Tell Sarah

According to former BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan (of "dodgy dossier" fame), writing in the Telegraph, the BBC is guilty of swallowing and regurgitating a false narrative about a "wave" attacks on Muslims in the wake of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby by two Islamist killers. 

Some of you may have heard Sarah Montague's interview on Today with Fiyaz Mughal of the Tell Mama project, which - as the Today website puts it - " records Islamophobic crimes and incidents". Mr Mughal told of the "endemic fear" of Muslims as a result of the "backlash". The BBC's favourite "expert on far right groups", Dr Matthew Goodwin, was also party to this interview, blaming the EDL and BNP for encouraging inter-community conflict and tension. 

The Today website states boldly, as if it were a fact: 

There has already been a significant backlash against Muslims since Wednesday with many more incidents than usual reported. 

This is simply not true according to Andrew Gilligan. 

Please read his article and see what you make of his counter-evidence. It seems pretty convincing to me. 

The majority of the "anti-Muslim incidents", Tell Mama tells the Sunday Telegraph, only took place online - not all originating from Britain. A few dozen more of the 212 total have yet to be verified:

Fewer than one in 12 of the 212 “incidents” reported to Tell Mama since Woolwich – 17 cases (8 per cent) – involved individuals being physically targeted.

Mr Gilligan chronicles a record of crying wolf over the issue, and argues that the same happened here:

Tell Mama is not Islamist...but part of its motivation appears to be an attempt to draw some of the sting from Islamist terrorism by equating it with the work of anti-Muslim extremist groups such as the English Defence League.

As Tell Mama’s Twitter feed puts it, “whilst we need to tackle the narrative of hate inspired by al-Qaeda, we also need to tackle the thuggery and hate of the EDL”. Mr Mughal insists that “both groups are significantly problematic”.

Loathsome as the white extreme Right is, however, there is clearly no comparison. No one in Britain has been killed by the EDL; 53 people have been killed by Islamist terrorists. White racists, unlike their Islamist equivalents, do not control key religious institutions or have a significant presence in British universities.

Over the past decade, half a dozen or so white British Right-wingers have been convicted of possessing explosives and other weapons. But all were loners not acting in concert with any group.

In contrast, there have, over the same period, been 150 convictions for Islamist-related terrorism in the UK, many relating to serious, carefully organised, often multinational plots against specific targets involving substantial numbers of people.

For some quarters of the Islamophobia industry, it has now become Muslims who are the main victims of the Woolwich horror. 

But while some innocent Muslims have of course become victims, the main victim was Drummer Lee Rigby. And in overhyping the backlash, some in the Muslim community are playing right into the hands of his killers.

Regarding the BBC, he notes (in reference to Sarah Montague):

The media, especially the BBC, have accepted the claims without question. A presenter on Radio 4’s influential Today programme stated that attacks on Muslims were now “on a very serious scale”. 

Indeed she did.

How does this reflect on the reporting acumen of the BBC?

UPDATE (2/6): This morning's Sunday also featured an interview with Fiyaz Mughal of Tell Mama. Edward Stourton dug a little deeper into the figures, but Mr Mughal reiterated many of the same points he made on Today without being challenged along the lines of those closing paragraphs from Andrew Gilligan's article. 

The programme then moved onto a report it headlined 'Synagogue saviours'. The "saviours" of that struggling synagogue in Bradford turned out to be a group of local Muslims. The chairman of the synagogue is very grateful to them. Reporter Kevin Bouquet allowed us to share in this moment of interfaith harmony.

Although it has featured many reports in the last couple of years on 'Islamophobia', Sunday has paid precious little attention to the issue of anti-Semitism in the U.K. - with the stand-out exception of an interview on the subject in the aftermath of the murder of Jewish children in Toulouse.

The U.S. State Department's annual report on international religious freedom features a section devoted to the United Kingdom which (so far as I can tell) has been ignored by the BBC - and has certainly been ignored by Sunday.

It says that there were more reports of anti-Semitic incidents (640) than there were anti-Muslim ones (631) here in the U.K. last year.

Shouldn't Sunday also be investigating the reasons for this apparent growth of anti-Semitism in the U.K. (up 5% on the previous year, according to the report)? Why dwell so much on one kind of religious hatred but ignore another?

UPDATE (9/6): Andrew Gilligan has now reported that Tell Mama is to lose its government backing over doubts over the veracity of its figures. He reports that Tell Mama has also been criticised for pursuing libel cases against critics, especially pro-Israel ones. 

Riots

After the shocking explosion of rioting and lawlessness that shook several English cities in August 2011, Sunday commissioned three talks from prominent figures to reflect on the events that had just taken place. 

'Is the BBC biased?' is the name on the tin so, if Damian Thompson is correct that "Nowhere in the BBC's output is Left-liberal bias more thickly applied than on Radio 4's Sunday programme", then we should be able to see that reflected in the choice of figures, in how their contributions are framed and in what they actually say. Let's see then!

1. Choice of speakers

The three speakers were a Labour MP, a liberal rabbi and the leader of a Muslim organisation. A classic Left-liberal choice, at first glance. 

Rabbi Julia Neuberger is 'certainly Left-liberal' through and through. A familiar figure, at the time she sat on the Liberal Democrat benches in the House of Lords, though she resigned from the party later in the year. 

Fiyaz Mughal of Faith Matters, which Ed Stourton described as being "a Muslim group committed to reducing extremism and inter-faith tension", turned out to be 'Left-liberal' too. He was a former Deputy President of the Liberal Democrat Party. 

Interestingly - and complicating matters pleasingly! - the Labour MP was Frank Field. Being a Labour MP, he can obviously be described as being 'Left' (to an extent!) but 'Left-liberal' doesn't fit him, and he's always been popular with conservatives - and Conservatives. He is a leading Anglican too. 

An actual Conservative or, more generally, any right-wing speaker is noticeably missing from this short list - a revealing omission, don't you think? Why was that side of the debate missing?

2. What they said

What follows are my transcripts of the three talks. They are all of interest, and can now be preserved for posterity (thanks to this little blog!).

