Too even-handed

I should have called my previous post “If you didn’t laugh you’d have to cry.“ Was I being a bit too hard on the Guardian yesterday when I criticised it for giving equal credence to both sides of the antisemitism debacle during the Corbyn era? 

Who bears the blame for not grasping the fact that antisemitism is actually more troublesome than the retaliatory unpleasantness it engenders? The report itself? Martin Forde QC? The Guardian, Labour List?  One might even consider giving the Guardian a small Brownie point for being the first to mention the report at all. (When I was in the Brownies there wasn’t much emphasis on the badge-attaining side of it, but the uniform had a certain je ne sais quoi)

I see that the BBC has now weighed in. 

Anti-Semitism used as factional weapon within Labour, says report

Surprise. Firmly on the Guardian side of the fence. The Beeb’s version seems more Guardinista-like than the actual Guardian’s version. Illustrated with a massive Labour Party red rosette, the BBC’s emphasis is firmly placed on the principle known as “a plague on both their houses”.

"The dossier found "no evidence" of anti-Semitism being handled differently from other complaints and blamed "factional opposition" towards Mr Corbyn. "

This morning’s Times seems less equivocating and the picture they’ve used to illustrate the piece says quite a lot too. The uniform also has that je ne sais quoi.

So far the btl comments in The Times seem to be mainly from folk who abhor antisemitism. Their ‘takeaway’ from the report must be similar to mine. (That antisemitism is real and it’s not pretty)

I  don’t know if any of the aforementioned left-wing platforms allow comments, but I fear they would be as ‘even-handed’ about the matter as ever.