkered believer of all official explanations is just as idiotic as those who see conspiracy in everything. 
    The burden of proof remains with you to prove your case. If you've got some serious evidence that the American and British governments murdered their own people, then produce it. 

    Yes, that's the rather tiresome problem with these "official explanations", they're backed up with this boring thing called "evidence". Now, it goes without saying that governments are not always truthful and that there is a precedent for deception but if there is one constant of cover-ups it is that they are exposed. Given that Watergate couldn't be kept quiet, you'd think that the monstrous conspiracy required for 9/11 to have been an inside job would have lasted about a week before one of the tens of thousands of people involved let the cat out of the bag.

    Earlier you criticised the use of a comedian to present this programme. In my view a comedian is ideal. Most top class comedians in my view are highly intelligent. They have to be. To be funny most humour has to be TRUE. And comedians get a lot of laughs because they can usually see through claptrap better than the rest of us. 
    Comedians are well suited to this kind of topic as they don't have to be confrontational to make a point, which is advantageous. Can't say that I've ever heard or seen Andrew Maxwell outside of this show but I think he's the right mix of jovial and provocative.

    And a word about coincidence. If you win the lottery tonight you might feel that there is something more than luck at work. You might feel there is some special meaning in the event, that you have been singled out by God for some special good fortune. Or something of that kind. But somebody somewhere had to win it. There is nothing extraordinary about your win when you change the perspective. 
    People that believe in conspiracy theories have a statistically significant preponderance toward a deeply flawed understanding of probability.

    The fact the people in the programme were amazed that they could make the journey shows that we're not dealing with people imbued with particularly potent intellects. 
    When is something a conspiracy? The Guildford four and other false imprisonments. Are these conspiracies, or was it a long drawn out investigation to reveal the truth.

    I mean, I'm really asking you when does something become a conspiracy? I don't mind people asking questions that carry some weight, and in some cases they do. I think it can be very healthy, and as we know it, sometimes the media, the people of a nation, play a key role in ascertaining the truth. I may not want to believe the outcome, but I prefer the truth to be honest.

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    When hundreds of millions of people around the world witness the Apollo astronauts land on the Moon live as it happens.

    And other people insist that it never happened but was in fact filmed in a Hollywood film studio in order for the US to win the space race against the Soviets during the Cold War.

    That is a conspiracy.

    Now apply that same type of disbelief to other sorts of controversial historical events.

    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    You're forgetting about how we can see the various lunar landing craft and even the tracks of the lunar rovers, not to mention ascertain the position of the moon to within a matter of cms thanks to reflectors put on the Moon by Apollo astronauts - if the USA is THAT good at faking a Moon landing, then I'm curious as to what they could have achieved if they'd used the resources to ACTUALLY go there.

    But I think the programme itself raised - albeit without saying anything - the fact this is all DEEPLY distasteful when you've got people that lost friends, family and loved ones. It's all well and good to don the tinfoil hat as regards Moon landings but there's just something cheap and sleazy about going "Yeah, sorry your son died - but he was killed by the UK government for nebulous reasons that I'm not going to explain or articulate."

    How exactly did 7/7 secure the resources the UK needs for the 21st century or enhance our "imperialism"?

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Sophia (U15410782) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    Ah no, that's not an answer.

    There's other events recently were there's been many witnesses, experts, and officials disagreeing and challenging certain events. I think it can only be called a conspiracy when questions have been answered, but they have to be answered.

    The Iraq War was a prime example. Was that a conspiracy too?

    Btw, have you ever seen Wag The Dog?

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Sophia (U15410782) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2012

    I'm not saying that it's sensitive or right. I feel for those who lost loved ones.

    In the States I recently saw footage of Guiliani being questioned by 9/11 family members to explain certain ambivalent occurrences. Now, I'd hate to believe the conspiracies, and I couldn't explain why these acts would be carried out, but I do feel that people have the right to ask if some things are blatantly strange.

    It's really about open discourse, and although I don't wear a tin hat of any kind, I'm sensible enough to know that some things just aren't as they seem. A childhood watching JR Ewing I guess smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012


    But I think the programme itself raised - albeit without saying anything - the fact this is all DEEPLY distasteful when you've got people that lost friends, family and loved ones. 


    I found the sequences where the sceptics met and heard from those directly involved so very touching and a very educative thread in the programme.
    and the shot of the message on the floral tributes at the end..... so summed up the personal effects of that day which live on today.

    Well done BBC ....



