(28.9.04 16:14) If Kenneth Bigley had checked the Foreign Office website, he'd have realised that it is not advisable to stay there right now. When all's said and done, he got paid a packet to work out there. I feel sorry for him, but feel he could have taken more precautions. He's already been through a terrible tragedy with his son and his first marriage ending. I hope he makes it through, but I'm not very optimistic.

(28.9.04 16:22) I just can't help thinking how terrified yet furious with him I'd be if i was his wife (or any member of his family)

(28.9.04 16:25) Noodlum: Given that he doubtless knew all that prior to his arrival in Baghdad, his decision-making process seems all the more bizarre. Unless one has a wish to die in a particularly gruesome mannaer, or expose one's family to intense anguish and worry, I'd have thought it politic to take all reasonable precautions. Relying on being British, or living in a house with two Americans in the middle of Baghdad proper and driving to work alone in a private, unarmoured SUV is not sensible by any stretch of the imagination. I too wish to see him returned unharmed and remain optimistic he will do so at this point. Perhaps his captors have turned a corner and realised the value of a live hostage v a dead one. Terry Waite and John McCarthy remain the oasis in a desert of despair where kidnappings are concerned; so long as there's hope, he has a chance.

(28.9.04 16:31) Luda: Quite. Difficult, almost possible set of emotions to imagine, yet how else could one feel? Much as I'd like to think otherwise, I can't help feeling that Bigley's desire for big money has proved his downfall. Sure, like all of us who ventured to Iraq, there was a degree of altruism, of wanting to contribute to getting the country back on its feet. But nobody in the private sector has headed out there without the carrot of a huge pot of gold being somewhere in mind, either.

Lisa (28.9.04 16:52) Bravo! You provide the unique insight I knew you would be able to shed on this topic. It takes a great journalist to be able to view the traditional media attention for something quite a bit more profound. As with everyone else, I am hoping for the release of Mr. Bigley as well as some relief from the kidnappings we are seeing in Iraq. As you've said, there is another side of the coin than "catching the terrorists" and that is "precaution". Thanks!

(28.9.04 17:01) Lisa: Thank you for the compliment. in fairness, its not the news media's job to proffer opinion, just the facts. This is very much my own personal opinion and doesn't of course detract from the gravity of the situation, nor lesson the horror or wrong-doing of those holding Mr Bigley hostage. I feel it's important though that Mr Bigley's kidnapping is seen for what it is - something that could possibly have been avoided - rather than a chance occurrence.

(28.9.04 18:18) As serious as the subject matter is (I too am checking the news more regularly to see of his status), I took one look at the self portrait and burst in to laughter - you look like you're telling yourself what position you want yourself in, Austin Powers stylee.. :-D Keith (Sorry for lowering the tone..)

(28.9.04 18:52) Keith: thanks for that, you just made me laugh out loud, too! Actually, I was trying out my new weapon. Since I was the only person in the vehicle not armed, I wanted to try out my new "Paddington Hard Stare" in case I needed to stare any potential insurgents down. It would have worked brilliantly had I but remembered to remove my sunnies first!

gemmak / Website (28.9.04 18:57) Along with most others I have been following the plight of Mr Bigley and hoping for his safe return. The terror suffered by him and the fear of his family is unimaginable to me but your insight into the reality of the situation is informative and fascinating. As much as I don't like too I am forced to consider his actions and decisions as foolhardy in the extreme and motivated by financial gain. Part of me, with my half information had thought of his decision to go to the area at all, big bucks, big risk, and he made his choice. It seems now that perhaps he made some particularly idiotic choices. None of that detracts from the terrible situation he and his family now find themselves in and the fact that this happens at all is horrific, but the reality is that like it or not these things do happen and not to use the available protection seems utter stupidity.

gemmak / Website (28.9.04 19:40) Along with most others I have been following the plight of Mr Bigley and hoping for his safe return. The terror suffered by him and the fear of his family is unimaginable to me but your insight into the reality of the situation is informative and fascinating. As much as I don't like too I am forced to consider his actions and decisions as foolhardy in the extreme and motivated by financial gain. Part of me, with my half information had thought of his decision to go to the area at all, big bucks, big risk, and he made his choice. It seems now that perhaps he made some particularly idiotic choices. None of that detracts from the terrible situation he and his family now find themselves in and the fact that this happens at all is horrific, but the reality is that like it or not these things do happen and not to use the available protection seems utter stupidity.