1. Frank Field:

"The country no longer sings from the same hymn-sheet. That is the lesson I draw from the recent rioting and looting. To give a sense that the whole country from onboard the same train journey, even if we were in different compartments, the Victorians put much effort into creating what we would now call 'a public ideology'. This was a period when Christianity had come under sustained attack. The governing elite reacted by seeing how it could maintain much of Christian morality without it being underpinned by Christian dogma. The question posed was 'Is it possible to retain allegiance to our moral code or social ground rules without that code being undergirded by faith?' For almost a century the Victorians achieved what many people now think impossible - they maintained, in effect, a secular morality. The country WAS blessed by one individual, the philosopher T.H. Green, took much of the honey from the Christian hive and placed it in more secular surroundings. English idealism, the product of Green's work, became a public ideology or hymn-sheet. The aim was to create a society where everyone could develop their best selves and one that realised that this could only be achieved if we has a strong sense of community. Although this was a period of falling church attendances, it was one in which English idealism held sway. But no more. Why? One reason stands out. We have lost the confidence to teach a set of beliefs about our society's objectives and the rules that need to be followed if these ends are to be achieved. No-one, sadly, is much interested in doing what T.H. Green did. So how might we go about trying to emulate this extraordinary Victorian achievement? In place of one faith we now have many, and those without faith. Yet I've found it impossible to interest anybody in the task of looking at what each of these faiths see as the goals of life. There has been a similar lack of interest in knowing what these faiths see as the ground rules if the good life is to be achieved. My guess is that we will find much agreement over both ends and means. If I'm right we could have the basis for an agreed morality, a social highway code which we could confidently teach. It would tell us what the country was trying to achieve, both in terms of each individual's worth and what we see as the right ends to which individuals should aim. Nobody should pretend this journey would be easy and there is an alternative. That alternative erupted onto British streets only weeks ago."

2. Rabbi Julia Neuberger:

"In my view the riots this summer were not a particular sign that our society is sick. Unlike the Prime Minister, I think it may well have been a one-off and not the start of something new. We've always has occasional rioting - Notting Hill, Broadwater Farm, Brixton and so on - but I DO think that there is a deep moral malaise in our society. It's just that those problems go deeper and our more widespread than the riots, however unpleasant, however frightening they were. First, we depersonalise our older people and talk about them as a demographic time-bomb. We've watched Southern Cross go bust and seen thousands of older people in care homes waiting anxiously to know their future, yet what are we doing to bring comfort, certainty and hope? Secondly, and similarly, we've allowed a huge number of our young to be in a position where they can't find work. However bubbly, energetic and full of hope they are when they start looking, the dejection and the depression is real as they are rejected time and again however hard they try. I think we should be creating jobs for young people and carving out exciting new volunteering opportunities for them as well. But that's expensive and would mean stopping cuts in those parts of our voluntary sector that could find things for them to do. So it's not really about riots, it's about our attitudes to the young and the old. And it's about our lack of energy and sense of urgency in doing anything about all this. When societies recognise they are in trouble they often heal themselves by a massive growth in what we might call 'civic institutions'. The Chief Rabbi makes this point. After the Industrial Revolution, with people living in fear of attack on the streets of our cities, friendly societies  mutuals, charitable foundations and housing associations, many of them religious, with loads of people volunteering, sprang up all over the country. People felt they had a responsibility to heal what was wrong with our society. And that's what's missing now. Sure, there are modern philanthropists doing their best (though we need far more) and there are small, independent start-up organisations trying to make the world a better place, but it's for ALL of us to make the world a better place, riots or no riots. At a time of real worry about our future, real tightening of belts, with an angry element in society that doesn't feel it has a share in it, that sense of needing to make the world, our country, our city, our neighbourhood a better place needs renewal. We saw local communities could out to clean up in the wake of the riots. If we could just harness that wonderful energy, we might just find a way through. But it's not just for them to do it. It's for all of us - of all faiths, ages, political views, wherever we live, nationwide."

3. Fiyaz Mughal:

"The prime minister suggests that our society is broken and sick and suggests that there is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society. This view, which is simplistic, does not reflect the huge activities in civil society - faith groups and groups who are based on social justice, who have acted for decades as a glue between communities in local areas in the UK. Such a statement by the Prime Minister simply disregards all of this energy and focus. Without such interfaith, cohesion and community development activities involving young people the intensity and the length of the riots would have been considerably worse. Our society is NOT broken. It's simply challenged from time to time when we stop listening or when we disregard those who are the voiceless or the unseen. Within an Islamic context, ensuring cohesive communities is fundamental to the well-being of a community, a region and a nation. Indeed, at the very roots of the inception of Islam debate, discussion and listening to one another were a fundamental part of the faith and its energy. Allied to that, within Islam there is a consistent message that while God can provide solutions and give hope we must also use our energies to create a sense of social justice and harmony. Islam repeatedly talks of the divine and the here-and-now within a strong envelope of social justice and social harmony. It always gives people a direct link to God whilst stating that the mercy of God is available for those people who make mistakes. With this in mind, the role of family, education, social action for good and hope are all part of the equation which Islam promotes and whilst there are areas of confluence with the statement of the Prime Minister about the need for proper ethics, morals and parenting, there is also a distinct set of differences. We cannot regard society as broken when there are so many energies and so many social forces that have successfully kept us together for decades - young and old, black and white, male and female. Islam asks people to look at the totality of social situations and guides people away from narrow definitions and this is why the actions of many of those who commit crimes in the name of Islam are so fundamentally wrong. This is also where it diverges from such a comment made by the Prime Minister. We must, therefore, step back and look at the reasons why the riots took place and come up with reasons that we can act upon without blaming our younger generations or our society or our communities. A handful of young people simply cannot dictate how we look at our younger generations in the future. That would be a disastrous legacy of the riots."

As this is a blog about bias, I will not dwell too long on my own reactions to these talks. Frank Field's contribution had me thinking for hours after I first heard it. He has a part-alluring, part-concerning big idea. It is most unlikely ever to be put into practice. (The ideas of T.H. Green, incidentally, seem to be quite popular with Labour Party thinkers. Roy Hattersley is another fan). Baroness Neuberger's feeling that the August riots were "a one-off" looks to have been a shrewd insight. Having had the all the uplift of the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic Games (an uplift most people in the UK seem to have shared), the August riots seem like an old nightmare. (They won't, of course, to their victims). Mr. Mughal's contribution might be said to make him a natural for Platitude Thought For The Day, and it was a bit too 'missionary' in nature for my tastes.  

Back to the bias. I don't think there's anything in what the three speakers chosen by Sunday actually said to bat away the claim that the programme fished only in the 'Left' or 'liberal' pool of public opinion for its perspectives on the riots - except that Mr. Field's contribution would surely appeal more to to conservatives (of Right or Left) rather more than to liberals. (Do you agree?)  

It is also worth pointing out that the Labour MP was the only speaker not to criticise and disagree with David Cameron! 

...which brings me to...

3. How the talks were framed

The debates were framed as responses to David Cameron's claims of a "broken" and "sick" society. This makes the absence of a Conservative voice all the more puzzling. 

Frank Field's contribution was was introduced by Edward Stourton in the following way:

'There are pockets of society that are not only broken but frankly sick.' That was the Prime Minister's response to the outbreak of looting and public disorder which erupted early last month. We've asked three prominent figures to reflect on what happened and the way that we collectively should respond. They're all people of faith and people who are actively involved in politics or community service. First up Frank Field, a member of the church of England General Synod and a veteran Labour MP.

