Sunday round-up (?)

George Eustice is my MP. He has been made plenty of use of since his promotion last week when he was anointed secretary of state for flooding. The current severe flooding is a baptism of fire; he’s in much demand to defend the PM’s apparent dereliction of duty in not showing up in his wellies to commiserate with the unfortunate people of Yorkshire.

"Where is the Prime Minister this week?"

With widespread flooding, @SophyRidgeSky asks Environment Secretary George Eustice why @BorisJohnson hasn't visited affected areas or been seen in public for 9 days.#Ridge pic.twitter.com/Br6kVvxaIg

— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) February 23, 2020

Good old George seems unflappable. I’d quite like to see him being vocal and unflappable on certain other matters too, given time. His predecessor Theresa Villiers was a reliable supporter of Israel and participant in relevant HoC debates, but I think the likelihood of George following in her footsteps, in that area at least, is next to nil.  

“British officials have pledged to urgently review the tens of millions of dollars in aid the UK provides to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, after an investigative report found that a majority of the funds have been going to schools in the West Bank and Gaza Strip which use textbooks that incite violence against Israelis. 

According to a Friday report in the UK-based Daily Mail, the Department for International Development and its secretary, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, vowed to raise the issue with the Palestinian Authority, adding that London was working to carry out an independent review of the Palestinian textbooks.”

It’s bad enough allowing our own textbooks to spout inaccurate and antisemitic material, but it beggars belief that any of my hard-earned wages go towards gifting UNWRA with $427 million worth of incitement to murder my kith and kin.

As I was saying, George Eustice was on good form on Sophy Ridge and on Andy Marr immediately afterwards, having evidently been teleported to the BBC studio.

Sophy Ridge gets more ‘senior’ people on her show these days than the BBC seems able to attract, despite being a bit of a shallow interlocutor, even in comparison with Andrew Marr whose Boris-related comeuppance seems to have taught him a lesson. (Thinks: Are the Conservatives actually implementing ‘semi BDS’ on the Beeb?) 

(I don’t know how many times my autocorrect - autoincorrect - has changed SopHy to Soppy. I’ll just leave it in future.

You have to watch these things on a Sunday, and I stuck it out all the way through to The Big Questions. I was surprised to see Andrew Doyle sitting in the front row. (Identifying familiar faces in the front row is the first thing you have to do when you switch on TBQs.) (It’s downhill from then on.) 

Up first, the question of race. Of course, we’re all racists, although one might contend, as I do, that it’s not necessarily based on skin-colour, (except, perhaps in India where they use the Pantone shade-card as a guide) 

I’ve heard of Adam Rutherford but I didn’t know much about him. Lefty, isn’t it? 

Anyway, I think I’ve learned a new thing. The Labour Party is a race with its own language. (Just think. It nearly had its own state.) This was beautifully demonstrated for us on this programme by  a lady called Maya Goodfellow (Maybe later, do something about that gender-specific surname?) 

The Labour Party Language is a form of English, built around rigorous abstention from the percussive sound that native English-speakers usually use to articulate the written letter ’t’.

This does hamper fluency and makes pronunciation and comprehension difficult, but once you ‘get your ear in’ it’s almost possible to get the gist of most of it. The knack of delivering the language with true conviction seems to be in forming a kind of impenetrable word-barricade while beating time with talon-like nail extensions, a signal that these non-proletariat hands are unsuitable for chores, playing stringed instruments or any demeaning form of DIY.

Then I watched a bit of 'Homes Under The Hammer,' which used to be one of my favourites until Lucy Alexander who knew stuff was replaced by token diversity who apparently doesn’t.

  

Of Cockfights and Nicky Campbell

Douglas Murray's latest Spectator piece is a great read.

It tells the tale of how Douglas fell foul of a very unfriendly and censorious left-wing, feminist academic on a Radio 3 discussion programme. 

Because of her feminist views, she herself has now fallen foul of very unfriendly and censorious people  - namely transgender militants. And it's even worse for her, as she fears physical violence from them and has two security guards to protect her, ironically both men. 

Douglas says, whether she likes it or not, he's prepared to literally take a punch for her in order to protect her right to free speech. And I, for one, don't doubt that he is,  

The relevance to this blog is the BBC-related tale Douglas tells in passing. The fall-out between this academic (Selina Todd) and Douglas Murray was a BBC set-up - an engineered cockfight. It was a debate about class and Douglas is posh, and Selina is left-wing. Selina obliged and was rude to Douglas...but Douglas refused to be rude back. 

Straight away I knew two things: that I had acquired a new enemy and that I had ruined the programme. After all, it’s not what you’re meant to do. When the BBC prepares a cockfight, you are meant to play your part, collect your fifty quid and ask to be invited back once the bruise has subsided. If you fold your arms and say you’re not playing, the BBC doesn’t have a show. I later learned that this edition of the programme had been used at BBC training days as an example of editorial failure, which made me rather proud.

I thought of that this morning after seeing flame-flowing, race-obsessed Kehinde Andrews listed among the guests on today's The Big Questions. He's a particularly aggressive cock. 