(28.9.04 23:04) I think he should have taken the protection that was available - I'm really not sure why he didn't, but he didn't. What I find interesting is the campaign that his family are running which has taken him beyond the level of "hostage" to a person - almost like John McCarthy - I think that may keep him alive longer. By the way, your blog is still behaving very oddly - or 20six is still behaving very oddly - for some reason your posts keep appearing. It's like there's some bot inside that just keeps pushing them out - I saw this early today and didn't have time to comment and was going to come back and then it appeared again this evening - maybe you should have a word with the tech people if you can find them, that is.

(28.9.04 23:48) As usual, excellent writing, and striking photography. I'm embarrassed to say that I've not kept up with the news and wasn't aware of the risks he had taken. 'Lad

(29.9.04 00:13) Gemma: Echo in HERE? in Here? in here?! Agreed, try as I might I can't begin to understand his thinking. Given his experience of working in the Middle East prior to taking up the post in Baghdad, it makes less sense than ever. Perhaps he honestly was that pragmatic, relying on his Britishness to get him through. Another security guard said companies without the highest security in place were negligent and culpable. "If it's a Middle Eastern company he was working for (it was), you can forget it; they just don't take security seriously enough" That though doesn't take into account Bigley's own assessment of the situation. Personally, had it been me in his shoes and my employers had taken such a seemingly lackasdaisical attitude to my well-being, I'd have bugged out myself. All the cash in the world ain't no use to you if you're not around to spend it. Heather: Hello, don't see you round here much these days. Nice of you to stop by. Agreed, his value has to have increased given the publicity and it's telling how his captors have behaved since taking him to custody, breaking the pattern of previous kidnappings. Only time will show just how effective has been the campaign to keep him alive, although for all that, I find his brother's attempts to blame Blair and anybody else within range bizarre. His brother's plight is nobody's fault but Ken Bigley's. And having a dig at tech support are we?! Back in the knife drawer, Miss Sharp - they might strike when you're not looking and take your blog over if you upset them! Sillylad: Thank you, sir - for the kind comments and the confectionery. Most kind.

(29.9.04 01:04) I agree wholeheartedly, Blackrat. In my opinion, someone w/ children has no right to put themselves in that situation, barring soldiers or peace keepers or doctors, etc.

gemmak / Website (29.9.04 09:28) Echo? echo? ech..... damn, that keeps happening here, I refuse to believe I'm pressing the button too often! Relying on hid 'Britishness' is craft stupidity, I begin to wonder if in actual fact he made any real assesment of his own security, if he did it is not evident! My fear is this will keep happening, too many people seem to see a big salary and turn a blind eye to the fact that the remuneration on offer is attractive because of the environment in which they will be working. You get owt for nowt as they say. I promise, one press only! )

(29.9.04 10:36) kvitsch: Difficult call that one, hon. I accept your view, and I suppose there is a degree of selfish intent on accepting work which puts one in harm's way. For my own part, I know no other way of earning a living - journalism and photo-journalism are all that I know and given the precarious nature of freelancing, I take work where I can find it. My own assignment to Baghdad caused me a lot of heart searching but ultimately, a combination of professional pride, a desire to be involved and yes, the financial rewards, all conspired to make the decision to go inevitable. The only proviso I insist on with anything like that is a massive life assurance policy over and above anything I have myself, funded by my employers to take care of my wife and daughter should the worst happen. Soldiers are sent there; doctors are required. Following on from that, so too are journalists - in a democracy, it's vital that news gets out from the scene to keep the world abreast of what's being done in its peoples' name. Gemma: ;-)