 Julia Neuberger's talk was introduced by William Crawley like this:

On last week's 'Sunday' the MP Frank Field gave his analysis of the August riots. We had a lot of response to what he said. Here's just a taste of what you told us. Phil Edwards picked up on Frank Field's reference to the 19th Century philosopher T.H. Green. Phil writes, 'I don't think we can adapt the ideas of Victorian philosophy to the age we live in. My own personal belief on how to change people's attitudes is for our governments to lead by example, by behaving in a moral and honest way, but it is clear that there is no single explanation for the recent riots that enjoys universal support. Politicians, religious leaders, columnists, bloggers, academics and community activists will probably continue to debate the factors that became triggers for the riots for years to come.' Here's another voice in that debate, Rabbi Julia Neuberger.

Ed Stourton's introduction to Fiyaz Mughal ran as follows:

Over the past couple of weeks we've broadcast a series of essays prompted by the Prime Minister's response to the August riots. We've already heard from the Labour MP and General Synod member Frank Field and from Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a Liberal Democrat peer. This week the thoughts of Fiyaz Mughal, direct of Faith Matters, a Muslim group committed to reducing extremism and inter-faith tension.

Conclusions

The absence of a voice from the Right making a case that right-wing listeners would feel reflected their outlook of the August riots certainly suggests 'Left-liberal' bias on the programme's part. You may be perfectly comfortable with that (if you take a 'Left-liberal' line yourself, but please imagine the boot being on the other foot. Would you be happy if Sunday had asked three 'Right-conservatives' to give their views?

"Long-term house policy"

I couldn't agree more with James Delingpole about this morning's Today, which after some glimmers of hope in recent months, found the BBC firmly back where they clearly feel most comfortable - and deflecting attention away from the real problem: 

Here is the news: in Australia, a plot by Islamic State sympathisers to capture random members of the public and chop their heads off has been foiled by security services; in Syria, two Americans and a British hostage have been beheaded by an Islamist nicknamed Jihadi John - and another innocent Briton (a taxi driver captured while working for an aid convoy) has been told he is next on the list; across Britain, in the aftermath of the Rotherham enquiry, more and more evidence is emerging that in towns and cities all over the country mostly underage white girls have been systematically groomed, raped and trafficked by organised Muslim gangs, with the complicity of local government authorities, charity workers, police officers and the broader Muslim community.

Luckily, thanks to the BBC, we know what the real problem is here. It is, of course, our old friends, "Islamophobia" and "the spectre of a far right" backlash.

Both of these alleged threats featured prominently on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, including an interview with a former, self-confessed "far right" thug who revealed - presumably to no listener's especial surprise - that the organisation to which he had belonged was racist, prone to violence, and likely to react strongly to issues like the Rotherham rape gangs.

Today also ran an interview with Tell Mama - the one-man activist organisation run by Fiyaz Mughal which has long since been exposed for its exaggerations and its threadbare methodology in cooking up an alleged spate of "anti-Muslim" hate crimes.

When, for example, last year Tell Mama reported that there had been 212 anti-Muslim incidents, it turned out that 57 per cent of these comprised disobliging comments on Twitter or Facebook, many of them emanating from outside Britain.

And the BBC Today show rounded off with a Muslim spokeswoman who was given space to assure listeners that mosques around Britain were already doing a great deal to combat extremism but hadn't been given credit for it.

Phew. So that's all right then.

Except, of course, it's really not all right.

Perhaps it wouldn't matter so much if this BBC feature were a rare aberration. But it's not. It's long-term house policy. Barely were the bodies of the 52 victims of the 7/7 London bus and tube suicide bombings cold than the BBC's reporters were out pounding the streets looking for evidence of the real issue of concern - not Islamist extremism and its numerous fellow-travellers, of course, but yes, for the spectre of Islamophobia and an anti-Muslim backlash by "the far right." It responded in the same way after the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby - complete, of course, with an interview about the "cycle of violence against Muslims" and the "underlying Islamophobia in our society" by our friend Fiyaz Mughal of Tell Mama.

Read more here.

Word salad.

We’ve had a lot to say about Fiyaz Mughal over the years, not always in complimentary terms. We saw his role as chief of “Tell Mama” as almost laughable. But, a bit like Trevor Phillips, he seems to have redeemed himself. Have they both turned over a new leaf or did we get it wrong all along?

For Fiyaz Mughal put his name to that letter to the Guardian, explaining why he and the other 23 signatories could no longer vote Labour. Not under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, anyway. 

“if Corbyn comes to power, my time working with any Labour minister will come to an end.
I cannot work to prop up or deliver any work under his leadership. This is particularly depressing since I am a social liberal – values that should naturally resonate with any Labour administration.
So why did I sign the letter openly voicing the fact that Corbyn would be a disaster for our country?
Firstly, Corbyn has been a lightning rod to attract people to Labour whose world view strongly hinges on the Israel and Palestine conflict. That is not a problem, but it has become a problem since some of these activists are openly antisemitic and see all Jews as being "the other"; as the cover-all term, many of these activists liberally use the term ‘Zionists’ to smear British Jews who simply disagree with them.”

*****

The other day a Corbynite economist appeared on Politics Live. Not your average millennial, but a mature lady called Ann Pettifor. No fool like an old fool. 

She defended the Labour Party’s policy on taxation by likening it to the Scandinavian model. Now, our Danish friends, middle-class rather than wealthy, have been long complaining about the huge amount of tax they have to pay for the socialist utopia. This dates back several years, long before the Islamic invasion. Goodness knows how the situation has unfolded, tax-wise. 

I was gratified to hear Ms Pettifor making this particular comparison, even though she viewed it as a positive, and was using it as a defence against assorted comparisons with Venezuela. I was surprised no-one on the panel took it up.

******

Can someone enlighten me as to the difference between poetry and ‘word-artistry’? Rapper, innit?

There’s a trailer featurin’  George the Poet that I find so grating that it’s even more “off-switch” than the Archers' signature tune. 

I don’t know what exactly I’m allergic to - the absence of scansion and the self-indulgent approach to rhyme, but I do wonder if George the Poet is to ‘poet’ like Rupert the bear is to ‘bear’.

******

I haven’t commented on the BBC’s continuous bias against Israel for a while, but I haven’t forgotten it. It’s piling up - the stuff I’ve read on EoZ and BBC Watch is enough to make one weep. 

Of course, the fact that this country (Britain) is being Islamified at a rate of knots explains the media’s refusal to link the Palestinians’ religious fuelled anti-Jewish principles with their determination to eradicate the ‘Jewishness’ of Israel. 

