tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post6086336074055319079..comments2024-01-01T17:21:52.555+00:00Comments on Is the BBC biased?: Colluding with a foreign governmentCraighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08741318067991857821noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-84072115572719737672017-11-11T20:30:03.468+00:002017-11-11T20:30:03.468+00:00First chance to get near the computer today. I don...First chance to get near the computer today. I don’t think you can have read Seth Frantzman’s or Melanie Phillips’s articles (as linked) <br /><br />Your main argument is against a point I did not make. To clarify, I daresay Priti Patel’s breach of ministerial code <i>was</i> very serious; no doubt it was sacking offence, and I agree she was a fool to have blundered into it under the circumstances. <br /><br />But just look at the circumstances. Yes, there are foreign policy ‘sensitivities’ for the government. There’s the pro-Palestinian movement to pacify and the antisemites and the Arabists at the FCO to appease. If the media had presented a fair picture of the ‘regional sensitivities’ over the years, Priti Patel could have had her meetings sanctioned in the proper manner - without let or hindrance, and this mess wouldn’t have arisen.<br /><br />It’s a pity that the government couldn’t reveal what really happened and who knew what, when. <br />It looks very much like someone has been economical with the actualité, and it’s particularly sad to see the BBC turning a blind eye to the antisemitic bile that their ‘scoop’ has unleashed.<br />suehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02693686958796849316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-44479084646680439832017-11-11T08:35:23.806+00:002017-11-11T08:35:23.806+00:00I suspect there is more to this business than meet...I suspect there is more to this business than meets the eye. Meetings are one thing; actual spending would have fallen prey to many more pairs of eyes.<br /><br />Falconer always struck me as slimy. A poor choice of interviewee then if the task was to promote a cause (in my view anyway). A turn off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-67489498293597917912017-11-10T22:12:48.348+00:002017-11-10T22:12:48.348+00:00Sorry Sue, can't agree with you. It wasn't...Sorry Sue, can't agree with you. It wasn't a misdemeanour. It was a MAJOR breach of the ministerial code compounded by a lack of openness when the offence came to the attention of the PM. One of the first things she will have been briefed is not going off and holding meetings relevant to her responsibilities without first alerting civil servants. Government would be in complete chaos if these rules weren't followed and the risk of intended or unintended corruption. <br /><br />It would have been a major problem whatever the country. But Israel was far worse than say Botswana given the foreign policy sensitivities in that region. I say that as a strong supporter of Israel's right to exist and prosper. <br /><br />I just can't understand why Priti Patel blundered into this, given she is quite an experienced politician.<br /><br />Lord Falconer - what a piece he is. Sent his four children to public schools. Seems almost de rigeur for pro-comp Labour politicians. To be fair to Corbyn, at least he opted for sacrificing his children to the tender mercies of an inner London comp education and hence divorce from the sensible mother of his children rather than put them into private education. <br /><br /> Monkey Brainsnoreply@blogger.com