(29.9.04 11:40) GemmaK - it's a quirk with 20six that instead of taking you to a page that says "Your comment has been successfully posted, click here to return to the page", it instead just takes you to the page - thus, if you refresh the page it re-posts the data - and the same happens if you press "Back" too. My solution is to post a comment, then press the "back to entries" button and click in the comments again. Keith (Not elegant, but there you go)

(29.9.04 12:20) Really intriguing piece, my one concern with the whole situation is if we do agree a deal with the extremists, how will that affect relations with the US, considering the deaths of the other two US hostages. The reports concerning the Italian hostages also weigh up some interesting questions (some were killed last week, some women have reportedly been spared this week)- how does one weigh up one person's life against another's? If Ken Bigley is freed, what is to stop extremists resorting to this tactic time and time again?

(29.9.04 12:43) Keith: I'm obliged, thanks for that. Nutkin: Quite simply, there's is no way on earth we can negotiate with the extremists for his release - not in terms of offering them anything, anyway. Call on them to show mercy, threated, cajole but in no way offer anything or even suggest a quid pro quo. To do so would be fatal for the future safety of everybody in war zones or areas of conflict. Innocent civillians are not pawns. Brutal perhaps but the rule is, priceless to family and friends, anbsolutely worthless as collateral where terrorists are concerned. Kill them, abuse them, torture them and it will just increase the weight of hatred and eventual penalty for those responsible.

Mukiwa (29.9.04 13:59) Interesting post Ratty. Disregarding any feelings of sympathy for Bigley which I of course harbour, I'm not sure if it's complacence which drove him to make the decisions he did. He probably felt that the militants would respect the fact that he was distancing himself from the fortified compounds and in so doing, declaring he was not in agreement with occupation by allied forces? Naivety? Financial greed? Who knows what clouded his judgement but it must surely qualify as one of the most barbaric and traumatic ways to die. Having been in a couple of hairy situations myself, more through accident than design, it encourages you to undertake any and every precaution. I can't see how a diplomatic situation can be reached without a chance of stance on the part of the UK government. At the end of the day, harsh as it sounds, it is one life and such are the casualties of war, I imagine that while the government will do what they can, that in itself is not a lot.

(29.9.04 14:07) Mukiwa: Well said, fella. As I mentioned in my post, I think he was naive in the extreme if he thought that simply by distancing himself from the allied forces he would be seen as neutral. My own experience there (and evidently, he's far better acquainted with the region than I was before departure) showed me that nobody of none-Iraqi origin is seen as neutral by those with nefarious deeds in mind. This conflict has been unusual from journalists' perspectives for being the first in which we seem to be viewed as players by those intent on destabilising the country. In every previous conflict, almost without exception, journalists have been regarded as neutral and left alone by forces on either side. Iraq has changed all that, to the degree where many journalists are now debating the unprecedented step of arming themselves as a form of last-ditch protection. That would surely be the slipperiest of slopes, for no person with a weapon can be regarded as a neutral or non combatant in a war zone.

Mukiwa (29.9.04 15:18) As I said, complacence. You are right in saying that this war has rewritten a few rules, not least the furore over newspaper policies of not providing life cover for freelancers. Many freelancers have gone in to shoot without life assurance because they simply couldn't afford not to cover the story and couldn't afford the astronomical costs of covering themselves. Journalists carrying firearms? That would be nothing short of catastrophe.