The widely held theory that Mike Pompeo’s statement about the legality of settlements is another obstacle to peace is entirely mistaken. It’s the opposite. The sooner the non-Islamic world stops encouraging a belief system based in hatred the better. They are only perpetuating the conflict for the sake of an ill-conceived sense of righteousness. 

Not that Boris Johnson’s Tories are any better than the BBC on that score, but at least Matt Hancock once attended a presentation by PMW. (Not that he was particularly impressed)

Catholic social attitudes, gay marriage, Nigeria, "Islamophobia", the living wage and then gay marriage again

This morning's Sunday talked about Catholic social attitudes, gay marriage, Nigeria, "Islamophobia", the living wage and then gay marriage again.  

First up, Catholic matters. (It wouldn't be Sunday if it didn't discuss Catholic matters!). The topic today were the early results of a Vatican survey into Catholic views on social matters. Ed Stourton talked to liberal Catholic commentator Fr Brian D'arcy about it. Ed said "people expect and hope there will be...change" as a result of it, and Fr Brian said "I hope...there could be a better pastoral approach" as a result of it.

Then it was onto the subject of gay marriage in the United States. "We'll hear from Christian conservatives in the United States", Ed said about this section at the start of the programme. Well, so we did, though the report from the BBC's Matt Wells actually split 4:2 against Christian conservatives, with the two conservative voices sandwiched between four liberal voices. One of liberal voices talked of "scary right-wing rhetoric", after which we heard some scary right-wing rhetoric on the issue from a US pastor. (Are they no reasonable-sounding conservative opponents of gay marriage out there?) 

Next it was onto Nigeria and another interview with Dr Stephen Davies, the former canon of Coventry Cathedral, who is helping in the attempts to free the abducted schoolgirls there. He was very insistent that the violence there now is not a Christian v Islam thing, merely a political thing as various political forces sponsor Boko Haram to stage anti-Christian attacks to help them in the upcoming elections. He says that many of Boko Haram's original supporters are horrified at its behaviour. Those who merely wanted a return to the pure Islam of the time of Mohammed are beginning to split from it, he said.

More Islam next. A listener email was then read out saying that we should dwell more on "the peaceful side of Islam". Another email was against women bishops.

More Islam next. To mark the start of Ramadam, Sunday invited in Tell Mama's Fiyaz Mughal to talk about his organisation's latest report into "Islamophobic hate crime". Alongside him was Usama Hasan of Quilliam. It was a friendly discussion. Fiyaz said there was a "very large spike" after the murder of Lee Rigby. Dr Hasan accepted that there's been a "rise in Islamophobic hate crime", but - at Ed's invitation - also discussed Muslim-on-Muslim violence, specifically Muslim "extremist" attacks on Muslim "moderates". He's received "serious death threats" himself. Fiyaz agreed that there is "intra-Muslim hate". They then discussed the "symbiosis between far Right" and what Fiyaz described as the "resistance" to it from "small" section of Muslim community. Usama said there's "no such thing as a Muslim community", only "Muslim communities" and that saying otherwise helps the far-right. Fiyaz said that's a "valid" and "fair" point, and agreed that lumping all Muslims together only helps the far-right to smear Muslims.

Then it was onto another familiar Sunday subject - the campaign for a "living wage", specifically "the moral challenges raised by the Archbishop of York's report into the living wage", as part of the Living Wage Commission's campaign. Trevor Barnes reported. We heard a fair range of opinion (3:2 in favour of the living wage), though it was another classic Sunday sandwich - lay out the 'liberal side' first, then give the 'conservatives' a say, then end with the 'liberal side', here in the form of a Slovakian immigrant grateful for the living wage. 

Finally it was back to gay marriage (and another Sunday favourite - a good old Anglican row) and an interview with Reverend Andrew Foreshew-Cain, vicar of St Mary with All Souls, who has just defied the Anglican Church and gone through a gay marriage with his long-term partner. Alongside him in the discussion was Alan Wilson, the pro-gay marriage Bishop of Buckingham. Bishop Alan was even more critical of his fellow bishops than Rev Andrew, saying they've "painted themselves into an extraordinary corner", behaved in a way that's "almost like bullying" and done a "a very stupid thing". Bishop Alan was wholly supportive of Rev Andrew. Ed Stourton was obviously aware of how biased this looked so insisted at some length that they had tried to get another bishop to appear but none would do so. [Did it have to be a bishop though?]

Nothing much here then, is there, to undermine Damian Thompson's claim that "Radio 4's Sunday programme offers perhaps the most undiluted liberal bias to be found anywhere on the BBC"?

Still, the sun's shining again (visibly) and the birds are singing and the power drills and loud lawnmowers that make sunny Sundays what they are don't just plug themselves in....

Tell Mama

.@KirstyWark questions @TRobinsonNewEra about his tweets following the conviction of Finsbury Park killer Darren Osborne #newsnight pic.twitter.com/LWoZSUC9vA

— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) February 1, 2018

The squawk is far from dulcet, and the consonants all but subsumed by the nasal vowels. Oh Kirsty, how you deserve your nick-name.

Well done! Well done to the BBC for airing that disastrous interview, for it wasn’t live, and you could have binned it to save your shame. 

Kirsty, you’ve out Newman-ed Cathy!

The whole of Newsnight was, well, car-crash to the point of pile-up. And to think, I was about to switch over to wait for Question Time. But I didn’t. 

Tommy Robinson has come a long way. Not so long ago, if one had the temerity to even think of mentioning his name, one had to take the precaution of apologising first, like when one is toying with the thought of saying “Geert Wilders!” or “Melanie Phillips!” Trigger!  Trigger warning!  

Now that he’s learned how to articulate his thoughts, Tommy’s formidable. 

Is the BBC running scared? Note how they used an ancient clip of Tommy from the EDL days. Get over it, BBC. He’s moved on.  Come of age. Tommy has blossomed. You can’t smear him quite so easily these days.

The nub of the argument seems to be that the BBC, inspired  by Daniel Sandford no doubt, has taken the view that if only the BBC and the media in general could keep quiet about Muslim terrorism, extremism, and all that divisive “world within a world” stuff, it would all go away. That seems to be the plan. 

The biggest and best, most trusted broadcasting corporation in the world had decided to shield us from it all, for our own good. Then along comes Tommy Robinson to spill the beans, and hey presto! Darren Osborne is unleashed. Geronimo!

No, BBC! All wrong! The terrorism can’t be hidden. You can’t protect us from it by pretending it’s not really happening. You can  play it down, which you do, but you can’t conceal it. Nor should you.