And then, while watching the Andrew Marr show, I saw Nicky Campbell, previewing that very programme, promising "very lively and controversial debates" - i.e. a cockfight.

Such is the way of the BBC, promoting healing and a less aggressive national debate while inviting the likes of Selina and Kehinde to stir the pot and make it boil over, not for the sake of free speech but purely for public entertainment.

Top trumps (update)

Just a follow-up to an earlier post (which you may have to quickly skim to catch-up on first!)...

Sonia Poulton went on to react to the BBC's statements about her 'bumping' from today's The Big Questions. She clearly believes that the BBC isn't being honest here:

• BBC quote: 'We talk to lots of people about potentially appearing on the programme...' This was no 'potential'. They even forgot to cancel the cab they booked for me. He was left at Manchester Piccadilly. I hope they remembered to cancel the hotel room. 
• Quote: "BBC sources denied that a researcher had claimed guests were bumped off the programme if other guests complained." I would be happy to have a public conversation with the researcher involved, I've nothing to hide. She confirmed it happens. 
• When she first approached me to appear, we had a research chat lasting about 20/30 mins including the issue of people being wrongly called transphobic for being gender critical and I said to her about Dr Nicola Williams [Spokeswoman for Fair Play For Women] being removed for Rachel McKinnon [transgender cycling champion] on BBC Five Live.
• And she said 'yes it happens because the other guest will refuse to appear'. And I said - very clearly to her - that it was wrong and that was why this debate was being shut down and not heard. And she agreed. That conversation happened.
• TBC: I'm happy there's at least one GC speaker on the show today. I know what took place and so do the people involved. I believe I was cancelled because of a concern about what I may say re: transgender children's charity, Mermaids and its impact on children & free speech.

Here's a list of the named contributors to today's programme:

Rabbi JOSH LEVY, Assembly of Reform Rabbis UK

Rabbi DOVID LEWIS, South Manchester Synagogue

Rt Rev STEPHEN LOWE, Former Bishop of Hulme

ALISON RUOFF, Vice President, Church Society

JAYNE OZANNE, General Synod

TAIWO ADEWUYI, Discussjesus.com

CAROLINE FARROW, Catholic Universe

AMELIA LEE, The Proud Trust LGBT Youth

Rev DANIEL VALENTINE, Anglican priest & lawyer

ANGELA EPSTEIN, journalist

SHELAGH McNERNEY, Battle of Ideas 2018

ROWAN ELLIS, YouTuber

DAMIAN FLANAGAN, Author & critic

Dr DWAYNE RYAN MENEZES, Human Security Centre

RIDDI VISWANATHAN, Diversity Officer, Manchester University Students' Union

Were any of these people the ones who allegedly refused to participate if Ms Poulton or right-wing Australian Helen Dale were on? 

(P.S. I grinned that those old Sunday morning BBC One discussion programme staples Bishop Stephen Lowe and Angela Epstein were both on. Clearly no one's successfully no-platformed them yet on the BBC!)

(P.P.S. It was a bit odd that the first Big Question, "Do faiths need to adapt to survive?", featured Jews, Christians and Hindus but no Muslims. Islam didn't get a mention).

Top trumps

The goings-on behind the scenes at the BBC are often fascinating. Here's another glimpse, courtesy of feminist writer and broadcaster Sonia Poulton, who is 'GC' ('gender critical') - i.e. she's critical of transgender activists:

*******

Sonia Poulton: Just been dropped from the BBC's Big Questions tomorrow. Booked to talk about intolerance & how 'hate' is used to silence people. Now I'm silenced. Producer 'didn't know why' but I told her. BBC remove gender critical voices from debate upon request. My court tweets worked against me.I had already told the researcher that this would happen and she confirmed that 'Yes the BBC do remove GC voices if other guest refuses to appear with them'. I say remove the other guest not the one who is willing to talk.

FairPlayForWomen: This is a clear breach of BBC Editors standards. "refusal to make a contribution should not be allowed to act as a veto on the appearance of other contributors holding different views" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/fairness/refusals-to-take-part) …

Sonia Poulton: Producer said 'we don't have time to have you on now'. I said 'nonsense, I knew this would happen after my tweets'. She said she didn't know if that was why the editor decided to cut me. I do - as I had it confirmed by the researcher that BBC knowingly do this. I was ready for it. 

DiversityandEquality: Subject access request maybe an FOI? [Ed - lol! The reply is inevitable: "the information requested falls outside of the scope of the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature".]

Sarah Ditum: Rachel McKinnon refused to do live radio with me last week when we were discussion trans inclusion in sport on Radio 4's PM, was given a pre-record instead. Even that is remarkably indulgent.

Sonia Poulton: I know and yes it was. BBC need to sort out their position because they are breaking their own code on this.

Angela Oliver: I don’t know how true this is, but I have it on good word that the BBC employ a much higher percentage of trans than other organisations. Maybe that’s where the answer lies.

Sonia Poulton: 

Angela Oliver: There we have it.