    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Reservoir Hamster (U14288323) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    I mean, I'm really asking you when does something become a conspiracy? 
    I think what we are really talking about here is the "Grand Conspiracy Theory". Of course ordinary conspiracies like the Watergate break-in cover-up are real conspiracies which are eventually exposed. But events like the JFK Assassination, 9/11 or 7/7 attract grand conspiracy theories where huge forces, governments, sinister webs of evil are suspected of being behind the events for which there is a simple and already proven mundane explanation.

    Grand conspiracy theories are closed belief systems. No matter what evidence is produced, believers won't abandon their ideas. On the programme the conspiracy theorists started out by saying that the four Muslim boys weren't responsible. But when they were forced to accept the overwhelming evidence that these boys had indeed carried out the attacks, they changed their tack and decided the bombers were actually "dupes" of British Imperialist forces. Every piece of evidence is twisted to become evidence for their theory. A reasonable person would accept the evidence and agree that the official version is correct. But a conspiracy theorist is never convinced.

    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012



    In reply to Sophia:
    Ah no, that's not an answer.

     


    I didnt seem like you really wanted an answer. You just wanted a prod so that you can go off on whatever track it was you wanted to go off on.

    So happy to oblige. smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by BooBoo2 (U1168789) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    Yawn, Yawn

    Let me guess you think 9/11 was an inside or Jewish job, man never landed on the moon or perhaps that Princess Diana was murdered by Prince Philip.  


    Yawn, Yawn

    Let me guess you think all people that question the official take on an event are conspiracy theorists; simpleton eccentrics who trawl the web believing all conspiracy theories. How so wonderfully blinkered you are of someone so enlightened. Perhaps it was rather convenient to ignore my comment that I did not buy in to most theories but there again I am a weirdo aren’t I….


    I really can't see what they get out of it, a sense of self importance perhaps looking down on all us gullible fools who happen to believe official events based on the evidence we can see. 
    The self importance I would suggest is all yours.


    The worst thing is when there is a genuine conspiracy it will be harder to expose becouse of all the rubbish abounding on the internet crying 'wolf' over everything. 
    Aha, so genuine conspiracies exists, are you the arbiter of what is genuine and what is not. Your “genuine” conspiracy could quite easily be another person’s mocking of you gullibility.

    There was one, it's called the 9/11 report - the thing is, it being based in the realms of reality and not speculating on controlled demolition  
    Is this the report issued by the US Government? And how dare anyone suggest they have a vested interest in the result? Oh and I am glad you raised the “controlled” demolition – you mean of the building which reported collapsed 20 minutes before it happened? Was this luck? Coincidence? I could go on about that particular building collapse but, believe it or not, I am not self-satisfied as some are here to even suggest I know definitively what happened, only that there is potential evidence to discredit the official line.

    I don't know whether any of the relatives actually saw the programme or whether they just have the Daily Mail's account of what it contained. 
    Surely your arrogance allows for those relatives to have a brain of their own and an opinion based on something other than the Daily Mail. How pathetic! I am sure they are quite able to form an opinion beyond that of a paper that they (may but you have no proof that they do) read unlike some here.

    When you say that the airliner that hit the Pentagon "did the most extraordinary manoeuvres", you cannot infer anything about the possible involvement of the US government in the attack. I wasn't aware anyway that it did make "extraordinary manoeuvres" but even if it did, a half-trained, unskilled pilot on a suicide mission is more likely to fly the plane in "extraordinary" ways than a skilled pilot, wouldn't you say? But God knows anyway how you make the jump from a weird bit of flying to implicating the American government in mass murder. Don't you see how illogical you are?  
    Did I infer who was involved? What an amazing but boringly predictable statement. And if you are not aware of the more “sensible” and publicised questions asked then how are you remotely qualified to pass judgment on me? “Extraordinary” does not just mean strange but also well above the ability of even the best commercial pilots (not my words but that of seasoned pilots). Again I could go on here about the evidence for such statements but this is not supposed to be a thread to discuss the events of 9/11.

    Earlier you criticised the use of a comedian to present this programme. In my view a comedian is ideal. Most top class comedians in my view are highly intelligent.  
    You are great on generalisations….
    …. Comedian = intelligent
    …. People who question = weirdo
    Perhaps all factual programmes should be introduced by comedians smiley - doh

    A good conspiracy theory is logical and often provocative and gets you to think and talk about what happened so you reach your own opinion  
    Agree, problem is some people are not prepared to talk as they believe they have all the facts, evidence and intelligence and believe they are absolutely right. I mean if you are that perfect why would you question anything?

