The BBC World Services' ATTACK-DOG reporter NAVIN SINGH KHADKA failed in his attempt to have Chris KNOCKED OVER by a car in a pitch dark car-park in Hampshire in February 2016. Despite writing to the offender Mr Khadka, his supervisor and the then Head of BBC World Service, Ms Unsworth, not one of them has acknowledged admitted to this - despite there being indisputable evidence on the film taken by Mr Khadka's cameraman. At the time, Mr Chadwell was ill, his balance and coordination not good, thanks to considerable pain and numb feet with little feeling beyond severe pain. In the past he was a rugged figure, having led numerous scientific expeditions in the Himalaya. He had also represented his school First XIs at football (where he was goal-keeper) and Cricket (where he was arguably the finest close-catcher in the County for his age); several members of both teams represented the county. Nowadays, he does not fall well and even a modest bump by a car would have knocked him down and potentially caused major harm, requiring a period in hospital.  Chris Chadwell fell, head first onto the concrete drive-way, after misjudging mounting his bicycle - fortunately, his youngest son was at home, in his room and heard something; Chris was trapped, unable to move. His coordination and judgement is not what it was - so not cut-out to have to avoid been reversed into in dark car-parks. You may be thinking why is there an image above of an injured Chris, when he managed to escape injury - well this is trick journalists (incl. NAVIN SINGH KHADKA) use to create a misleading impression when the photo is either false or not directly-related to the article! Chris was due to deliver a lecture on Nepal to a horticultural society (with a collection at the end to raise funds for 'The Britain-Nepal Medical Trust') in a village hall in rural Hampshire. Just as I was due to begin my introduction to my digital presentation, an anxious hall caretaker, came up to me, saying that two men had been lurking outside; they wished to speak to Chris Chadwell. I thought this was some sort of practical joke (in the audience was someone I had been to University with, whom I invited to attend having secured them a place on the University of Southampton Ladakh Expedition as we graduated in 1980 - perhaps they were involved in some way). So I agreed to go outside into the darkness (no street lights anywhere near to the hall) to investigate. Suddenly there was a bright light (I could not make out the cameraman) and a person from the Indian sub-continent saying "Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed!" I had done no such thing. I was bombarded with various statements, mostly false and irrelevant plus some accusations. We moved away from the Hall, fully into the car-park. Most of the questions insulted my intelligence and I felt fully entitled to walk away but, thinking on my feet (I had never been 'door-stepped before'), concluded, that this would have no doubt been twisted into it appearing I had something to hide! Then, with me facing my interrogator and the cameraman, concentrating upon the questions which were being fired at me and wondering how my responses might subsequently be 'twisted', I noticed in the corner of my eye, that a car was reversing into me! Mr Khadka and the cameraman would have had a clear view, yet they did not warn me! Why not? Fortunately, I was able to, just, take evasive action. Needless to say, I was unhappy about being treated in this dangerous way. Clearly, the BBC could not care less - Ms Unsworth's response was to cover-up by pronouncing how professional Mr Khadka had been. What is it like to be 'door-stepped and interrogated'? An unpleasant and frustrating experience, compounded by me having been seriously ill for several years. For months after, I kept looking out as I arrived at venues, imaging I would be door-stepped again! My feet were (as is still the case) numb, which impacts upon my balance, meaning I can easily fall. When it is dark, I cannot judge distances well, so am at greater risk. I was very weak and would react slowly, being unable to 'break' any fall. Let me explain the circumstances. I had been booked to speak to a society in Hampshire in January 2016; unfortunately, I gave the date and society details on my web-site, allowing Mr Khadka, BBC World Service Correspondent, to turn up unannounced with a cameraman. I had completed setting up my equipment and had a few minutes been my digital presentation was to start, so was chatting to various members of the audience, who were especially interested in the topic, which was Nepal. After completing the talk, I asked for donations to 'The Britain-Nepal Medical Trust', in light of the Nepal Earthquake the previous year - this is a charity which I have help raise not insignificant amounts for, over quite a number of years. It