(29.9.04 15:35) Mukiwa: This war has seen the rule book go straight out the window and will no doubt see a massive shift in strategy in terms of how future conflicts are conducted. Personally, there is no way I would have even considered boarding the plane without the knowledge that the life assurance policy arranged by my agency was in place. I can understand the problem in terms of premium but simply, no insurance, no coverage. No picture, no story is worth getting killed over and leaving your family penniless. Fully in agreement regarding the issue of us being armed but this, in Washington Post from March 1, 2004 makes sobering reading... As violence continues to plague postwar Iraq, American journalists there say they have never been more nervous about their safety. Since major combat operations ended in April, six deaths and a number of injuries and close calls among news staffers have prompted a soul-searching debate over whether they, or their bodyguards, should carry guns. There is a long tradition in the news business that journalists, like Red Cross workers, should be seen as unaligned observers with no weapons or agenda. That tradition is being sorely tested, journalists say, in Iraq, where insurgents routinely target Americans in shootings and bombings in an effort to undermine the occupying force. In past conflicts, from World War II to Vietnam to the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year, most journalists did not carry guns -- in part because most of them traveled with and were protected by American troops. But the dangers of postwar Iraq are so random and so pervasive that questions about security have become life-and-death decisions. In interviews with staff members at nearly a dozen news organizations, none said they approved of reporters and photographers carrying guns. But there are periodic debates about such matters as whether to use armored vehicles, which are more conspicuous even though unmarked, or conventional cars. The major television networks, which must move crew members and their equipment to cover stories, have signed with expensive security firms that provide squadrons of armed guards. Sad times indeed.

(29.9.04 18:00) Loved the Paddington stare. Not sure if Bigley is greedy or stupid, or both. Did he watch too many Bruce Willis films and get deluded or did he begrudge the expenses involved in staying safe? I wonder if he'll be billed for the expenses incurred in recovering him from the situation? I have immense respect and admiration for you and all the journalists, medics and support staff who put themselves at risk in such situations, and for their families. Being supportive of a parent/partner/sibling/child who chooses to work in such a field, must be difficult at times. But, on the other hand, how can you not be supportive of a loved one's deciscion? As for arming journalists, just because this war seems to operate without rules, doesn't mean we should abandon the principles which we are, supposedly, fighting for. (And I use the term 'we' loosely.) But I don't see why there should be a problem with armoured vehicles, that isn't agression, it's protective, and doesn't that take us back to the Bigley debate over how many security precautions are considered sane?

Mukiwa (29.9.04 18:17) I don't see the point of bullet by bullet coverage to be completely honest. I remember Sky having nothing but war in their eight screen video window accessible by a link off the red button called 'war'. Each of the eight screen video windows held nothing but war footage. What does that say about our society or moreover, what does it say about broadcasters who are willing to push these boundaries of taste, acceptability and ratings? Shouldn't be surprised, Sky is red top trash. To the reporters and photographers in the field, it means there is more 'media space' to fill to maintain a foothold in the ratings so they are forced to take greater risks to (ironically) survive and provide stories of 'value'. I struggle to accept that the viewing public has such a voracious appetite for this type of imagery, I really do. There are no stories in war but suffering and tragedy. I've not heard much about peace lately. As Einstein said As long as there are men, there will be wars. He was right.

(29.9.04 18:37) Tallis: Thank you! And I'm in agreement with you all the way. If Bigley is recovered alive, as I'm beginning to believe he might be, it raises all sorts of questions over whether or not he deserves to foot some of the bill. I'm not sure that it's the right thing to do, but he must accept the resonsibility for what's happened to him as being of his own making. The cost of this war is immense to us in fiscal terms and things like this just ramp the cost up ever further. Mukiwa: Me neither. I had a really interesting discussion with Sir Peter de la Billiere on this very subject when I met with him last week. There is a massive dichotomy in terms of agenda between those fighting the war, and the journalists covering it and it's a constant battle trying to balance the two conflicting requirements. Journalists and Military commanders make strange bedfellows at the best of times but wars stretch the two to breaking point. In essence, Sir Peter's point is that too often, journalists on the ground and those embeded in military units fail to see the big picture. Think about it. Dragged away from your cosy office and subjected to firefights, bommbings and attacks, they become the centre of your universe. Editors back home want the sensationalised version of the first person voice, bringing the reality of war to the viewer/reader back home and it queers the pitch. The reality, as you know is that wars aren't nice. Violence isn't nice and the battles that constitue a conflict are messy, disorganised, confusing events. You are absolutely on the mark with your comment, "There are no stories in war but suffering and tragedy". The media harps on about individual tragedy, the appalling acts, whilst ignoring the fact that these things are what war is all about. It's not the clean, surgical exercise we're used to seeing courtesy of Sky as the cruise missiles come in with pinpoint accuracy. The reality is gory, tragic, pointless and devastating. Sat in cosy lounges with all their creature comforts, the average viewer is as far removed from what it's all about as it's possible to get. Sir Peter made a simple point about the way in which we don't see the big picture - we're too close. Step back from 2004 and look - this war on terror is no different to any other war. It might last ten months, ten years, or a hundred years, but it won't last forever. It's not so long since the hundred years war, but we don't define ourselves by that one, do we? This one will fade and as Einstein's quote predicts, another enemy will rise up to fill the gap.

