Sunday 7 October 2018

The BBC and Shaun Bailey: Part Two

Continuing on from the previous post (split for reasons of length and readability)....

Jonny Dymond

And it gets worse. Pugnazious continues
I first heard the story on WATO and I was astonished at the sheer unpleasantness of a quite blatant attack on Bailey by the BBC which quoted a Labour MP calling Bailey the ‘token black ghetto boy’. Why would the BBC use that quote? It wasn’t needed, it’s irrelevant to the story…except for the BBC it isn’t because that is their whole narrative…Bailey is only a candidate because he is black, nothing to do with talent and ability. What an insult, a racist insult. This from the BBC that tell us how hideously white Britain is and how we must give preferential treatment to Bame people suddenly decides quotas are a bad thing…but of course Bailey isn’t there as part of a tick-box exercise….he’s there on merit and has been an assembly member since 2016. 
The WATO presenter demanded, absolutely demanded, to know if Bailey ‘should be allowed to stay’ as candidate because of his ‘controversial’ comments which apparently ‘blamed Muslims and Hindus for creating crime’…his words ‘will alienate people in the very diverse city of London’. 
Bailey did not blame Muslims and Hindus and his words will not alienate the people of London because he didn’t say what the BBC says he said. 

If you listen to the programme, Jonny Dymond does indeed say:
Mr. Bailey, nicknamed 'the Tories' token ghetto boy' by a Labour MP back in 2010.
Jonny Dymond also said that Mr Bailey "waded into controversial waters...when he gets to multiculturalism" before taking to a "disgusted" ex-Tory female Muslim candidate, Shazia Awan-Scully, who left the party and has since being accusing it of 'Islamophobia'. Jonny stirred the pot, and then talked to James Cleverly MP.

This was one of the worst interviews I've ever heard from a BBC presenter. Mr Cleverly patiently tried to set him straight but, frankly, he'd have been far better banging his head against the Great Wall of China. Jonny wasn't for seeing it at all. It was stunningly blinkered interviewing and Mr Cleverly was remarkably patient with him.

Look out in particular for Jonny apparently directly quoting Shaun Bailey but in fact grossly misquoting him:
Jonny Dymond: (interrupting) He said, "When community ended as a result of Hindu and Muslims being around"...
A transcript is needed, though it won't capture Jonny Dymond's aggressive tone. Read it and weep:

James Cleverly MP

Jonny Dymond: Hello. You're a friend of Shaun Bailey's, aren't you? In light of these comments that have emerged, do you stand by him being the best person to be London mayor?
James Cleverly: When you say "emerged" it's as if there's some kind of mystery around this. It was a policy paper that was published, that was put in the public domain. I remember it came out and I remember reading elements of it when it came out 12 years ago and I've reminded myself of the sections that we're talking about just recently. So these were things that Sean, who at the time was a youth worker dealing with young people who have been involved in criminal behaviour, often violent criminal behaviour, every single day of the week, and what he was expressing was the fact that a lot of people have found themselves in situations where they don't have the community anchor, they don't have a sense of community, they don't feel they have a place where they belong, and that drives criminal behaviour. This is absolutely mainstream thinking now. What Shaun did wrong was he could and should have been better at explaining that he wasn't blaming anyone. It was just an observation that when you have communities that are...when you have people that don't feel a sense of community they are more likely to drift into crime.
Jonny Dymond: To end up as "a cesspit of crime".
James Cleverly: Well, the point he said is that when people don't have a sense of community...
Jonny Dymond: (interrupting) He said, "When community ended as a result of Hindu and Muslims being around"...
James Cleverly:  No. No.
Jonny Dymond: (crosstalk) I mean, that, no, that is, that is....he said, he said...
James Cleverly: (crosstalk) No, that's not, that's not, sorry...
Jonny Dymond: (crosstalk) ...he said, "People are going to school..."
James Cleverly: (crosstalk) That is not correct. Sorry.
Jonny Dymond: "...and learning more about Diwali than they are about Christmas" and when...and then he followed on immediately and said "When communities disappear. Without community you end up with a cesspit of crime". He connected the two.
James Cleverly: No, you're connecting the two....
Jonny Dymond: (interrupting) It's in the same paragraph, sir.
James Cleverly: He made the point...He made the point that when you have young people - he was dealing predominantly with black boys of Christian heritage in West London - and when they weren't themselves feeling part of a community, when they were learning about things that they personally had no ethnic or religious connection but not about their own ethnicity or their own religion or their own society, they were left without a community. And it was that lack of community that was a driver. He absolutely was not  blaming other ethnicities or religions. In fact, quite the opposite...
Jonny Dymond: (interrupting) He did name them. He did name Hindus and Mudlims (sic) under the title 'Multiculturalism'. It looked pretty blunt when I read it. Of course it's online and our audience are freely available to go and look at it online as well.
James Cleverly: I have to say I admire...Your interpretation it is the opposite of what he was saying. He was saying that what the boys he was working with we're not learning about was their own tradition, their own community, their own society, and that vacuum was what was driving them to criminality. He was absolutely not linking the two. Now he would concede, I'm quite sure, that he should and could have been much clearer at separating the two elements but he was absolutely not suggesting the fault of any community. In fact it was a lack of community he was saying which was driving boys towards criminality. And that as I say is mainstream thinking...
Jonny Dymond: (interrupting) OK, he also said, he also said "We've now got a nation of people who wouldn't do anything for the country. They wouldn't fight for their country. Why would they? Their nation has done nothing for them, as far as they're concerned. They are not aware that it has clothed, educated and housed them." No one doubts his vantage point and I think very few people would quibble with his astonishing story as well - a very tough life. He has succeeded where many others haven't or couldn't. But these words will alienate people rather than bring them onside in a very diverse city that he aims to lead for the Conservatives.
James Cleverly: No. But again you're making an assumption that my reading of that, and in the context of what he wrote, was that if society doesn't show young people that they are part of the team, that society is doing something for them, it shouldn't be a surprise if they feel less affinity towards society as a whole, and that's why they often feel more affinity with criminal gangs. And Sean worked on making sure these boys in West London didn't get involved in criminal gangs. And the point he was making is if the criminal gangs provide a sense of community, that sense of family, that sense of belonging and the country doesn't then it's unsurprising that the cohort of young boys that he was dealing with on a day-to-day basis have more affinity to those criminal gangs than they have to the country that housed them, clothed them and protected them.
Jonny Dymond: Very, very briefly Mr. Cleverly. You stand by your candidate? He will lead the Conservatives into the mayoral election? 
James Cleverly: Absolutely. You've gone through his history. I thought it was absolutely ridiculous to suggest that he was selected on anything other than quality. This guy is the living embodiment of the opportunities that London provides. He's got a fantastic track record and he will be our candidate.
Jonny Dymond: James Cleverly. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon.


  1. I suppose the question is why, time after time, do politicians (and Tommy Robinson) not rock up to interviews with printouts and memory aids, and refuse to be confronted unless the entire 'contoversial' quote, paragraph or context is laid out clearly before the conversation begins.
    Too much backfooting allows jornalists free reign with narrative.

  2. If I was being interviewed by the BBC I think I'd work in Jimmy Savile, Jenni Murray's tax demand, Mark Thompson's arm biting of employees, Lord Hall's regrets about the Brexit result and failure of their well paid pundits to predict Brexit, Trump or the 2015 election result. That would all be in the first sentence. Quite easy really - just say "Well of course you work for the BBC and we know that the BBC etc there is no reason for you to claim the moral high ground and adopt such a patronising tone in your question. Remind me - 0what was the question - it was so dull I've forgotten what it was..." If they try and interrupt you just keep saying "Will you be quiet and let me answer the question!" over and over, louder and louder until they stop. :)


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.