If you are going to blame the messenger, the at least take responsibility for your own message, which you even sugar-coated, with your Maxine Peake playing the heroine. Weren’t we supposed to identify with brave Maxine? Thought so.

Darren Osborne explicitly claimed that he was - let’s call it ‘radicalised ‘ - by your very own emotive drama-documentary, based on a true tale, dramatised and neatly packaged for our gratification. That’s from the horse’s mouth. He wrote it on a piece of paper! 

Yet the BBC has ignored the the fact that its picturesque production, designed to touch our heart strings, played a part in this so-called ‘radicalisation’. On top of that, they even managed to sideline the spate of explosions, car-rammings and stabbings, all explicitly carried out in the name of Allah, and shamelessly, they chose to put the blame on - - Tommy Robinson.

What about that Imam? The one featured in the Darren Osborne report. The Imam who had suddenly noticed the potential of the ‘vehicular’ mode of sending one’s martyr to paradisio. “It could catch on,”  said he, with a fearful expression. What? Hadn’t he noticed Islam’s own weaponisation of the automobile right up until the moment Darren Osborne tried it out? Good grief. Where had that Imam been for the last few years? Praying?

What was it Cdr. Dean Haydon from the Metropolitan Police said to the BBC as he was being filmed  standing in front of those gleaming letters that spell out  “New Scotland Yard”. Oh yes, he called the al-Quds march ‘obscure” . Silly me; I thought there was a debate the other day. You know, in parliament. Hezbollah flags, anyone? That obscure.

Back to Kirsty. One of the issues that hit the headlines yesterday was the rise in antisemitism. What did Newsnight decide to go with? Islamophobia. They wheeled out Tell Mama’s very own grievance monger Fiyaz Mughal, and oh, did the tone change. Leaning forward and smiling, a benevolent  Kirsty encouraged Fiyaz to tell Mama Kirsty all about it. He duly delivered some impassioned Tommy-bashing on Kirsty’s behalf. 

Not to mention her interview with Amanda Spielman. Though slightly subdued, Kirsty still managed to conduct a hostile interview with the woman who recklessly dares to recognise Muslim radicalisation when she sees it. 

Where the BBC fears to tread

The Telegraph may be a shadow of its former self these days, but at least it's still got Andrew Gilligan. 

His latest report is typical of his dogged style of investigative journalism - the kind of investigative journalism he surely wouldn't have been allowed to pursue had he remained at the BBC (unless he was sent after UKIP or tax avoiding companies). 

Entryism, the favourite tactic of the 1980s’ Militant Tendency, is when a political party or institution is infiltrated by groups with a radically different agenda. Since Militant’s Trotskyites were expelled from the Labour Party, the word has rather fallen out of fashion.

But now, according to one Muslim leader, Islamic radicals are practising entryism of their own — into the heart of Whitehall – courtesy of a woman who was until recently a government minister.

Baroness Warsi, the first Muslim woman to sit in Cabinet, handed official posts to people linked to Islamist groups, including a man involved in an “unpleasant and bullying” campaign to win planning permission for the controversial London “megamosque” proposed by a fundamentalist Islamic sect.

He sits – alongside other radicals or former radicals and their allies – on a “cross-Government working group on anti-Muslim hatred” set up by Lady Warsi and Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.

Some members of the group are using their seats at the table to urge that Whitehall work with Islamist and extremist-linked bodies, including one described by the Prime Minister as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood”. Some are also pressing to lift bans on foreign hate preachers from entering Britain, including Zakir Naik, who has stated that “every Muslim should be a terrorist”.

Can you imagine the BBC breaking a story like that? Can you even imagine the BBC picking up on this scoop and running with it - despite it being, if true, a very serious story?

The main source for AG's story, intriguingly, is Fiyaz Mughal, a former member of the working group - intriguing because the Tell Mama man has previously been on the receiving end of Andrew Gilligan's investigative journalism. 

Antisemitism in the UK

Whenever 'Tell Mama', the controversial project purporting to measure anti-Muslim attacks, issues a report it seems to receive automatic, extensive, uncritical coverage from the BBC. There will be interviews/reports on the BBC current affairs programmes and articles on the BBC News website discussing its findings. 

Alan at Biased BBC notes, however, that a new survey by the Campaign Against Antisemitism into anti-Antisemitism in the UK - which he saw reported by the Daily Telegraph - has not been reported by the BBC News website, despite the involvement of YouGov in some of its research. 

Nor, for that matter, was this survey discussed on this morning's Today programme, despite it being mentioned in its news bulletins. 

The apparently automatic invite which seems to go out from the BBC to 'Tell Mama' boss Fiyaz Mughal doesn't seem to get sent to Gideon Falter or Jonathan Sacredoti of the CAA, does it?

A search of Google News also shows that the findings of the CAA/YouGov survey have, in fact, been reported right across the UK media: in The Daily Telegraph, ITV News, The Daily Mail, Metro, The Huffington Post, Channel 4 News, The Independent, The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Express. So the BBC is something of an exception here.

The question arises, therefore: Why does the BBC comprehensively report the finding of surveys which purport to show 'Islamophobia' in the UK but fail to do the same with surveys which purport to show Antisemitism in the UK?

*******

As for the survey itself, the main results of the YouGov part of the study come from asking this question:

Here are a number of comments that different people have made about Jews in Britain these days. In each case, how true or untrue do you think these statements are in general? 

2.1. Jews think they are better than other people.
2.2. In business, Jews are not as honest as most people.
2.3. I would be unhappy if a family member married a Jew.
2.4. Jews have too much power in the media.
2.5. Jews chase money more than other British people.
2.6. Jews' loyalty to Israel makes them less loyal to Britain than other British people.
2.7. Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy.

The overall results break down as follows:

How many people in Britain believe the antisemitic statements to be definitely or probably true? 45% of the British public believe at least one statement to be true (definitely or probably).
1 in 4 people – 26% of the British public – believe at least two statements to be true.
17% of the British public believe at least three statements to be true.
11% of the British public believe at least four statements to be true. Of those polled, men were more likely than women to believe at least one statement to be true, with 51% of men believing at least one statement to be true and 39% of women. 32% of the men polled believe at least two statements to be true.
Of those polled, 30% of Scots believe at least one statement (the lowest regional figure) compared to 49% of residents of the North of England (the highest regional figure).

Taking them individually:

“Jews think they are better than other people” 17% of British adults believe this to be true, however the number was 27% amongst respondents who intend to vote for UKIP.
Amongst these, the numbers were highest for respondents in London (24%) and the North (20%).
25% of respondents who were neither Christian, Catholic nor atheist also thought that the statement was true.

“In business, Jews are not as honest as most people” 11% of British adults believe this to be true.