jennefer / Website (29.9.04 19:16) While I always enjoy your entries, and this one is no different for you've surely shone a light on details I wasn't aware of... I don't think we're in a position to conclude whether or not Kenneth should be footing his own rescue bill. I personally don't think he'll be rescued alive, going by the track record of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's group. They haven't let anyone leave with their lives. They've all been brutally butchered in a way I would only wish upon the indivduals who've exacted this kind of sentence. Yes, I fully agree he should not have put himself or other people in this vulnerable position; but he did. The CRG is there to protect, and rescue if needed, regardless of a person's stupidity and poor choices. Should we not send aid to third world countries because they are not smart enough or able to make good decisions regarding birth control and as a result continue to increase their population to enormous proportions? Do we ask them to pay the bill? Simplistic comparison perhaps, yet one worth reflection. My point is, let's not get into semantics, and focus on what's happening here. Another man is due to have his head cut off by what I can only assume is a very dull knife if the videos are anything to go by. If I were the family, I wouldn't be too focused on anything except wanting him back, head intact. I could yell at him then for his stupidity if I felt so compelled. Thinking about it now is putting the cart before the horse. Just my views.... Jennefer

Mukiwa (29.9.04 19:33) It's not hard to see how we can be too close, it's the context of our existence. But, you're right, it won't last forever and I hope that peace is found soon but I doubt it.

(29.9.04 20:29) Jennefer: There's something significantly different about the manner in which Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's group have conducted the Bigley affair. In all previous kindnappings, they have acted immediately the deadlines expired. Given that they have not yet executed Bigley despite the significant passage of time he's been in captivity, I remain optimistic. I don't get the distinction we in the west seem to be hung up on over the value of life. Torture is torture, death is death. There are no nice ways to die in war, and it's always the civillians on both sides who suffer the most. That's the nature of war, the politicians know that when they sign the order for the troops to go in. Yet the media make capital out of the beheading of captives like it's something new, something to get excited about. Is it any worse or better than a U.S civilian in Iraq getting his legs blown off through an RPG attack and dying a slow, painful death? Or an Iraqi civillian who dies a slow, agonising death through starvation after being buried under the rubble of her house that a Coalition missile has taken out as 'collateral damage'? You're absolutely right of course - we shouldn't get bogged down in semantics. It doesn't matter how you die in war, the result is the same for most: painful, messy, unpleasant. Soldiers have no choice, but there ain't a civilian in theatre that didn't make a conscious decision to become part of the machine. Let's at least get that in perspective.

(29.9.04 20:29) Mukiwa: Amen to that, fella

(30.9.04 00:51) thanks for that post BR - I really enjoyed it. The word in my mind is 'foolish'. But we all make bad decisions. Mister P was considering working in a similar role as yourself, like Iraq. My thoughts are such that if you have no dependants then the choice is yours, but with children/wife etc. I think you have to think of others and not just your career and the adrenaline. But then I think about how we need firefighters, policemen... blah blah. It's a tough question.