    The biggest flaw in these conspiracy theories - beyond the fact that such a conspiracy would involve the cooperation of thousands of participants, all willing to carry out an attack on their own country - was that it was carried out by the administration of GWB who had barely been in office long enough to break in the new seat in the Oval Office.  
    As I have said before I have not suggested that I am right about anything simply that I would question some of the official statements. It is quite possible however to manipulate people into situations without knowing what is to come. Why would it have taken the co-operation of thousands for 9/11 or 7/7? And why – and I would re-iterate that I am not in a position to apportion blame – would the president need to be involved? Its about questioning the flaws of the official story, not finger pointing.

    Given that Watergate couldn't be kept quiet, you'd think that the monstrous conspiracy required for 9/11 to have been an inside job would have lasted about a week before one of the tens of thousands of people involved let the cat out of the bag.  
    Again I ask why tens of thousands were involved? Is this simply an exaggeration to fit a comment?

    People that believe in conspiracy theories have a statistically significant preponderance toward a deeply flawed understanding of probability. 
    Quite a sweeping statement. The assumption made time and again is that a conspiracy theorist is someone who believe in all conspiracy theories – perhaps correct if that “flawed” understanding of probability is a character defect as you suggest. What about those who question the occasional theory, are they recreationally flawed or perhaps bipolar? If you understood probability you would know that probability provides a quantitative description of the likely occurrence of a particular event HOWEVER IMPROBABLE. So there is no reason that theorists have a flawed understanding but a different (and perhaps unrealistic) belief.

    I mean, I'm really asking you when does something become a conspiracy?  
    Something becomes, in my opinion, a conspiracy when it questions the official line which is general accepted to be true. It also becomes extraordinarily stupid and for strange gullible people when one tries to have a rational debate.

    But I think the programme itself raised - albeit without saying anything - the fact this is all DEEPLY distasteful when you've got people that lost friends, family and loved ones. It's all well and good to don the tinfoil hat as regards Moon landings but there's just something cheap and sleazy about going "Yeah, sorry your son died - but he was killed by the UK government for nebulous reasons that I'm not going to explain or articulate."  
    Oh so very laudable but what if some of the relatives question things? What would you make of that? Are, for example, some of the families of those who died in the Panam explosion simply attention seeking weirdos who believe all conspiracy theories. Or are they quite entitled to question what happened (more entitled than any of us I would suggest) and push back if they are not happy about the official answers? Maybe their perception of probability is flawed?


    The fact is that the programme was simply a platform for somebody to tarnish everyone who questions event with the same “strange, impotent, sub-intellectual” brush in the name of entertainment. Such a subject matter deserves a proper and sensible debate with both 'sides' represented by reputable witnesses and commentators. And dare I ask that each major flaw in the official line is allowed to be debated and not a select few to prove a point. Otherwise just leave alone. And just to remind people here that I do not buy in to most theories but do believe in questioning things for myself (lets see if this is conveniently ignored yet again).

    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    In the States I recently saw footage of Guiliani being questioned by 9/11 family members to explain certain ambivalent occurrences. Now, I'd hate to believe the conspiracies, and I couldn't explain why these acts would be carried out, but I do feel that people have the right to ask if some things are blatantly strange. 
    There's a difference between something being strange and something being a monstrous conspiracy. I think most people that lost someone aren't that concerned about the conspiracy theories, they've got a hard enough time coming to terms with losing a loved one.

    Grand conspiracy theories are closed belief systems. No matter what evidence is produced, believers won't abandon their ideas. On the programme the conspiracy theorists started out by saying that the four Muslim boys weren't responsible. But when they were forced to accept the overwhelming evidence that these boys had indeed carried out the attacks, they changed their tack and decided the bombers were actually "dupes" of British Imperialist forces. Every piece of evidence is twisted to become evidence for their theory. A reasonable person would accept the evidence and agree that the official version is correct. But a conspiracy theorist is never convinced. 
    Precisely. Conspiracy theories are religion for our cynical and scientific society. If anything, I was fairly impressed that they seemed to persuade 3 of the 4 people that this probably was likely an actual terrorist attack.. as the presenter himself pointed out, there ARE instances where innocent Irish men were framed for bombings... what he didn't go on to say was that at no point during that era did the UK government PLANT BOMBS TO KILL ITS OWN PEOPLE!

    I'd have liked the boy who thought it was part of Britain's "imperialist" goals to explain how exactly. Last time I checked, we were already in Iraq when 7/7 happened and if anything, the fact that our complicity in the invasion of Iraq was one of the reasons for the 7/7 bombings made support - which had never exactly been thick on the ground - even less stable. The fact his argument seemed to boil down to the lazy shorthand for all 9/11 conspiracy theories - oil - didn't exactly help.