“I would be unhappy if a family member married a Jew” 10% of British adults believe this to be true.
73% of those who believe this statement to be true also believe at least one other statement to be true.

“Jews have too much power in the media” 17% of British adults believe this to be true.
24% of the Londoners polled believe this to be true.
29% of respondents who were neither Christian, Catholic nor atheist also thought that the statement was true.
Of those polled, 23% of male respondents believe this to be true, versus 11% of women.

“Jews chase money more than other British people” 1 in 4 British adults (25%) believe this to be true, however the number was 39% amongst respondents who intend to vote for UKIP.
Of these, 29% of male respondents believe this to be true, versus 21% of women.
Of those polled, 30% of respondents aged over 60 believe this to be true.

“Jews' loyalty to Israel makes them less loyal to Britain than other British people” 1 in 5 British adults (20%) believe this to be true.
Of these, 25% of male respondents believe this to be true, versus 15% of women.
27% of the Londoners polled believe this to be true.

“Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy” 13% of British adults believe this to be true, however the number was 21% amongst respondents who intend to vote for UKIP.
Of those polled, 17% of male respondents believe this to be true, versus 10% of women.
20% of the Londoners polled believe this to be true.

I have to say that I'm taken aback and very worried by that 45% figure for members of the British public who "believe at least one statement to be true (definitely or probably)". That is an extraordinarily high figure.

It's also striking how badly Londoners come out of the survey. What is it about that city with its unusually high levels of immigrants that makes it so different? 

It's even more striking that most Antisemitic people of all appear to be those the survey describes as "neither Christian, Catholic nor atheist", which I'm guessing is a euphemistic way of saying 'mostly Muslims'. 

And, as someone who's far from unsympathetic towards UKIP, I'm absolutely staggered at the apparent finding of significantly higher levels of Antisemitism among UKIP supporters than among other parties' supporters (including, presumably, the Lib Dems) - a finding you might have thought the BBC would latch onto and make something of, if they'd bothered to examine the report closely enough.

Burqas, Boris and the BBC

There’s an ugly intolerance of honest expression afoot in our era, and we should notice. When entirely respectable people start saying that women who choose (or are forced) to cover their faces in public should be shielded from the knowledge that most of Britain hates this practice, then we’d better watch out. 

(Matthew Parris, The Times today)

Not a woman in a burqa

If you spend too much time monitoring the BBC, reading Twitter and keeping up with the latest news and views from politicians and pundits via the media (guilty as charged) then you might find yourself surprised at the public's reaction to the Boris/burka story. 

And even I've been surprised at the dismissive/incredulous reactions I've heard about this story - especially as some of them have come from my most Boris-hating, Brexit-loathing friends. 

If even they think that that Boris in this case had done (and said) nothing wrong and that there's actually something sinister about the criticism of him then maybe his critics should pause for thought. 

(Naturally, a couple of them also expressed the hope that the row might, nevertheless, finish him as a politician.) 

How representative this is I can't say, but Sky News did a poll that reinforces my impressions. The number of people saying that Boris's 'letter box' and 'bank robber' comparisons aren't racist vastly outnumbered those saying the comparisons are racist. And the numbers for banning the burka were even starker (making Boris far more liberal than the bulk of the British public on the matter). 

Rod Liddle, writing in the latest Spectator, disagrees with Boris Johnson for comparing burka-wearing women to post boxes and bank robbers saying that comparisons to Darth Vader are more appropriate. 

I'd disagree with Rod too. I think the best comparison (albeit not a particularly funny one) is with the outfit sported by members of the Ku Klux Klan. Both white supremacist white-hooded KKK outfits and Wahhabi-inspired Muslim supremacist black-hooded burkas have a deliberately intimidating, hostile character and a ghost-like appearance. (Where are Scooby, Shaggy, Daphne, Fred and Velma when you need them?)

Not a woman in a burqa

I've not heard the totality of the BBC coverage of this story, or anything even approaching it (given the sheer scale of it), but I've seen and heard enough - and Sue's posts have reinforced my feeling that it's been 'very BBC' in spades. 

I was driving to work the other morning and heard Mishal Husain on Today giving some critic of Boris a staggering uncritical interview. I thought "I really must transcribe that - or at least the questions - to show how bad it was". I haven't yet. I'm not sure I can even be bothered to find it now. You can doubtless guess how it went....

....oh OK, I can't just write that and move on. Plus I've found it. It was on Tuesday morning at 7.20 and Mishal was interviewing Fiyaz Mughal of Tell Mama, who was sharply critical of both Mr Johnson and the Conservatives, accusing Boris of 'Islamophobia' and the Tories of doing "nothing". Here are her often leading questions in full:

• Do you think this column amounts to Islamophobia?
• And if you consider this, as you just said you do, Islamophobia and this is a serving MP that we're talking about, until very recently our Foreign Secretary, what should the Conservative party and indeed the Government do about it?
• Yeah, just before we talk about that, just going back to the Government response - a Government spokesman did make a general response saying "all hate crimes are unacceptable". There was nothing specific about the Boris Johnson comments. What did you think of that?
• And if these had been comments calling the dress of an ultra-orthodox Jew, for example, ridiculous do you think there would have been a very different response?
• And yet you did meet the Conservative Party chairman Brandon Lewis, didn't you? Indeed you went to meet with this because these allegations of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party have been around for a while. There was a statement that Brandon Lewis made after that saying that the party would and has acted swiftly in disciplining members who have expressed unacceptable attitudes towards Muslims, that he was going to work to improve awareness of discrimination, promote inclusion, you know, stress the importance of promoting tolerance and inclusivity. What happened after?

Mishal, incidentally, was back today, talking to two Muslim-background comediennes about Rowan Atkinson's defence of Boris. Guess what? Both comediennes disapproved of what both Boris and Rowan Atkinson had said. One pronounced herself "sad" at what Rowan had said, the other said she was "disappointed". Both then laid into them. I smiled when one of the talked of "the freedom to give both sides", as we certainly weren't getting that in this interview.

Not a woman in a burqa. (It's actually the BBC's John Simpson)

The other proper spot of monitoring I did of the BBC's coverage was to sample the BBC News Channel on Thursday, where the questions put by the presenters were much of a muchness. For example, here's Naga Munchetty to Minister for Sport and Civil Society Tracey Crouch on Breakfast:

• Tell me, firstly let's address the whole thing about the row in the Conservative Party, do you think he should resign and do you think the Whip should be withdrawn from him? 
• Do you think he should resign or the Whip should be withdrawn from him? 
• What are you going to do when you turn up to the many events you go to where there are children, sports children, sports events, celebrating sport, celebrating women in sport and a woman turns up, she's wearning a niqab and someone says, "Well, you look like a letterbox. It's all right for me to say that because Boris Johnson said that"?