Michelle Burns: Who was the 'other guest'? Too right that they should be the one to be dropped,

Sonia Poulton: They're not saying a specific guest but that there was no time to have me on. But they do remove guests, that's confirmed. They said they did not want me to travel without being able to speak! Yet before my court tweets, it was full on. Even sent through hotel and travel details.

Katarina Hill: That's outrageous. I'm so sorry this has happened to you.

Update: And there's more...

Replying to Ms. Poulton, here's "Australian literature's lone classical liberal" Helen Dale (i.e. a right-winger), also bumped from tomorrow's The Big Questions:

Yep, happened to me as well - same reason (people who wouldn’t want to appear with me), but different issue.

I was at least honestly informed of the issue & didn’t have to go fishing for it. 

I didn’t want to go public with this - which is why when I found out yesterday (I was called mid-morning just as I was catching a train to London & all my tix & accom had been booked) I made an excuse & said ‘something has come up’. Well yes, something did come up, but not at my end. Apologies to Ben Cobley, Jake Johnstone, Sophia Kyriacou and Suzanne Evans - all of whom were keen to watch me on Big Questions.  

And to those people who think it’s super cool to bounce other panellists by refusing to appear beside them, may I suggest that if you’re unwilling to enter the marketplace of ideas, you probably have no ideas.  

Note: my no-platforming was not over the trans issue. It was a different bunch of no-platformers annoyed about me for a different reason. I’m not sure I wish to share the issue right now as I have real sympathy for members of this group although here I think they have behaved badly.

I must admit I'm heavily tempted to watch tomorrow's The Big Questions to try and spot the two people granted a spot by the BBC who then refused to appear with Sonia Poulton and Helen Dale and, thus, got the BBC to disinvite them. 

Seriously, why is the BBC allowing this to happen? Why aren't they telling the refusers to sling their hooks?

As the post title suggests, it's probably a 'who trumps who' social-justice-wise thing at the pious, pigeon-hearted, impeccably 'woke' (except for John Sweeney!) BBC.


Update (Sunday): Well, the Sonia Poulton story is now in the Mail on Sunday:

The paper quotes the BBC's response:

We talk to lots of people about potentially appearing on the programme but guest line-ups often change, and on this occasion we had too many guests. 

It's not true that any guest was dropped because of their opinions on trans issues and the programme will hear a variety of diverse and differing voices and opinions.

Richard in the Lion's Den

What's it like being 'the conservative Christian' in the lion's den of The Big Questions? Well, this fascinating nearly-year-old YouTube video from Richard Lucas of the Scottish Family Party gives us some idea. It's well worth watching, if you haven't already seen it.

Pitch perfect

Here’s a much more fact-packed account of the subject of my previous post, including Huw Edwards’s intro, which I had missed.

The thing that struck me was, well, it looks as if Huw knew that the shortages and deprivations inflicted on Gaza's civilians were due to internal political feuds and enmities, but he threw in “years of an Israeli blockade” for good measure. Why? Because he could. Lazy and biased.

Nearly all BBC broadcasting is fundamentally pitched from an identifiable position. Andrew Marr’s line of questioning is clearly constructed from the Remain perspective. All Middle East reporting is as seen from ‘one side of the fence’. All religion-related items are from an anti-Christian and pro-Islam base. (As illustrated in today’s The Big Questions) If not explicitly pro-Islam, the more contentious elements of the ideology are invariably ‘let off the hook’

Here’s one of my favourite people; I don’t know if it’s still legal to call yourself ‘Fats’ these days, but this particular 'Fats' shows you don’t have to be skinny or young to be beautiful. 

This should be the Brexit song. There are better sound recordings available, but the pure visual joy in this performance cheers me up. My quibble is with the subtitles. Why write “strolling” when the lyric is clearly ‘rolling’? The word is vital to understanding the strange title of the song.

I love the musicality of the first legato “cra-a-a-a-y” followed by the jaunty, almost triumphant staccato of the second “cra-ha-ha-ha-hy”. That’s our message the EU when and if we ever finally actually exit.

Oh, and I much prefer the new set of The Big Questions. No more green and orange quilting, which was obviously designed to make your eyes bleed, as Claudia Winkleman might say.

New Look, Familiar Face

I had to smile at Nicky Campbell previewing today's new series of The Big Questions by telling us the show had "a brand-new look" and yet as soon as it began there was Peter Hitchens, 'the only right-winger in the BBC village', seated at the front, as he so often is. 

I'm all for Peter Hitchens on the BBC, but he does seem to be 'the right-winger for all seasons' on programmes like The Big Questions. 

The first Big Question today was 'Should drugs be treated like alcohol?'. And it turned out to be a very good thing that Mr. Hitchens received his usual invite because without him it would pretty much have been a 'let's legalise cannabis' rally. 