    Reply to this message 41

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012



    In the States I recently saw footage of Guiliani being questioned by 9/11 family members to explain certain ambivalent occurrences. Now, I'd hate to believe the conspiracies, and I couldn't explain why these acts would be carried out, but I do feel that people have the right to ask if some things are blatantly strange.
     


    So the conspiracy extends beyond the US Federal Government and includes the cooperation of the Government of New York City?

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    I really can't see what they get out of it, a sense of self importance perhaps looking down on all us gullible fools who happen to believe official events based on the evidence we can see.   The self importance I would suggest is all yours. 
    It's a valid point and again, where conspiracy theories parallel religion. There's one truth and you know it and no one else does. Everyone that believes the official explanation is a sheep, led astray by the lies but you, YOU have understanding beyond theirs and see through the lies to the crux of the matter.

    Pretty basic psychology.

    There was one, it's called the 9/11 report - the thing is, it being based in the realms of reality and not speculating on controlled demolition  Is this the report issued by the US Government? And how dare anyone suggest they have a vested interest in the result? Oh and I am glad you raised the “controlled” demolition – you mean of the building which reported collapsed 20 minutes before it happened? Was this luck? Coincidence? I could go on about that particular building collapse but, believe it or not, I am not self-satisfied as some are here to even suggest I know definitively what happened, only that there is potential evidence to discredit the official line. 
    Yes because NO ONE ever gets confused during hectic events and says something wrong or that's misunderstood.

    Or are you genuinely suggesting that the single most elaborate black operation ever undertaken had just ONE fly in the ointment and it was some mook reporting a building collapsing 20 minutes early? Also, I'm not really sure I've understood the NEED for controlled demolition in this conspiracy but then an inverse Occam's razor seems to be applied a lot in these things.

    Again I ask why tens of thousands were involved? Is this simply an exaggeration to fit a comment? 
    It depends on the varying levels of insanity your 9/11 conspiracy theory goes to - some of them require entire planes to be emptied of people and the complicity of many different agencies and the direct or indirect involvement of thousands of people.

    Oh so very laudable but what if some of the relatives question things? What would you make of that? Are, for example, some of the families of those who died in the Panam explosion simply attention seeking weirdos who believe all conspiracy theories. Or are they quite entitled to question what happened (more entitled than any of us I would suggest) and push back if they are not happy about the official answers? Maybe their perception of probability is flawed? 
    Unsurprisingly, you find very of the victim's families amongst the conspiracy theorists but I'd say that those amongst their ranks have at least some justification seeking for meaning or a reason but it's not as if baseless conjecture makes their loved ones any LESS dead.

    The fact is that the programme was simply a platform for somebody to tarnish everyone who questions event with the same “strange, impotent, sub-intellectual” brush in the name of entertainment. Such a subject matter deserves a proper and sensible debate with both 'sides' represented by reputable witnesses and commentators. 
    As I've said before, this is creating the false perception of there being only two sides to the story and that both those sides are of equal weight. As was clearly demonstrable - there's absolutely no parity between the "two sides" when it comes to 7/7.

    And dare I ask that each major flaw in the official line is allowed to be debated and not a select few to prove a point. 
    Last time I checked, conspiracy theories relied almost exclusively on the cherry picking of minutiae - especially out of context... so, if you're suggesting that both sides have to create a substantive narrative of events, I'd suggest you're probably hamstrung the conspiracy theorists already.

    Otherwise just leave alone. And just to remind people here that I do not buy in to most theories but do believe in questioning things for myself (lets see if this is conveniently ignored yet again). 
    Ah, well - that's the more enlightened approach of the conspiracy theorist. You don't say "it was an inside job", you just cherry pick minutiae and then go "I'm not saying anything! I'm not saying it was an inside job, I'm just sayin'!"

    Such behaviour speaks volumes about the courage of their convictions, or lack thereof.

    Reply to this message 43

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    it is dangerous to accept everything our leaders say eg Tony Blair and his WMD, Maggie and the Belgrano. It is only a couple of weeks when one of the biggest cover ups in recent UK history showed that the "conspiracy theorists" on Hillsborough were proven right.

    As for the programme expect the usual suspects, wild eyed, eccentric story tellers who cannot string any sort of logical argument together. What better way to discredit any question that our leaders have told us everything. 

    Well said.

    The cry of 'conspiracy theory!' has become the 21st Century equivalent of the 16th Century cry of 'heresy!' It's an attempt to stifle debate.

