Tjaco van den Hout: Telegraaf tries to save face
Tjaco van den Hout (photo Hans Bos)
The reporting in the Telegraaf about the (alleged) abuses at the Dutch embassy in Bangkok, followed by the usual silence at the Foreign Affairs offices, has misled many. Now, BuZa is not known for its openness, but in the case of the investigation into the dealings of Tjaco van den Hout, some militancy would have been appropriate. Even if it is only to somewhat wipe away the stains on Van den Hout's reputation.
What remains is: where there is smoke, there is fire. De Telegraaf has made clever use of the knowledge that Van den Hout had already asked to be relieved of his post at an earlier stage. Based on our personal relationship, he writes the following to me upon request:
“The investigation determined that there were no abuses (lacking any grounds). However, it has been noted in passing that a locally hired consular employee has behaved in an incorrect/undesirable manner in the past. He will still have to be reprimanded by me in writing for this. As the person ultimately responsible, I have also been blamed for not having been confronted earlier and more forcefully about this. This concludes the matter further.
I will of course not be leaving my post, but I had submitted a request to resign from my position earlier (mid-next year) for personal reasons. This timing makes it possible for me to join my wife who will then return with her daughter to her own country (Latvia) to resume her diplomatic career. De Telegraaf got wind of this and made the – highly unfortunate – link with which the newspaper may be trying to keep something of its story afloat. Which of course doesn't work.”
In this case, De Telegraaf would do well to apologize to Van den Hout for the unforgivable journalistic error of citing the story of a hateful ex-employee with whole packs of butter on his head.
Dear Hans,
Then I responded anyway, also on the basis of 'our personal relationship'.
For the record: it was not De Telegraaf that commissioned an investigation based on messages from a former employee. It was the leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague that made that assessment and took that decision.
That the then employee would have been hateful, had loads of butter on his head or other such terminology: it was all possible. The fact is that BuZa started the investigation based on this man's claims. And an investigation into an embassy is news. The reasons behind that research are even more so.
De Telegraaf has recorded and published the reasons that prompted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to carry out the investigation. Those were the employee's claims.
The results of the research are also clear. The letter mentioned by the ambassador indeed states that there are no abuses. What the ambassador does not indicate is that the letter adheres to the framed government definition of the word abuse, as laid down in the 'Decree on reporting suspected abuse to the government and the police'.
Elsewhere in the letter it is clearly stated what the investigation team found at the embassy. These may not be official abuses in the formal sense of the word, as defined in the Decree, but it is in any case clear to the Secretary-General in The Hague that many things cannot be tolerated and measures had to be taken. be taken.
Mr Van den Hout also knows that his early departure is the result of the findings of the investigation. After all, this was communicated to him at the department in The Hague. It could be good or bad. Let's hope for him that he doesn't jeopardize the elegant solution by wrongly blaming De Telegraaf.
Indeed, the reporting could have been different. For example, look at the way in which correspondent Michel Maas of NOS and de Volkskrant tackled the case. Apart from the fact that the errors in his basic information are almost hilarious, it is clear to read and hear that Maas has quite a bit of trouble maintaining his balance vis-à-vis Van den Hout and the embassy, who helped him so much after the shooting incident in Bangkok. captured. Literal text: 'There is nothing going on at the embassy in Bangkok'. Good night.
Sincerely,
John van den Dongen
The Telegraph
In most Dutch media, radio silence seems to have been imposed on this subject. Can't find anything up to date online. Interesting development! Censorship?
No self-respecting medium would allow itself to be censored in the Netherlands regarding this subject. That in itself would be the opening of a daily newspaper.
I rather think that the media were shocked by their own news gathering. At the time, they took over the inflated messages from De Telegraaf with great fanfare and now it appears that this is a so-called canard. In fact, there is little or nothing to do with the allegations of fraud, corruption and wasting visas. Johan van den Dongen ties up some loose ends, gets a place on the website for a while, but is then quickly maneuvered between the wings. Not a question of radio silence, but embarrassed silence because people have let themselves be put in the shoes of a rightly fired employee with butter on his head.
In that case, the reporting could have been adjusted instead of removing all references to the results of the investigation and departure of the ambassador, about ALL media, including De Telegraaf itself. I do not agree with you. This stinks!
'just a place on the website, but is then quickly maneuvered between the wings. So not a matter of radio silence, but embarrassed silence'.
I don't think you noticed Hans, but De Telegraaf opened the newspaper with it on Thursday. If you want a PDF of the front page, let me know.
Regards,
John van den Dongen
Guys, guys, is this world news now? The readers of this blog, at least me, are not waiting for that bickering, are they?!
Tonight Heracles Almelo – VVV Venlo, I'm Tukker, so Heracles must win, that's important!!!
Well Bert, this isn't a squabble. It is about a correct and careful presentation of facts. Both from the side of journalists and the editors of this blog. In addition, these are serious allegations. I would like to know the ins and outs.
And what about the objectivity of some journalists? Still an interesting discussion.
Ok, no bickering, then I'll tell you what I think. You from the blog cannot be blamed, because all that has been done is to report what was in De T. and as a rebuttal the radio report by Maas.
You know from the T. that they love sensation, so the story of an ex-employee about alleged abuses on the Ned. Embassy goes down like a charm. Checking and double checking is unknown at that newspaper.
I didn't find Maas's “rebuttal” strong, too superficial. Perhaps there is some truth in the statement that he cannot talk too badly about the Embassy because of the previous help he received.
Something must have happened at the Embassy, but whether that is big news? Something happens in every organization and it is up to the management to respond adequately.
It could also be that Van Hout has to leave earlier because of those conditions, but that has been decided by the Min. denied. You will never know what was actually agreed with him, even if someone - or Wikileaks - manages to get hold of a written agreement on this.
The story of Van Hout, that he follows his wife, who will become Ambassador for Latvia somewhere in the world, sounds a bit strange, but it could very well be right. Maybe his wife's job pays better than Ambassador of the Netherlands in Thailand, who knows?
Finally: that Van Dongen knows very well - or at least should know - what influence De Telegraaf has on public opinion. But he washes his hands as always in innocence: we did not do it, we only reported what we were told.
You are therefore right to speak about the Telegraaf Court!
Strange reaction from your Bert. It shows that you think second-rate football is more important than an investigation into corruption of the (also your) embassy. I lived in Venlo for 16 years, but I have nothing to do with VVV.
I'm Almeloer and I have something with Heracles, where I once played football myself. I mentioned it to put things into perspective. See also my other response to Peter.
Thank you for mentioning which hamlets the clubs in question come from, it took me a while to search the map, but I'm completely up to date again! 😉
What a witty fellow you are, Robert! Is that laughing at me, say!
Gentlemen, please stick to the subject of the article and do not respond to each other, but to the content. Do you remember?
It is to Johan van den Dongen's credit that he takes the time and effort to respond extensively here. As far as I am concerned, he provides text and explanation and indicates on which facts he has based his reporting. You won't see the arrogant Maas doing that anytime soon. In fact, it almost never responds to anything.
Not only the 'sensation-hungry Telegraaf', according to many, but also the serious and reliable Elsevier and Radio Netherlands Worldwide reported on this news in roughly the same context.