Full Version: Sailor is selling her story
It looks like Faye Turney intends to sell her story for a lucrative sum of money. I was rather surprised that the Ministry of Defense permitted it, and I guess I wasn't the only one.
There is some precedence for this in the US military. I'm reminded of Scott O'Grady, the mediocre (crappy actually) pilot who sold his story and even obtained a PR representative while awaiting the short end to his service term. It bothered me then, but for slightly different reasons. This actually bothers me more. Maybe I'm mistaken? It is a free country, after all, but capitalizing on this incident just seems wrong. Particularly when others are and will be placed in harm's way. It certainly isn't going to help relations with Iran, not that they don't deserve the criticism...but, isn't this incident a little too recent for this? It just seems unsavory somehow...
To be debated: Do you agree or disagree with what I said above, and why?
QUOTE
There was also surprise that the Ministry of Defence had allowed the deal, given that Ldg Seaman Turney remains a serving sailor on full salary. It is understood that she was offered more than £100,000 to describe exclusively her experiences of the hostage crisis and the deal with ITV and the newspaper, believed to be The Sun, is thought to be worth a substantial amount.
Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "I think this deal will cause raised eyebrows because she is still a serving sailor. She is not in the same position as those people who have sold their story after they left the Service.
Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "I think this deal will cause raised eyebrows because she is still a serving sailor. She is not in the same position as those people who have sold their story after they left the Service.
There is some precedence for this in the US military. I'm reminded of Scott O'Grady, the mediocre (crappy actually) pilot who sold his story and even obtained a PR representative while awaiting the short end to his service term. It bothered me then, but for slightly different reasons. This actually bothers me more. Maybe I'm mistaken? It is a free country, after all, but capitalizing on this incident just seems wrong. Particularly when others are and will be placed in harm's way. It certainly isn't going to help relations with Iran, not that they don't deserve the criticism...but, isn't this incident a little too recent for this? It just seems unsavory somehow...
To be debated: Do you agree or disagree with what I said above, and why?
I can't really see any big problem with it. I've read some of the comments made by service wives in the UK and they strike me as being nothing but jealousy. Seriously, whats the big deal? Turney gets paid a modest wage for what she does, and has a couple of children. A hundred grand is a lot in the UK and given her ordeal, not a bad way to come out on top.
I don't understand the argument that suggest other people will be placed in harms way either. If she simply told the story and didn't receive the money, would that make it any the less safe for others? I can't see any reason why she shouldn't, lest it be a long term argument that fears the possibility of greed over taking judgement in some unusual situation further down the line... though since they are already changing the laws now, this situation is probably unique (in the UK).
I've read some of the marines have turned down offers and some have accpeted in order to give the money to service family charities (Which is probably what I'd do too).
I don't understand the argument that suggest other people will be placed in harms way either. If she simply told the story and didn't receive the money, would that make it any the less safe for others? I can't see any reason why she shouldn't, lest it be a long term argument that fears the possibility of greed over taking judgement in some unusual situation further down the line... though since they are already changing the laws now, this situation is probably unique (in the UK).
I've read some of the marines have turned down offers and some have accpeted in order to give the money to service family charities (Which is probably what I'd do too).
She already sold her story - it was published on Tuesday (or Monday) in the Sun newspaper. One other former Iranian captive managed to sell his story to the press before the Ministry of Defence laid down a hasty ruling that this was not acceptable and banned the practice of serving forces members selling stories.
It has caused disquiet in many quarters and has been the biggest news story over here this week.
Coverage has shifted from the ethics of selling the stories at all, to the confusion and contradiction coming out of the MoD and the wider government - five days after the story you linked to broke, the Defence Minister issued a mea culpa and Tony Blair commented for the first time.
It's being reported here that the 10 Downing Street Press Office, for so long the all-encompassing determinant of how and when government policy was announced to the public, is de-mob happy, knowing that Tony Blair is likely to be stepping down as PM within a few weeks. Certainly it's something of a surprise to me that policy on this was initially decided by middle ranking Naval officers, rather than anyone in senior command positions or anyone in the Ministry of Defence or Cabinet. The recent Easter Holidays are no excuse (Good Friday and Easter Monday are public holidays here).