And Jane Hill to Conservative MP Andrew Lewer late on in the afternoon:

• Before we let you go, as a member of the Conservative Party, I'm interested in your views on the former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. What should he do in light of the growing number of complaints that have been made about those comments he made about Muslim women who choose to wear the burqa? 
• But has he spoiled the opportunity of having a debate which you and others has said should perhaps be had by using such intemperate language, by talking about "letterboxes"?

And The Papers that night had two critics of Boris - Joan Bakewell and John Stapleton - who agreed with each other. (Typically the equivalent programme on Sky News had two people who didn't agree on the subject, which was much better).

No need for me to add a caption

But the most astonishing feature that day was the Victoria Derbyshire programme which had four Muslim women on to discuss the issue. And guess what again? Yes, all four of them, from different walks of life and leading different lives (one naturally with only her eyes showing, agreed with each other that Boris's comments were very wrong and that the burqa and niqab are perfectly fine for those who want to wear them. Not one dissenter appeared among them. And yet we know there are dissenting voices among Muslim women (see, for example, Qanta Ahmed's very interesting Spectator article in support of Boris), so why didn't one get an invite to this discussion?

When much of the population doesn't seem to be thinking what the BBC is thinking on this issue and when so much comment away from the BBC is asking questions that are completely different to those the BBC keep asking, then there's a very serious disconnect between the BBC and its paying public here.

No health warning for MEND

Today's Sunday opened with the following statement:

Welcome to Sunday. A new poll suggests Islamophobia is a real problem in the UK today. We'll be discussing the findings.

The discussion between Dr Shazad Amin of MEND and Professor Mona Siddiqui began with presenter Emily Buchanan saying:

A new ComRes poll out today has revealed that 58% of the British public agree that Islamophobia is a real problem in society. The survey also showed that nearly half the population felt that Britain's becoming less tolerant towards Muslims and that Muslims were more discriminated against than people of other faiths.

Worryingly, it turned out that the poll had been commissioned by MEND (Muslim Engagement and Development), with no mention being made that MEND is a highly controversial organisation, frequently accused of hosting extremist Islamist speakers. Tell MAMA's Fiyaz Mughal, for example, has accused them of “conspiracy, antisemitism, hatred of other communities and a unipolar view of life”.

P.S. I see Jane's been listening too:

And there's more about MEND here.

Luvvies' Lament

Just in case you missed this in the Graun: Concerns about antisemitism mean we cannot vote Labour

From The Letter:

“The coming election is momentous for every voter, but for British Jews it contains a particular anguish: the prospect of a prime minister steeped in association with antisemitism. Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour has come under formal investigation by the EHRC for institutional racism against Jews. Two Jewish MPs have been bullied out of the party. Mr Corbyn has a long record of embracing antisemites as comrades. 

“We listen to our Jewish friends and see how their pain has been relegated as an issue, pushed aside by arguments about Britain’s European future. For those who insist that Labour are the only alternative to Boris Johnson’s hard Brexit, now, it seems, is not the time for Jewish anxiety. 

“But antisemitism is central to a wider debate about the kind of country we want to be. To ignore it because Brexit looms larger is to declare that anti-Jewish prejudice is a price worth paying for a Labour government. Which other community’s concerns are disposable in this way? Who would be next? 

“Opposition to racism cannot include surrender in the fight against antisemitism. Yet that is what it would mean to back Labour and endorse Mr Corbyn for Downing Street. The path to a more tolerant society must encompass Britain’s Jews with unwavering solidarity. We endorse no party. However, we cannot in all conscience urge others to support a political party we ourselves will not. We refuse to vote Labour on 12 December.” 

John le Carré (David Cornwell), Fay Weldon, Joanna Lumley, William Boyd, Simon Callow, Antony Beevor, Sathnam Sanghera, Janina Ramirez, Trevor Phillips, Jimmy Wales, Suzannah Lipscomb, Tom Holland, Frederick Forsyth, Peter Frankopan, Ghanem Nuseibeh, Dan Snow, Fiyaz Mughal, Tony Parsons, Dan Jones, Maajid Nawaz, Oz Katerji, Nick Hewer, Ed Husain, Terry Jervis

The Guardian goes on to explain that several of the signatories don’t normally vote Labour in the first place, and: Labour antisemitism row: public figures say they cannot vote for party under Corbyn

“A Labour party spokesperson said: “It’s extraordinary that several of those who have signed this letter have themselves been accused of antisemitism, Islamophobia and misogyny. It’s less surprising that a number are Conservatives and Lib Dems. 

“We take allegations of antisemitism extremely seriously, we are taking robust action and we are absolutely committed to rooting it out of our party and wider society.”

Maybe the BBC will mention this tomorrow. If so, it will be interesting to see what their take on it will be.

"We will continue to follow this story and report on all aspects in a sensitive way"

No one from the BBC was prepared to appear on this week's Newswatch to face questioning from Samira Ahmed over the BBC's coverage of the 'British' jihadis. 

One viewer emailed the programme to say:

I cannot believe how sympathetic the BBC news coverage was to the death of suicide bomber Talha Asmal. The BBC were so consumed with sympathising with him for being 'groomed' that his victims didn't even receive a mention.

Indeed, that was the very thing that struck me about the BBC's reporting (and many others too, from what I've read elsewhere). The actual victims of Talha Asmal - the dead Iraqis -  pretty much vanished from view (as you can see from the BBC's main online report on the story).

Who were they? Oil workers? Soldiers? Just people in the wrong place at the wrong time? How old were they? Did they have children?

That's what makes Dominic Casciani's focus on whether British jihadis might be victims too all the more disturbing for me.

The BBC's coverage of the three Bradford sisters and their nine children slipping off to Islamic State territory has also raised eyebrows.

I suspect that many people will share Rod Liddle's view here: 

The BBC and the Guardian are terribly concerned about them, worried about their safety. Me — I’m slightly less so, to tell you the truth. In the first place, I don’t see why we should restrict the movement of people wherever they might want to go — they wish to travel the world, do a spot of beheading and be blown up by a US airstrike, I say bon voyage. And if they can encourage a few more similarly minded people to do likewise, all the better. All I would add is — whatever you do, don’t let them back in. Any of them.

******

Tuesday night's Newsnight was "terribly concerned" too. 

Secunder Kermani's opening report began by focusing on the weeping fathers and the "bewilderment" and "fears" of all and sundry at the apparently inexplicable turn of events. 

Then, typically, the BBC reporter said:

Some question whether enough was done by the authorities to engage with the families... 

 ...which was followed by his first 'talking head', Ishtiaq Ahmed from the Bradford Council for Mosques, saying this seemed "like a major failing by the intelligence services and other authorities". 