Framing the debate

Here's how Nicky Campbell framed today's first Big Question:

• Join us at ten from Brighton where with calls from across the political spectrum for a second Brexit vote we ask whether the people should have the final say on the terms of the deal. 
• Today on The Big Questions, should the people have the final say on the Brexit deal?
• The debate over who should have the final say over the Brexit deal continues to rumble on. This week the campaign group Best for Britain launched a legal challenge to make the government concede a second vote on Brexit. This comes on top of the private member's bill tabled by the Labour MP Geraint Davies calling for a second referendum on whatever the Brexit deal turns out to be, plus a call from Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Greens, for a people's poll on the final deal because of its possible effect on Northern Ireland. Last year, Gina Miller's private action against the Government secured the right of Parliament to a final vote on the Brexit deal. But given the ever-changing demographics of the UK, where those who were most likely to have voted for Brexit are being steadily replaced by young people, who overwhelmingly favoured staying in the EU, we ask, "Should the people have the final say on the terms of Brexit?" 

I don't know what to call this post

Following Craig’s post, I wonder, did Andrew Marr leave an open door for Dan Hodges to deploy the ‘handing over editorial control to your interviewee’ manoeuvre?

“Can I read you what Amnesty International has said?” asked Marr, whereby Corbyn’s counter-attack (you've been reading too much Daily Mail) was effectively: “No, please don’t read something out that makes me look foolish and / or hypocritical”, which is the equivalent of McDonnell’s “no need’ remark (albeit from the opposite direction.)

Of course, Amnesty International is hardly a suitable body for Andrew Marr to bring in as a beacon of moral righteousness or whatever it was he was trying to imply, even if all he meant was:  ‘if an alt-Left outfit like Amnesty International even thinks Iran’s HR record is beyond the pale, shouldn’t you, too?’
Update: 
Following Craig’s post (again) see Harry’s Place for Habibi’s forensic, fully fleshed-out exposé of Jeremy Corbyn’s deviation from the actualité on the Marr show.
It’s all there, including a lovely video of his speech ‘marking the 35th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran'.

I’m afraid Rob Burley is looking a little bit like someone who ain’t totally au fait with the actualité. Think  those interested in JC position on Iran will have more to go on as a result of Habibi's article.

**********

Never mind. I also want to mention that I was mistaken when I said that the BBC hadn’t noticed the HoC debate on proscribing Hezbollah. At the time I said it, I hadn’t seen Friday’s Daily Politics. Well, they brought it up, though in a somewhat perfunctory way.  

Claire Fox from the Academy of Silly Ideas explained that she was against proscription because “Banning people because of their politics is unhelpful and illiberal”. 

Had she not absorbed the case for proscribing Hezbollah, which, in its own words, is explicitly and unequivocally that there is no distinction between imaginary ‘wings’ of this overtly terrorist organisation? It's a unified entity. Terrorist through and through.

This makes one wonder if half the people we hear on the BBC opining on issues like this are totally au fait with the actualité.

I’d hate to think they’re really not.

***********

Now for The Big Questions. The biggest question of all is what did the programme makers hope to achieve by bringing in one of the most offensive “asaJew” Israel-hating, pro-Palestine campaigners to discuss the problem of antisemitism in the left?  I contend that the programme makers were completely uninterested in achieving any form of civilised conversation. All they wanted was the TV equivalent of click bait. “Let’s have some fun with this”.

Well, the discussion certainly wasn’t fun. To give the benefit of the doubt to those responsible for commissioning or inviting the ‘front row”, perhaps they were inspired by Idrissi’s LBC interview with Nick Ferrari but didn’t listen hard enough to predict she would steer the discussion in the direction of a tirade of highly dubious pro-Palestinian propaganda from the ill-informed antisemites  in the room.

Perhaps they didn’t anticipate that the audience would be whooping and cheering at the sweet sound of cries like “apartheid state” and  “Jew-only roads”. 

Geordies for Palestine

The only contributor who was allowed to speak without being interrupted was Anna Turley MP, and her little bit showed what a balanced, civilised discussion on this topic might have been like.  

As for the rapt, adoring nodding from the pro-pornography advocate sitting next to Naomi Idrissi, the twisted, Israel-bashing, sheer nastiness of Chris Mullin “They’re in the process of setting up an apartheid state”[…] “They’re starting to ethnically cleanse east Jerusalem” and the nonsensical bile from the lady lawyer with  the PSC  brooch: “I witnessed —— I spoke to mothers who were forced to give birth at Israeli checkpoints” […] “I’m not denying that there’s a problem with antisemet — antisemitism, however the majority of antisemitism is coming from far right groups” and the clapping and nodding from the baying mob of an audience, the whole thing was sub standard. Even by TBQ's normal standards.

Nicky Campbell, perhaps bruised by his highly publicised reduction in salary, seemed subdued. He pleaded for the discussion not to turn into a shout-fest. But what else did he expect? Yes, I’m doubting the integrity of the programme makers. It’s Jeremy Kyle territory, and Nicky Campbell knows it. He even had to (effectively) apologise at the end, by promising they’d be back to this subject at a later date. 

I'll be in Morecambe afore ye

High Road and Low Road.