    The BBC should avoid labelling those who question the government's version of events as 'conspiracy theorists'. Next the UK establishment will be calling people 'dissidents' or 'counter-revolutionaries' or 'enemies of the state' etc.

    Reply to this message 44

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    The cry of 'conspiracy theory!' has become the 21st Century equivalent of the 16th Century cry of 'heresy!' It's an attempt to stifle debate. 
    Yes, just look at all the evidence to support the fact the Moon landings were a hoax... You're very keen on this notion that people are attempting to stifle debate and yet, strangely - the debates continue regardless of all the stifling you proclaim is occurring.

    The BBC should avoid labelling those who question the government's version of events as 'conspiracy theorists'. Next the UK establishment will be calling people 'dissidents' or 'counter-revolutionaries' or 'enemies of the state' etc. 
    By all accounts, everyone on the conspiracy roadtrip had branded themselves a conspiracy theorist and I don't recall them being labelled that but good work on the hysterical hyperbole, it's just so credible, you dissident.

    Reply to this message 45

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    That statement is a mass generalisation.

    I think we all - at many times every single year - call into question a lot of the things the government or certain politicians or heads of mega-corporations say.

    But when someone says that something was obviously a mass conspiracy - and that the offical facts are all lies - and as their evidence it was a conspiracy, point you to blog sites, websites, books written by people who are well know conspiracy theorists.

    Then it makes sense to call someone who cites this information as a conspiracy theorist - because a conspiracy theory is what they are saying is the "real truth."

    The example I gave up thread of the moon landings is a prime example.

    Hundreds of millions of people around the world witnessed the Apollo astronauts land on the Moon with their own eyes - as it happened.

    Yet to this day - people still insist it never happened and was all staged in a film studio set and sold to the public as a lie.

    People who believe this should be expected to be called "conspiracy theorists".

    If, 20 years after a new sub-division of homes was built and a disproportionatly large number of residents came down with cancer and/or women miscarried or gave birth to babies with some sort of birth defect, and an independent scientific testing agecny said they found a high level of carcinogens in the soil which indicates that the homes were built on land that was a former dumping ground for toxic chemicals but that the local government hid this because the land was once owned by a huge, influential company that got the government to look the other way - and their own facts of what sort of testing went into the land before construction began - then by all means, that may well be a conspiracy.

    It all depends on exactly what is being called into question and what supporting evidence is used to renounce the official story.

    Reply to this message 46

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    How about the "Paul is Dead" conspiracy theories?

    To this day, there are websites and people who insist McCartney was killed in an auto accident in 1967.

    In order for this conspiracy to be carried out - it would involve the cooperation of the emergrency personnel who assisted at the crash site.

    The people at the hospital who treated him on arrival.

    The coroner.

    The band members.

    Their record label.

    The doppleganger who replaced Paul.

    His family.

    And countless others in various capacities.

    The evidence given by conspiracy theorists?

    Backwards messages in songs meant to be secret clues to "real" Beatles fans by the band.

    Iterperitation of an album cover.

    And other completely subjective and arbitrary "clues".

    Which all add up to what they believe is "obviously the real truth".

    And anyone who believes that Paul McCartney is actually Paul McCartney are sheep who believe whatever they are spoon fed.

    I realise - in light of his performance at the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics - may open the door to a whole other set of conspiracy theories. smiley - laugh

    Reply to this message 47

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by GusMcGuire (U7223549) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    If the moon landings were faked by the Americans and were in fact filmed in a studio, why then didnt the Russians (or Soviets as they were then) do the same thing to declare their own moon landings? I doubt it would have been beyond their ability to achieve.

    Reply to this message 48

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    If the moon landings were faked by the Americans and were in fact filmed in a studio, why then didnt the Russians (or Soviets as they were then) do the same thing to declare their own moon landings? I doubt it would have been beyond their ability to achieve.  That's one of the big problems with the faking of the Moon landing - along with everything else - because if you ever had a situation where it behooves someone to expose a conspiracy, it was the Soviets and the Moon landing but there was ne'er a peep out of them.

    So, either they were in on it - which would be a far GREATER conspiracy - or it was all legit.

    Reply to this message 49

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) on Wednesday, 3rd October 2012

    I realise - in light of his performance at the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics - may open the door to a whole other set of conspiracy theories. smiley - laugh
     


    Well on that basis, over the Jubilee concert, and Olympic ceremonies we might assume that Cliff Richard, Elton John and Ray Davies have all been replaced by doppelgangers who can't sing a note.

    I bet Simon Cowell is involved. But then again, he's not real.....

    Reply to this message 50

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.