(Secunder didn't challenge him about that). 

Then the BBC reporter went to a primary school which two of the children attended to get the views of parents there and found they were surprised because everything's absolutely normal at that school (or so they said).

Secunder Kermani then turned to camera and informed us that "one youth worker in the area" told him that "some British Muslim women has expressed concerns to him to new government counter terrorism legislation meant that their children could be taken away from them just for being deeply practising Muslims and that perception was making some people more vulnerable to radical ideology".

Some Muslim women's groups want women to have more access to mosques so they can discuss contentious issues. "Britain's first female-governed mosque" could be opening soon in Bradford, and Bana Gora of the Muslim Women's Council was Secunder's second 'talking head', talking about it. 

[That sounds 'progressive' but, just Googling 'Bana Gora', it appears that "female-governed" is a euphemism for "women-only", which sounds somewhat less 'progressive' in that segregated worship isn't exactly new to Islam]. 

It was then back to the fathers and the "daunting task" of getting their families back from ISIS. 

That's the kind of BBC reporting that begs so many questions - the kind of questions Newsnight was hardly likely to pursue. (They just don't seem to think that way).

Then came a studio discussion - inevitably for Newsnight on such occasions - between three Muslims.

They were there to discuss the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the government's Prevent strategy.

We heard from Zubeda Limbada of Connect Justice; Fiyaz Mughal of Faith Matters [and Tell Mama]; and Raza Nadim of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (who talked over every one else, and blamed foreign policy and alienation.)

Evan Davis's line of questioning was pretty consistent. It involved questioning the effectiveness of the government's policies: Is it working? Has the government's policy "reduced the trust" Muslims have in the authorities? Has the emphasis on British values been a bad thing? Has central government made things worse?

It's a nice, safe line of questioning for a BBC journalist to pursue: Blame the government and the authorities, not Muslims (and Islam).

******

Returning, however, to Newswatch...

This was the statement the BBC gave the programme over its Talha Asmal coverage [with some asides from me]:

As well as reporting the attack [whilst almost forgetting about the victims], the radicalisation of young British Muslims is a key element to this story [which the BBC tends to report through Muslim/non-'controversial' non-Muslim voices], and like other news organisations [a classic BBC ploy that!] we interviewed people who knew him to provide context [but didn't the BBC do far too much of that, and give far too much prominence to it? - all those people saying the suicide bomber was nice and kind]. There has also been comment by senior and local political leaders in the UK which we also reported on [though, as per the previous post - and earlier ones here at ITBB - not entirely fairly or accurately]. We will continue to follow this story and report on all aspects ["all" aspects? I very much doubt that!] in a sensitive way [oh yes, it will be "sensitive" all right - "sensitive" especially towards the 'aggrieved' parts of the Muslim community especially, no doubt].

All of which raises the question: Is BBC News fit for purpose?

So much for multi-culturalism then!

A few years ago the Independent reported that Hindu and Sikh groups were concerned about pro-Muslim bias at the BBC:

Hindu and Sikh leaders have accused the BBC of pandering to Britain's Muslim community by making a disproportionate number of programmes on Islam at the expense of covering other Asian religions. 

A breakdown of programming from the BBC's Religion and Ethics department, seen by The Independent, reveals that since 2001, the BBC made 41 faith programmes on Islam, compared with just five on Hinduism and one on Sikhism.

Critics say the disproportionate amount of programming is part of an apparent bias within the BBC towards Islam since the attacks of 11 September 2001, which has placed an often uncomfortable media spotlight on Britain's Muslims.

Ashish Joshi, the chairman of the Network of Sikh Organisation's (NSO) media monitoring group, which obtained the numbers, said many Hindu and Sikh licence-fee payers felt cheated. "People in our communities are shocked," he said. "We are licence-fee payers and we want to know why this has happened. The bias towards Islam at the expense of Hindus and particularly Sikhs is overwhelming and appears to be a part of BBC policy."

It sounds like they have a case, doesn't it?  It probably won't surprise many of you though that the BBC was having none of it, rejecting the criticism out of hand:

In a letter sent in July to the NSO, the head of the BBC's Religion and Ethics, Michael Wakelin, denied that there was any bias. He said the demographic makeup of Britain meant that Britain's 1.6 million Muslims outnumber Hindus and Sikhs by two to one. "Therefore," he wrote, "if Muslims get 60 minutes a year, the Sikhs and Hindus should share 30 minutes each." Further content on Islam, he added, was "no doubt sparked by the interest in the faith following 9/11". 

A spokesman for the BBC said the broadcaster was committed to representing all of Britain's faiths and communities. "We reject any claims of bias," he said. "In our religion and ethics content alone, we have covered Hindu and Sikh issues this year on The Big Questions, Sunday Life and Extreme Pilgrim. In the autumn we will be covering Diwali from a Sikh perspective and we have a major new series for BBC Two in early 2009, including features on Hinduism and Sikhism."

OK, so who's right, the Sikh and Hindu leaders or the bigwigs and spokespersonages at the BBC? 

If there were ever a case for using Sunday, BBC Radio 4's flagship religious and ethical current affairs programme, as a test-case, this is surely it.

Have Hindus and Sikhs been under-represented, as they claim, or was Mr Wakelin, then head of the BBC's Religion and Ethics Department (since replaced by Aaqil Ahmed, a Muslim), actually correct in saying that they get proportionate coverage? We can certainly test his bold - and very specific - claim to impartiality, that "if Muslims get 60 minutes a year, the Sikhs and Hindus should share 30 minutes each." Is that what really happens?

How are we to count items featuring Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs on Sunday? Do we count all those many, many, many Sunday items on political events (revolutions, civil wars, elections, etc) in Muslim-majority countries, mostly reflecting some aspect or other of the so-called 'Arab Spring'? Clearly that should be a 'no', unless the feature in question is specifically focused on examining Islamic aspects to the story. Obviously, however, disentangling these two strands is far from easy in many stories from that part of the world, where religion and politics are often very closely entwined. Still, I will reject most of these items from the list, despite there being dozens of them. 

Getting an absolutely precise, unambiguous, incontrovertible total for all Islam-centred features is, therefore, going to be much harder than getting one for Hinduism and Sikhism. On top of which there's the question of whether we should include guests who are Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, even when they aren't talking about religion or religiously-derived ethical matters?  I'll say 'no' to that one too. (So that's a good number more chucked out!). Again, it's very difficult to mark hard-and-fast rules for what to count and what not to count, so I'll let you chuck out any of the remainder which you feel shouldn't be there and I'll place in brackets any others I doubt should be there. 

Still, absolutely precise figures may not even be necessary - as you'll see! Better, perhaps, just to let your eyes scroll their way down the following lists.

Right, here goes!