With reference to Craig’s eulogy to Morecambe, (wine, women and song and a fantasy about Rob Burley) I see both Guido and Steerpike have done what 'the left' are wont to do, i.e., make a mountain out of a relatively small “gotcha”.  

I’m talking about “lynch-gate”, a case which I think Rob Burley has, somewhat undeservedly, lost. (in the court of Her Majesty’s disloyal Twittersphere.) 

No. John McDonnell, odious as he is, didn’t “threaten to hang Esther McVey”.

Yes, I do think John McDonnell should have apologised, if only on behalf of the person who originally made the offending remark, but I doubt whether Andrew Marr would have extricated an apology from John McDonnell for “lynch-gate”, either way, clip or no clip. The laughter on the recording came from the auditorium and, in my humble opinion, listening again wouldn’t settle the matter definitively. Was McDonnell approving or disapproving? Was he sniggering along? Anyone video it?

In general, people are apologising for saying things that, if the world hadn’t gone bonkers, they shouldn’t really have to. The ‘right’ should stop behaving like the ‘left’, or to coin a phrase, when the left go low the right should go high. By pouncing on this modest “gotcha” and acting rather disingenuously as if it was much more serious than it really is, Guido and Steerpike are behaving  like a bunch of lefties. So, the verdict is: John McDonnell should indeed say sorry, but Andrew Marr needn’t.

********

It’s a funny business, this apology malarky. 

On our local Sunday Politics a very contrite Anne-Marie Morris MP had been made to apologise profusely and most humbly for being racist. In the context she used it,  the phrase (nigger in the woodpile) was much more of a gaffe than an intentionally racist remark but she was “made to rethink”. She’s washed her mouth out with mustard and will be good from now on.

And it’s hard to tell how sincere an apology is. Look at Naz Shah. It seemed heartfelt at the time, then she went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid, like, I don’t know, practically everything.

+++++++

Interview about the Ginger Pay Gap

Concerning the topical matter of hair. and the fuss about Prince William’s £180 Grade One, which has miraculously turned him into Stephen Kinnock. 

People are scratching their heads over how a simple head-shave could cost that much. Must be the overheads. Anyway, I wondered if Jo Coburn’s hairdresser charges much for gradually nudging her hairdo away from the slightly  powdered-wig effect towards new, shinier, Television Hair?

Are you saying that all wimmin must ….?

No, but, I prefer…. 

That’s a bit divisive isn’t it?

Well, Caitlin Moran isn’t on view very often, and her matted locks don’t look very nice. It’s like, radio hair.

So you’re saying that people with ginger hair should be discriminated against?

No, Caitlin Moran doesn’t even have ginger hair as far as I can tell but I prefer hair not to look stiff.

That sounds discriminatory. Doesn’t it bother you that you’re drawing attention to a physical disability attribute?

Yes, but it was Ms. Moran herself who drew attention to her barnet in last Sunday’s paper (£) 

“Caitlin Moran: why I love big hair” Hers is big because she back-combs it mercilessly, obviously. She sees it as a statement because she believes giant hair gives the ambitious working-class woman substance and presence. Weaponising huge hair is not new. Malia Bouattia, Mona Chalabi and Ahed Tamimi  for example. And that channel 4 anchor person. Why else would Rachel Johnson and Claudia Winkleman sport below-the-eye length fringes to peer out of? Why indeed, but has famous red-head Mary Portarse  been held back by her hair? Non! Not in the least.

You think—— hang on, let me get that straight — straight means, what?

Straightened, probably. Ann Widdecombe has been at the tongs,  which clearly demonstrates something.

Are you in favour of equal pay for equal hair?

This is largely Donald Trump’s fault, and Boris Johnson’s. I don’t actually care about the ginger pay gap. Or Frankie Boyle.

What gives you the right to take that view?

Because this is the only website on the entire interweb that hasn’t blogged that interview. Police protection applied for.

******

The Big Questions was fun. They had a discussion about Trump. Roughly three and a half people supported Trump’s achievements (if not his personality) in the face of about seventy people who thought Trump was a racist and a lunatic. However, the former were more effective speakers than the latter, which evened up the score somewhat.  The worst case of hypocrisy came from Nicky Campbell himself.

After his anti-Trump rant had been rather forcefully debunked by the aforementioned three and a half, he said plaintively  “I’m only asking the questions!” 

If only.

Is the BBC a lost cause?

As regular readers might know (or guess) I am a big fan of Harry’s Place. I only lurk, because I made it a rule not to acquire an online presence by commenting here, there and everywhere. I might do that when I give up this blog. Also, I’m too much of a wimp to create a load of sock-puppets and creative IDs and pretend they’re not me.

What I particularly like about H.P. is the palpable sense of ‘family’ below the line, which I think is pretty unique in the blogosphere. I’m not  saying I approve of the the vitriol, which can spring up all of a sudden for no obvious reason. It’s colourful I suppose, but that's the internet for you.

Lurkers like myself would probably have the impression that the general consensus on Harry’s Place is that the BBC is a bit of a lost cause. 