enjoys a sound reputation (Sir Christian Bonington, the famous mountaineer and nobody's fool, endorses them in their fliers, see: https://sites.google.com/a/shpa.org.uk/main/britain-nepal-medical-trust [scroll down to bottom to see what he has to say]) and is established in Nepal, so it makes sense to me to provide additional funds for them, rather than an outside agency - with all the complications and hold-ups this brings. Anyhow, the Caretaker came up to me, very concerned that two unidentified men had been 'lurking' outside the hall for some time. Apparently, they wished to speak with Chris Chadwell. I wondered if this was some sort of practical joke? As the caretaker was anxious, I agreed, at an inconvenient moment, to go and find out what was going on. I had absolutely no idea who they were. Mr Khadka had not asked me to be interviewed. As I walked out of the hall, towards the dark car-park, a light suddenly appeared, with a person with a microphone, saying "thanks for agreeing to be interviewed"! The was a lie, deliberately misleading. I was somewhat taken aback, with my initial reaction being to decline but I was able to "think on my feet" sufficiently to decide that if I did this, I would be filmed doing so, which would be presented as an indication of "guilt"/"wrong-doing". So I carried on. There followed a number of pre-rehearsed pronouncements, some accurate, some incorrect, some completely irrelevant to me, referring to Myanmar and Bangladesh. This is a tried & tested tactic of Mr Khadka, within his articles. I have never been to Myanmar and know nobody there. I have only passed through Bangladesh in terms of taking connecting flights to Kathmandu; I know nobody in Bangladesh - seed of Bangladeshi plants would be of no interest to me, as it is a non-Himalayan, sub-tropical country. I am only interested in seed, the resultant plants raised from, such seed, should prove hardy in British gardens. Mr Khadka, in a bullying style, made a number of false claims during his interrogation of me, which I knew to be false - AFTER ALL, I KNOW CONSIDERABLY MORE ABOUT EXPEDITIONS TO THE HIMALAYA AND SEED COLLECTION THAN HE DOES. IN FACT HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT AND AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, HAS NEVER UNDERTAKEN TREKS AT HIGHER ELEVATIONS (IN FACT, DESPITE BEING NEPALESE, THOUGH PRESUMABLY HE WAS NOT BORN IN A MOUNTAIN VILLAGE? HE HAD TO BE HELICOPTERED OUT, SUPPOSEDLY SUFFERING FROM OEDEMA, WHEN SENT IN TO INVESTIGATE THE PLIGHT OF HIGH-ALTITUDE PORTERS IN NEPAL. IN MOST CASES, SUCH A SITUTAION DEVELOPS DUE TO INCOMPETENCE AND LACK OF EXPERIENCE, NO DOUBT CAUSED BY A LACK OF ACCLIMATISATION. WHEN I WAS DOOR-STEPPED, HE APPEARED, RATHER ON THE 'CHUNKY' SIDE. PERHAPS BEING OVER-WEIGHT WAS A CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR IN HIS FAILURE TO REPORT ON WHAT HE WAS PAID TO DO? I was, albeit a long time ago, a police officer and have on occasion been interviewed by journalists, so was not unduly nervous. However, given my health problems and difficulty in judging my steps in the dark, I was concerned about my safety. I have been lecturing since 1984 and am accustomed to observing members of the audience reversing in an unsafe fashion - many are getting on in age, with their eye-sight not what it was. At one point, facing Mr Khadka and the cameraman, when I, thankfully, caught a car reversing in my direction, managing to move out the way, just in time. In the past, I was young and strong and even if I had been bumped slightly, could probably have stood my ground or fallen safely (I was a First XI goalkeeper and county-standard close-up fielder, accustomed to diving) but the situation is different now - even the slightest bump would have knocked me down, in all probability causing serious harm. The medical condition I have means healing is difficult. Neither Mr Khadka nor the cameraman, said a word. Are BBC staff not given 'Health & Safety' training? Clearly not. Did they apologise? No, after all, they were pursuing this 'child-murderer' guilty of the most heinous of crimes, so my safety did not matter.... Mr Khadka claimed (I would not trust that what he said was actually truthful) that 'the authorities' in assorted countries, never gave permission to collect seed. That is not true. The 'officials' would not have been in place long, so how could they or he know. Mr Khadka gets away by either not naming the official or because of being with the BBC, he may well get a response, when us mortals, are completely ignored. ALL reporters attempt to 'confront' those they have picked on, hoping that a response may be "out-of-place" or they can "twist" the wording to sound incriminating. Even if they do not downright lie, they 'insinuate'. I have been told that what Mr Khadka claims someone has said and what the actually said, are