By Colombo Telegraph –

“What the hell can Sri Lanka do if the UN staffers did not want to carry out their job? asks Lucien Rajakarunanayake, Director, Policy Research & Information (PIRU), Presidential Secretariat.

That is just one question, the other important one is what the hell were they doing, if  without reporting any so-called or alleged intimidations to Ban Ki-moon and  so many of his other officers and associates in the UN, and other UN bodies,  who were frequent visitors to Sri Lanka at the time?   Or even reveal these soon after they left the turns of duty in Sri Lanka? Why the hell did they not tell this story about themselves to the Darusman trio who were on a so-called fact finding probe about Sri Lanka’s defeat of terrorism for the same Ban Ki-moon?”  Lucien Rajakarunanayake further says.

Writing to Isalnd he says; “where are all these UN staffers now? Do they still hold the same positions or have they been promoted. If so it a payoff for being silent all this while, or is it a recognition of the good they did for themselves, as they now claim,  of making sure of their promotions by being silent? But how can Sri Lanka be blamed for these faults of the UN staffers in Colombo?”

We below reproduce his article in Full;

Who’s the hero in the BBC scandal? Come on, how do you get a hero in scandal? Do you mean the villain of the piece?

No, I mean the hero…we know that the main villain is the late Jimmy Saville, – Sir Jimmy, with knighthoods from the Queen of England and the Pope in Rome. How can you get a hero in a scandal as big as this – all about paedophilia, with two persons arrested already and police inquiries on 200 plus allegations?

Well it might surprise you, but one can have heroes even in such situations. There can be people who stand above others even in what must have been a hell hole of paedophilia and widespread child abuse.

They must be having to a lot of internal hunting to find such a hero in Bush House and other locations, especially when it now appears very clear that a helluva a lot of Jimmy Saville’s child abuse took place within the studios and other rooms of the BBC.  The hunt won’t be easy with his former colleagues, fellow paedophiles, and others who looked the other way when all of this took place, trying to hide themselves from the multiple probes that are now on.

Are you getting at this guy who resigned his top post in the BBC – the Director General, is it? Is he the great hero of the scandal?

If you mean George Entwistle, who was Director General for less than two months, you’ve got it all wrong. He appears to have done as well as Jimmy Saville from this scandal, looking at the huge payout of 1.3 million sterling that he walked away with. It’s not a bad price to get for a bow out, and have the Chair of the BBC Trust, Chris Patten stand beside him and say what a great job he has done.

But wasn’t that the proper thing for him to do in the face of such a big scandal that has rocked the BBC in all its ninety years of broadcasting, with that self-made and highly overrated image of trustworthiness and good reporting, transparency and accountability, tut, tut, tut..

It may look the right thing at first sight, but the truth is different. In fact it stinks even more than Jimmy Saville…

Now why do you say that?

Because, he did not throw in the towel with a great handshake because of Jimmy Saville’s paedophilia in and through the BBC, but because the BBC’s “flagship” programme “Newsnight”, that was once prevented from airing some uncomfortable facts about Saville, which he claimed he knew nothing about, had in a recent edition a made an allusion to a prominent Conservative politician about paedophilia.

You mean he did not resign because of what Jimmy Saville and his fellow “peodos” had done to children at the BBC, and other places such as children’s hospitals, but only because of a UK politician being drawn into the ugly picture?

Yes, wrongly drawn into it; very wrong indeed. “Newsnight” had quoted a former victim of child abuse who had not named, but apparently alluded to Tory peer Lord McAlpine, a close friend of Margaret Thatcher. He was not involved. The man who made the unnamed allegation admitted his error, and “Newsnight” carried an apology to Lord McAlpine. But, much more was needed. Thus, there was the show of the rolling head of the Director General, with a big cheque in his pocket, and the Chair of the BBC Trust praising him to high heaven. Very simply stated, this great gesture, as many referred to it, had nothing to do with Jimmy Saville and child abuse or the scandal that has clouded the BBC.  It only sought to salve the feelings of a Tory peer.