"Come on! Harry’s Place is a lefty blog," I hear you say. Well, it kind of isn’t these days, especially now, what with the rise of Corbynism. And, of course it’s a Zionist blog, and the commentariat are not just any old commentariat, they’re the M & S variety. 

So why am I saying all this? I nearly forgot. It’s about the BBC. However well informed, highly qualified, educated, literate and eloquent the btl H.P. family may be, they’re not all geeky about the BBC like we are. We seem to know all the presenters by name and can remember things they said years ago. (By the way, I see Jon Donnison is back reporting on hurricane Irma, as is Alan “I’m telling your story” Johnston.)  

So when Sarah AB wrote about Radio 5’s breakfast show, which tackled the BBC’s flavour of the month news item, namely the news concerning some members of the British Army belonging to the banned neo-Nazi organisation National Action, the discussion inevitably turned to Nicky Campbell. 

I know Nicky Campbell is, or used to be one of the pet hates of contributors to the Biased BBC blog.  If you search the site for ‘Nicky Campbell’ about 200 posts pop up, mostly concerning The Big Questions or Radio 5 Breakfast.

I myself wrote at least two of them, way back in 2011 or thereabouts.

"So nothing changes," I hear you say. "You’ve wasted about eight years of your life blogging about BBC bias, and had precisely zero effect." Well, that’s as may be, but in fact things do change. Have changed. For one thing The Big Questions has improved. I quite miss it when it’s off air. Is it that I myself have become more tolerant, or is it that the BBC has tried a little harder to get better quality guests? I don’t know, but when Douglas Murray agrees to appear on the show, it can’t be that bad. 

And Nicky Campbell is a good presenter. He handles the volatility much more competently than many a hardened BBC professional.  As to how much serious understanding of Islam-proper he has, who knows? He’s no scholar, nor does he claim to be, but let’s say he’s matured. Nowadays he seems less credulous when it comes to being taken in by the likes of Mo Ansar.

Here is another confession. I don’t listen to radio 5. I don’t even know how to tune in, should I suddenly decide I want to. I did follow the link on H.P. though, and I have to say the very tone of it wasn’t to my taste. I don’t want to be rude. Actually I do. It sounded dull, childish and irritating and I don’t think I’ll be visiting again. 

Many people on ‘right wing” blogs (you do realise that anyone right of Jeremy Corbyn is now considered right-wing) have mentioned the BBC’s disproportionate interest in the news about four or five members of the British armed services being investigated for belonging to a “proscribed anti-Semitic and homophobic group”. That’s it. That’s how the group is being described, as if the BBC believes that hearing about that particular duo of hatreds is all we need to know to ensure we are horrified at the very idea. Well, we are. But when identical dual prejudices are associated with Islam, as they famously are, it’s somehow deemed insignificant. I don’t get it. 

Incidentally, while we’re on the subject of BBC presenters, someone brought up Emma Barnett. She seems to be a BBC favourite at the moment, (you know how the BBC over-exposes its pet presenters till we’re sick of the sight of them) Grilling is Emma’s forte. One minute she’s demolishing Jeremy Corbyn’s  credibility, next she’s humiliating the gymnast Louis Smith for mucking about in a manner offensive to the Muslims. 

It’s indiscriminate grilling that grates. Yet we call for impartiality, and you can’t get more impartial than indiscriminately dishing out your grillings. Or can you? It may be technically impartial, but it seems unintelligent. Choose your victims wisely, is all I can say. 

Here’s Pat Condell. (H/T Daphne Anson)

I don’t think that would be popular on Harry’s Place, but it’s a damn sight more sincere than the feigned 'game' - ‘find the extremist’.

   

Backwards

If Douglas Murray sees fit to appear on TBQs, who am I to sneer ? 

Still, most people see the programme as sensationalistic and pugilistic. Poppy and corny; it provides light relief from the heavy religio/ political programming on either side. Jeremy Kyleisation of the Sunday morning ‘God’ slot. 

True, TBQs’s front row is usually full of the BBC’s go-to controversialists, but last Sunday morning, despite the presence of Anne-Marie Waters and Peter Hitchens who looks increasingly like a parrot, no-one got heated enough to get Nicky hushing everyone and begging them not to all talk at once. Perhaps in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist incident people felt slightly less obliged to tiptoe round the religion of peace, but it was interesting to hear the claim that unless the perpetrator is caught in the act crying “Allahu Ackbar,” citing Islam as a motivating factor in a given terrorist attack is speculative and uncalled-for.

Less platitudinous was the second Big Question about confidentiality within the Catholic confessional, and is it/should it be sacrosanct?

Nicky Campbell seemed to be working on the assumption that all paedophile priests must have gone behind the black curtain to confess to a colleague at some point, reliant on celestial confidentiality and redemption, and exemption from hellfire without all the fuss and bother of going to prison. 

Not being a Catholic, I know not if holy fathers treat each other like doctors and dentists do, but I always thought that the confessional was designed to absolve the guilt / scare the bejesus out of lesser mortals, like children and the subservient.