often rather different.....No doubt the BBC view this as first-class reporting. Should I have been 'door-stepped' in the first place? Do BBC journalists act as 'a law unto themselves'? NO. According to the BBC's 'Editorial Guidelines' (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/privacy/doorstepping), it grandly states that Doorstepping..."often involves an infringement of privacy and should normally be a last resort". What a joke! Then, "Any proposal to doorstep.... where we have tried to make an appointment for an interview with the individual .... must be approved by a senior editorial figure, or for independents, by the commissioning editor.. Approval will normally only be given when there is evidence of crime or significant wrongdoing and for one, or more of the following reasons: # the subject of a doorstep has failed to respond to repeated requests for interview in connection with the wrongdoing alleged. UNTRUE. # a request for an interview has been repeatedly refused withouit good reason and substantial allegations of wrongdoing have been avoided. UNTRUE. # there is a history of failure to respond to interview requests or refusal to be interviewed. UNTRUE. Continuing, "Proposals for doorstepping should be proportionate to any wrongdoing. Consideration should be given to the safety of production staff (BUT OBVIOUSLY, NO CONSIDERATION OF THE SAFETY OF THOSE BEING INTERVIEWED!!!!). Mr Khadka did not seek or receive the approval of a senior editorial figure!! Presumably he considered himself 'senior'. Being a lowly correspondent does not sound senior to me.... So the BBC have impressive sounding guidelines but pays no attention to them. I SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DOORSTEPPED IN THE FIRST PLACE! What is it like to be almost knocked over when being 'interviewed' without permission, in a very dark car-part, in a village with no street lights? I was very unhappy at how I was treated. After to 'interview' ended, I then had to hurry back into the hall (by then running late), composing myself to deliver my lecture. I had forgotten to bring some props which I normally use to introduce, in a humorous way, my talk. Despite what I had been through - being the first time in my life that I have been doorstepped - I managed to deliver a good presentation, which speaks volumes of my professionalism, no thanks to the BBC. There was a collection for The Britain-Nepal Medical Trust after my lecture, which raised £82.50 - a decent amount which was sent to their UK Secretary. When spent in Nepal this is a meaningful amount. Mr Khadka, I understand, hails from Nepal. I wonder how much time and effort Mr Khadka (or the BBC as a whole) has devoted to raising for Nepal since the 2015 Earthquake? They have far more pressing matters to pursue and pay for such as troubling Chris Chadwell... Each year I deliver a number of lectures where I waive my lecture fee, asking for a donation to The Britain-Nepal Medical Trust instead. On this occasion, I was paid £75 and my travel expenses covered. I do not drive, so travel to lectures by public transport. I had left home at 1520hrs, returning home, via Winchester (a lift from the venue by a member of the society I spoke to), Basingstoke, Reading & Slough, arriving at 0030hrs - that made 9 hours. These timings are fairly typical. I must prepare for a lecture, which takes a minimum of an hour (and if a newish lecture, not just hours but days). So let us add, on average 11 hours per lecture, making £6.80/hour - what a princely sum. I wonder much Mr Khadka and his cameraman received for their dirty-work? I am on a cocktail of medication, taking a strong painkiller. I use internal adrenalin to see me through my lectures but on the journey home, I wilt. On several occasions it has taken every ounce of physical and mental strength to not collapse at railway stations. My small rucksack weighs about 10kg, which I often struggle with due to my health. It is a great help at Slough station that there are lifts to all platforms (built for 2012 Olympics) as I struggle to get up footbridges. I have devoted my life to the study, cultivation and conservation of Himalayan flora - almost all of it done for no payment whatsoever. Is there any point in making a formal complaint to the BBC, unless you have the resources to take them to court? I did make a brief on-line complaint, entitled, 'Distressed at conduct of BBC World Service Reporter'. I then made a more formal written complaint (there was no means of sending a lengthy complaint by e-mail, which appears intentional) to the Director, BBC World Service, Francesca Unsworth, who has been in the news of late, see: Cliff Richard case: BBC had 'strong reasons' to name singer - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43892359; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/25/cliff-richard-top-police-officer-thought-the-evidence-not-so-strong; https://inforrm.org/2018/04/24/case-report-sir-cliff-richard-v-bbc-day-8-editor-bbc-could-have-faced-criticism-for-not-reporting-investigation-media-lawyer/ (this is the most important); http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/keith-vaz-says-bbc-acted-entirely-properly-coverage-cliff-richard-investigation/ (what a joke to have a figure like Mr Vaz pronouncing on what is proper behaviour). The BBC's director of news and current affairs has said there were "strong reasons" to name Sir Cliff Richard during a police inquiry into him. Fran Unsworth told the High Court that while the story would cause "distress" to Sir Cliff, it was "in the public interest." Seems like this is a "pat" response/excuse i.e. "being in the public interest" and that a lot of people were concerned. WHAT UTTER TOSH. BUT SUPPOSING WE ACCEPT MS UNSWORTH'S REASONING, IF COLLECTING SEED (WHICH EDINBURGH EXPEDITIONS AND OTHERS WERE DOING ANYHOW) DOES ACTUALLY DAMAGE THE ENVIRONMENT (I STILL WISH FOR SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN HOW AND AFTER ALL, HOW WOULD 'OFFICIALS' IN NEPAL OR INDIA ACTUALLY KNOW, SINCE THEY HAVE NO RELEVANT EXPERTISE OR EXPERIENCE), WHY ARE THEY NOT INTERESTED IN REPORTING ON ACTIVITIES WHICH SELF-EVIDENTLY CAUSE DAMAGE OF A MAJOR NATURE. I.E. PLANTS OVER-PRODUCE SEED, WITH ONLY A SMALL FRACTION EVER GERMINATING, SO HOW CAN TAKING A VERY LITTLE CAUSE HARM. MS UNSWORTH IGNORE MY COMPLAINTS OF NEARLY BEING KNOCKED DOWN BY A CAR. SHE FAILED TO APOLOGISE ON BEHALF OF THE BBC. I ALSO REQUESTED THATA SHE GET MR KHADKA TO WRITE A LETTER OF APOLOGY TO THE CARETAKER OF THE HALL, WHO HAD BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THE UNKNOWN MEN LURKING OUTSIDE THE HALL. SHE KNEW FULL WELL THAT THE BBC GUIDELINES ABOUT DOOR-STEPPING HAD NOT BE ADHERED TO, INDEED MR KHADKA HAD NO GROUNDS TO DOOR-STEP ME IN THE FIRST PLACE. HER RESPONSE WAS MISLEADING AND INCLUDED LIES. SHE WAS AWARE THAT BY "COVERING HIS BACK", MR KHADKA'S ARTICLE WOULD LEAVE AN INDELIBLE STAIN ON MY CHARACTER. AN ON-LINE ARTICLE IS PERMANENTAND BECAUSE OF BBC ENSURING THEIR ARTICLE APPEAR AT OR NEAR THE TOP OF THE FIRST PAGE OF GOOGLE SEARCHES ETC., THE DAMAGE WILL CONTINUE INDEFINITELY, LONG AFTER I AM DEAD. OF COURSE THE BBC KNOW'S FULL WAY THAT THEY ARE INTIMIDATING AND NOBODY'S LIKE CHRIS CHADWELL, DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDS TO HIRE A BARRISTER! I WAS UNCMFORTABLE WITH MS UNSWORTH'S RESPONSE AT THE TIME. I DECIDED THAT IT WAS POINTLESS IN COMPALINING TO THE BBC's DIRECTOR-GENERAL, AS I WAS CERTAIN HE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY COVER THE BACKS OF BOTH MS UNSWORTH AND MR KHADKA... SUCH IS THE WAY OF THE WORLD AND IF I DID, I WAS RISKING SERIOUS REPURCUSHIONS. No apology was forthcoming from the BBC for putting me at risk. What could I do? If anyone reading this has any suggestions, do get in touch. Why are senior and junior staff at the BBC allowed to routinely mislead and downright lie? What can I do about this. I am not important enough. “In a nutshell, it is Sir Cliff’s case that the BBC’s coverage of the search was an invasion – indeed a very serious invasion – of his privacy for which there was no lawful justification,” Rushbrooke told the judge. See: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/dispute-over-bbc-coverage-of-police-raid-on-sir-cliff-richards-home-set-for-trial/. I FEEL MUCH THE SAME BUT OF COURSE I AM NOT A FAMOUS PERSON AND THE INVASION OF PRIVACY NOT AS SERIOS BUT THE PRINCIPLE REMAINS THE SAME. AND I HAVE ONLY JUST THOUGHT ABOUT IT, HAVING THE BBC WORLD SERVICE ARTICLE SO PROMINENT ON-LINE (THIS IS WHAT APPEARS WHEN I TYPE IN CHRIS CHADWELL INTO A GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35699297). Can we trust the "quotes" BBC journalists use in their articles? No. They twist them or are selective, after all they are after sensationalist, tabloid-level (which is the level BBC has sunk to) sentences/head-lines. Can we trust the BBC at all? We, collectively in the UK, consider ourselves 'superior' to the peoples of other countries. We judge our institutions to be of a higher quality, more professional, fairer and independent. I used to think highly of the BBC but no more. It is fair to observe most countries media are even worse but if we think we lead the world in truth and honesty, then major changes need to take place. The BBC was well aware when the decided to hire the Bully, Navin Singh Khadka, Environment Reporter for BBC World Service, what they would get. When I wrote to Ms Unsworth, I raised the issue of the serious flaws in Mr Khadka's articles. Does he have any relevant training or qualifications (I am sure he would have bragged about them, if he had). Why not go through some of his previous articles as evidence, see: |