When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.
Share this page Richard Porter Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience.
As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th.
We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had.
We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.
As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracyResponse to Client Request II ACC September 24, Response to Client Request II As requested, the accounting team has analyzed the client’s situation to determine the impact this lawsuit will have.
While the team waits for the client’s attorney to assess the likelihood of a loss in this lawsuit, the team has provided a thorough. The final regulations clarify the employment tax obligations of a third party (payor) where the third party enters into a service agreement with an employer to pay wages to employees of the employer and take on other employment tax responsibilities of the employer.
European Commission - Press Release details page - European Commission MEMO Brussels, 15 April See also STATEMENT/14/ A. Background, main elements and costs/benefits of the reform 1.
What is MiFID and why was it reviewed only four years after its entry into force? MiFID is the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Directive /39/EC1).  See Dennis Lee's The Alternative, exhibit 1B. Ms. D eputy Attorney General sent Dennis the evidence that she needed to make the consumer protection charge stick.
Dennis was marketing his heat pump under his Systems for Savings plan, where the customer only . RESPONSE TO CLIENT REQUEST II 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Client FROM: Consulting Firm - Team A DATE: March 12, SUBJECT: Pending Lawsuit Effects This memo elaborates on the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) Codification that details how loss and gain contingencies will be reported and the standards for %(3).
Response to Client Request II William Campana, Sandra Fejzic, Amanda Height, and Amin Molidina, ACC November 5, Leslie Crews This preview has intentionally blurred sections.
Sign up to view the full version.