In an age of counselling and psychiatric therapy, is priestly absolution an efficacious method of dealing with guilt and shame? The TBQs debate danced round the issue without tackling the fundamental business of original sin, confession and absolution, concepts which seem like hangovers from the dark ages, which, sorry Catholics, should be done away with..

"Do we misrepresent Islam?"

Nicky Campbell popped up towards the end of the Marr show, as always, to tease us with the upcoming delights of The Big Questions. 

Join us from Birmingham at Ten when we'll be debating Islam - do we misrepresent it? - then reincarnation - have some of you been here before? - and marriage - one of the last bastions of patriarchy or is marriage what you make it? See you at Ten on BBC One. 

Here's how Nicky framed the first debate:

The activities of Islamist extremism across the globe have killed many more Muslims than people from other faiths, as we saw yet again earlier this month when 80 worshippers were killed and 250 injured by an Islamist suicide bomber at the Sufi Muslim shrine, Sehwan Sharif, in Pakistan. Last week Pope Francis declared that Muslim terrorism does not exist. Just as no-one puts the blame on Christianity when Christians engage in violent or criminal activities, so neither should Islam be blamed for the crimes of Islamists. Do we misrepresent Islam? 

The front row contributors were former Respect leader Salma Yaqoob, imam Ajmal Masroor, author of 'The Islamic Enlightenment' Christopher de Bellagiue, Peter Tatchell, Dr Afshin Shahi from the University of Bradford, Sadia Hameed of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, and humanist Alison Rawlinson. 

I didn't get very far with it. When Imam Masroor stated being unpleasant to ex-Muslim Sadia (almost from his first word), I switched off. 

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

Things to look forward to tomorrow:

Oh, and:

Lord Hattersley's views on Brexit were set out at the New Statesman last August in an article headlined, Why it is the duty of the Labour party to try to stop Brexit. So we can guess where's he's going to be guiding his Brexit-related point-scoring tomorrow.

(Of course, Henry VIII tried to take over swathes of France and wanted to be Holy Roman Emperor. So he was, at least initially, much more like Roy Hattersley).

Fake news broadcasters

Mr. Putin won't be happy with the BBC this morning.

First, on The Andrew Marr Show, came the Russian leader's best-known political opponent, the admirable Garry Kasparov, and then the first question on The Big Questions was "Is Russian cyber warfare undermining the West?"

On the latter the  (Kremlin stooge) Russian broadcaster Sputnik came under the most intense fire, with Nicky Campbell putting this question to its head:

Nikolai Gorshkov, I want to bring him in, editor of Sputnik news. We hear about this, various elections coming up. We hear about trying to undermine the opponents of Marine Le Pen and undermining the opponent of Geert Wilders - anything that will ultimately put a politician in place who will be anti-NATO and anti-EU. If I may say so provocatively, your puppet masters, they bump people off. We're on the same moral road as North Korea...you know, people disappearing, assassinations. 

Nikolai Gorshkov replied that they are journalists, a news agency that gives people "an opportunity to see other angles, more context, background".

He got quite a roasting though, especially during a memorable, forensic intervention from Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council, which I'll transcribe below...

Look out here for Nicky Campbell's feeble, jokey play of devil's advocacy and, above all, for the way the BBC presenter tried to pile on the pressure for Mr. Gorshkov with a little 'alternative fact' of his own...namely that Sputnik is also guilty of being homophobic. 

Spiked's Tara McCormack immediately corrected Nicky by (accurately) pointing out that it wasn't Sputnik who had called called backers of Emmanuel Macron "a very rich gay lobby" but a French politician speaking on Sputnik (Nicolas Dhuicq of the Republicans).

What is it with BBC reporters and presenters at the moment? Why do they keep making such mistakes during their attempts to damage someone's (or some organisation's) reputation? 

It's especially ironic (and inept) that Nicky Campbell made that false statement about Sputnik during a section which was highlighting the point that Sputnik is a purveyor of false, propagandist news.

Anyhow, here's the transcript:

BEN NIMMO: Can I jump in on the question of the journalism? This is important. You ask, "What is the founding document?" It's the presidential decree signed by President Putin on the 9th of December 2013 establishing the Rossiya Segodnya news agency, which is your parent company, which says in Paragraph Four that the purpose of this news agency is "to communicate the state policy the Russian Federation abroad. OK? Compare that with the BBC charter which says the purpose of the BBC is to be independent and impartial. Then if you look at your reporting. Good example would be the 2nd of February last year - I do this all the time, so I'm afraid I'm a geek on it! - Donald Tusk presents his proposals for how to keep Britain in the EU. The Vote Leave campaign issued a press release on it. The Vote Remain campaign issued a press release on it. Reuters in their reporting quoted both the Leave and the Remain press releases. Sputnik quoted the Leave press release and not the Remain press release. If you look at the coverage over the last two weeks, last week the BBC did a feature on Sputnik and the allegations that it's a propaganda outlet which quoted you saying that 'we're not'. Yeah? That's balanced journalism...  