Ian Marshall (30.9.04 05:39) Great collumn as always BR. I think nowadays you really have to consider your own safety if you are going to work anywhere off the beaten track. Some might see a security detail and an armoured 4x4 as mere macho posturing, but personally I`d rather look a little silly than get dragged out of my car at gun point to an uncertain fate. From what I`ve read kidnappings are a huge problem in several third-world countries and any company that sends you out to work in that kind of hostile environment without full backup should be avoided at all costs. My dad was an ad exec working in China and the agency paid to have a medical team on standby 24/7 to evacuate him and the other foreign employees should any major medical problems have developed. Occupational Health and Safety is a major issue domestically, it seems silly to forget about it if you choose to work overseas. For anyone interested I came across a message being circulated around one of the military newsgroups concerning working on a security detail in Iraq. It`s a bit jargon heavy but might give you some insight on the kinds of things the guys with the dark glasses are thinking about http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?command=viewone&id=229&database=DefenseWatch%202004%2edb

(30.9.04 11:20) Does anyone know what work Ken Bigley was doing?

(30.9.04 11:30) Roach: Thank you for the kind words - and another well thought out and considered comment. What changed Mister P's mind? Would you have let him go? Yeah, it was tough, but as I said in an earlier comment, wife and dependent child or not, I felt compelled to go. Emotional upheaval to my wife and daughter aside, my agency had made suitable arrangements to ensure my family would not have suffered should I have been killed or seriously wounded. I'm lucky in that my wife accepts my work without complaint provided I don't expose myself to unnecessary risk. Journalists might not seem like a vital part of the machine, but without us, the war goes unreported and military largesse is left unchecked. You're right, it's a tough question which everyone will have a different answer to. Ian: Thank you for stopping by and commenting - and for that link which I hadn't seen before. Fascinating stuff and from the dates and content, I'm pretty certain that the writer is one of the 8 private security contractors working for Blackwater security who was engaged in the firefight defending the CPA compound in Al Najaf last April.

(30.9.04 11:32) cha0tic: The FCO have stated only that Mr Bigley was a civil engineer working in Baghdad on behlaf of Gulf Supplies and Commercial Services, a UAE-based general services and construction contractor. That's all the information I have, unless somebody else can assist?

(30.9.04 11:55) A very difficult and emotionally-charged news story gets thrown into an superbly-written spotlight. Let's hope Ken is returned safely. Thanks for the considered insight into a terrible situation

(30.9.04 12:06) John: Thanks - and for the sweetie, much appreciated. Nice to see you here - hope the new project's going well, fella.

(30.9.04 12:14) Ahhh. The reason I ask is that if he was working on a hospital or school. He may have thought of himself as one of the 'good guys' & not at risk from abduction. If you see what I mean?

(30.9.04 20:19) cha0tic: I do, although it's still foolhardy in the extreme. Sadly, to stay alive in Baghdad as a non-Arab, one can't afford to take anything for granted, and every Iraqi civillian is a potential threat. The extremists see all westerners as potential hostages, regardless of how pro-Iraq they are. It's a dangerous place to be and disregarding the risks is the quickest route to getting oneself killed.

(1.10.04 00:02) whoa there BR. I frowned A LOt when I read that! "my agency had made suitable arrangements to ensure my family would not have suffered should I have been killed or seriously wounded" that is not even a factor in my argument. they need you much more than they need money or security. but i do hear what you are saying about the importance of journalists. someone has to do it. I would never stop mister P from doing what he wants and if he decides to do it then i will probably have my say and then shut up. But I think it could affect our relationship. If I feel he is choosing his career and the buzz of being in a war situ over and above what we have together I would have to question my commitment to the relationship too. If I feel that he is prepared to say no and stay for me, then i would probably tell him to go if he wants it that bad. I think there's a word for this, but i can't find it in my brain. Difficult? Obtuse?

(12.10.04 02:16) sadly the news tells us that Mr Bigley was executed a few days ago. There is some talk of an escape plan gone wrong???

(12.10.04 02:19) sadly the news tells us that Mr Bigley was executed a few days ago. There is some talk of an escape plan gone wrong???

noodlum (22.10.04 18:17) morethanluck: yes, I heard that he escaped too. He must have stuck out like a sore thumb while on the run, but apparently he managed about 12 hours of freedom before his demise, according to reports....

Name:	Email:
Website:	Email me when further comments are posted Save information (cookie)
Insert emoticons

powered by
20six.co.uk