In principle, I agree with Mrs Pigpen - serving armed forces personnel should not be free to talk to the press willy-nilly. Free speech is all very well, but the armed forces place other obligations. At the very least, people involved should have to have their stories vetted by security services - I don't want issues of national security or operational secrecy being decided on by the editors of tabloid newspapers, but by someone with some kind of democratic accountability.
But the better solution would be to forbid all such schemes until after the retirement from service of the interviewee or author - this worked out just fine for the likes of Chris Ryan, who has made a mint from his military experience as a writer and intervieweee - and good luck to him - but who did it all from a position of anonymity (which, given the circumstances of her capture, Faye Turney couldn't have copied even if she wanted to) and retirement (which she could).
It's not that people in the forces should be able to make money by telling their story; it's that they shouldn't be able to do it straight away. I mean, the tyres of the plane she flew home on have barely cooled!
It has caused disquiet in many quarters and has been the biggest news story over here this week.
Coverage has shifted from the ethics of selling the stories at all, to the confusion and contradiction coming out of the MoD and the wider government - five days after the story you linked to broke, the Defence Minister issued a mea culpa and Tony Blair commented for the first time.
It's being reported here that the 10 Downing Street Press Office, for so long the all-encompassing determinant of how and when government policy was announced to the public, is de-mob happy, knowing that Tony Blair is likely to be stepping down as PM within a few weeks. Certainly it's something of a surprise to me that policy on this was initially decided by middle ranking Naval officers, rather than anyone in senior command positions or anyone in the Ministry of Defence or Cabinet. The recent Easter Holidays are no excuse (Good Friday and Easter Monday are public holidays here).
In principle, I agree with Mrs Pigpen - serving armed forces personnel should not be free to talk to the press willy-nilly. Free speech is all very well, but the armed forces place other obligations. At the very least, people involved should have to have their stories vetted by security services - I don't want issues of national security or operational secrecy being decided on by the editors of tabloid newspapers, but by someone with some kind of democratic accountability.
But the better solution would be to forbid all such schemes until after the retirement from service of the interviewee or author - this worked out just fine for the likes of Chris Ryan, who has made a mint from his military experience as a writer and intervieweee - and good luck to him - but who did it all from a position of anonymity (which, given the circumstances of her capture, Faye Turney couldn't have copied even if she wanted to) and retirement (which she could).
It's not that people in the forces should be able to make money by telling their story; it's that they shouldn't be able to do it straight away. I mean, the tyres of the plane she flew home on have barely cooled!
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 10 2007, 07:01 PM) 
There is some precedence for this in the US military. I'm reminded of Scott O'Grady, the mediocre (crappy actually) pilot who sold his story and even obtained a PR representative while awaiting the short end to his service term. It bothered me then, but for slightly different reasons. This actually bothers me more. Maybe I'm mistaken? It is a free country, after all, but capitalizing on this incident just seems wrong. Particularly when others are and will be placed in harm's way. It certainly isn't going to help relations with Iran, not that they don't deserve the criticism...but, isn't this incident a little too recent for this? It just seems unsavory somehow...
To be debated: Do you agree or disagree with what I said above, and why?
I'm in agreement with you, Mrs. P. While I am not sure whether it was unethical, I do believe it was in poor taste, considering the situation other British servicepeople are in right now and the fact that many have suffered far worse than these seamen in the past striving to provide only name, rank and serial number to their captors. It would have been better had she and her comrades waited until leaving the service out of respect for those others who fared worse than they did.
(I wonder what would happen if members of military service were instructed by their superiors to play along with their captors and say virtually anything they wanted them to say, with exceptions of actually providing them with accurate intelligence information. Then these propaganda sessions on Al-Jazeera (or whatever media outlet) would be seen as others as farcical, and there would be less incentive to subject prisoners to it. But I could very easily be wrong about this.)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.