Then who then hell is the hero of the stinking scandal?

I thought you would have guessed it you watched or listened to BBC in the past week. Very simple it was Ban ki-moon, and none other.

You mean the Secretary General of the United Nations?

Yes, the same Ban Ki-moon, he is just now the hero of the BBC, the hero who has come to the aid of the not so transparent, not so trustworthy broadcasting house, to provide a smoke screen to hide its shame over Jimmy Saville.

And, how has this been done?

Very simple, a new UN Review of the work of the UN Staff in Sri Lanka in the early months of 2009, when you will recall the LTTE was being defeated here, was first leaked to the BBC, and later confirmed to the same BBC, by Ban Ki-moon. It said the UN Staff here had abandoned their duties of protecting the civilians in Sri Lanka’s north, during the final months and weeks and the battle against the LTTE.

So, how does this help the BBC to hide its own shame and lack of accountability etc?

Very easy, the BBC highlights what is said in this report, pointing accusing fingers at Sri Lanka, for allegedly intimidating UN staffers, to make them leave the north and live in the comfort of Colombo or elsewhere; not tarry in the north; and, as a result betrayed the people of the north to all the trials and tragedies of the defeat of terrorism.

What the hell can Sri Lanka do if the UN staffers did not want to carry out their job?

That is just one question, the other important one is what the hell were they doing, if  without reporting any so-called or alleged intimidations to Ban Ki-moon and  so many of his other officers and associates in the UN, and other UN bodies,  who were frequent visitors to Sri Lanka at the time?   Or even reveal these soon after they left the turns of duty in Sri Lanka?

Why the hell did they not tell this story about themselves to the Darusman trio who were on a so-called fact finding probe about Sri Lanka’s defeat of terrorism for the same Ban Ki-moon?

Very interesting; there s one more question I can think of.

What’s that?

Where are all these UN staffers now? Do they still hold the same positions or have they been promoted. If so it a payoff for being silent all this while, or is it a recognition of the good they did for themselves, as they now claim,  of making sure of their promotions by being silent?

But how can Sri Lanka be blamed for these faults of the UN staffers in Colombo?

That is what must be asked from the BBC, which has beaten all other news services to give the most prominent position to this report, full of video footage that is not in the report, but taken from other unverified and unsubstantiated allegations against Sri Lanka aired earlier by the BBC, Channel 4 and other places.

So what does Ban Ki-moon tell about all of this?

Not surprisingly, to the delight of the BBC, and others who think alike these days, he is suggesting an independent probe into what happened in Sri Lanka …

Her really does so?

Yes, but he forgets there is now one major “independent” source of evidence missing, because the UN staffers cannot vouch for anything they may say about what happened. So any probe will have to depend on the voices of the so-called “Tamil Diaspora” and others such as Gordon Weiss, who was a silent UN staffer who later write a book about what happened, keeping the “secrets” for copyright advantage, and a former BBC staffer who was here and is also making money from her own book about what is alleged to have taken place, but knew nothing of the cowardice and promotion hunger of UN staffers in Sri Lanka.

So how do you think Ban Ki-moon could best display his heroism in this situation.. We know he is not one for heroics, but the situation seems to demand it.

It’s Very simple, indeed. He should take a lesson from the BBC’s golden handshake Director General George Entwhistle, and resign. He must take all responsibility for the failure of his staffers, for their lack of accountability and transparency as he puts it, and throw in the UN towel. He is the CEO of the United Nations and the buck must stop with him.

He is sure to be given a handshake much, much bigger than what the BBC’s Director General or the UN Security Council may even refuse to accept his resignation. But it is up to him to make the offer.

What would BBC do then?

Well I believe they will make it another story to attack Sri Lanka on how we defeated the world’s most ruthless terrorists… but this nothing unusual from a broadcaster that is struggling to make people believe in its ever wearing veneer of credibility and trustworthiness, with the late Jimmy Saville by its side.