NICKY CAMPBELL: Is the BBC blameless? 

BEN NIMMO: Let me finish... 

NICKY CAMPBELL:  Selective reporting? Editorialising? I'm being devil's advocate by the way. 

BEN NIMMO: OK. Let me finish. 

NICKY CAMPBELL: Go on. 

BEN NIMMO: The BBC quoted the allegations against Sputnik and the response from Sputnik. The week before, Sputnik France ran a feature on allegations of propaganda and bias by the French media in favour of Emmanuel Macron. Only one person was quoted in that story, who was a political opponent of Macron who was accusing French journalists of going to a Moscow rally for Macron and putting on his T-shirts. No French journalist was interviewed in that... 

NICKY CAMBPELL: And  also, if I may say, it said on Sputnik that Macron was backed by "a very rich gay lobby", so homophobic as well?  

TARA McCORMACK: I think that was a French parliamentarian, a quote from a French parliamentarian. 

Mr. Gorshkov, incidentally, has an interesting back history. He worked for the BBC from 1993 to 2013, beginning as a producer and desk editor for the BBC World Service before becoming a BBC correspondent and then, via BBC Monitoring, rising to be a BBC regional manager and, finally, the head of the BBC Hub in Ukraine and Moldova. He started as director of Sputnik in December 2014.

Transcript: Opening debate on 'The Big Questions', 12 Feb 2017

NICKY CAMPBELL: On Tuesday, Mrs May held talks at Downing Street with her opposite number in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Increasing trade and investment with Israel was high on the agenda. The day before, the Knesset, Israel's parliament, passed a bill legalising settlements on privately owned Palestinian land on the West Bank, in direct contradiction of a UN Security Council Resolution. Mrs May was clear that Britain opposes settlement activity and believes the two-state solution is the best way to bring peace to the region. Should we trade with Israel now the settlements have been recognised? Well, I've been doing debates on this issue for 30 years now. And it's never that quiet. It's very, very impassioned on both sides. We shall attempt to proceed in a civilised direction. Now, Ryvka from War on Want, many would say, "Are you serious? Come on! We've had trade deals with Saudi Arabia, with China, with Russia, with the United Arab Emirates, some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet - none of them a democracy like Israel is. How can you possibly justify this?"

RYVKA BARNARD (War on Want): Well, I think there's a major issue with the UK. The UK should be putting human rights and international law at the centre of all of its trade negotiations with all countries. 

NICKY CAMPBELL (interrupting): Should we stop trading with all those countries? 

RYVKA BARNARD: I think it's a question to be brought up. I think we can't talk about trade without talking about human rights and international law. That's why it's important for the UK to take action right now, move beyond words and suspend its trade relations with Israel because of its systematic violations of international law. 

NICKY CAMPBELL (interrupting): If we stop trading with countries with human rights abuses, at a time when we need friends, we'd go out of business.

Ryvka Barnard

RYVKA BARNARD: I think what happens when you continue trading with human rights-abusing regimes like Israel, you're basically incentivising human rights abuse and you are giving a green light to say that violations of international law, doing things like building settlements, demolishing Palestinian homes, is OK. We might say on the side, we don't like it when you do that, as Theresa May did, but incentivising them with trade and especially things like the arms trade - the UK Government has approved over £100 million worth of arms exports to Israel in 2016 alone - those arms are used in violence against Palestinians. So it's a real double standard to say 'no settlements' on one hand but then to be no settlements but giving arms to the country that is building them. 

NICKY CAMPBELL: You refer to Israel. Paul, good morning Paul, chairman of the Zionist Federation, former tank commander with the IDF, there's a couple of things I need to ask you and then we'll throw it out. I want to hear from the audience, because, of course, hands going up already. Ryvka referred to, in unequivocal terms there, Israel as a human rights abuser. How would you respond to what she said there? 

PAUL CHARNEY (Zionist Federation): Well, that needs to be qualified. Israel, certainly by Freedom House, is recognised as the only free country in the Middle East. It has a very strong democracy. It has a Supreme Court. It is not subservient to the executive. It will look at this legislation and it will decide whether it's legal or not. There is a huge social housing crisis amongst the Palestinians and among the Israelis, and these towns that are expanding need to expand. So, it is a controversial issue and you can disagree, but the same time, if the UK disagreed with every country, with every political decision, it certainly wouldn't be dealing with China, it wouldn't be dealing with India over Kashmir,wouldn't be dealing with Turkey over Northern Cyprus, and the opposite would be true. It's not like Spain would cease dealing with the UK over Gibraltar, or Argentina would cease dealing with the UK over the Falkland Islands. What we need is to understand to put this into perspective, that the settlements are an issue but they're one issue, since 1967, that needs to be dealt with in the much larger framework of a peace agreement which the Palestinians require and when they want to build a home in a state for themselves more than they want to destroy and boycott Israel. When that priority changes then peace can be achieved. 

More Big Questions

Today's 'big questions' on The Big Questions, just like last week's ones, all seemed to spring from a left-liberal standpoint: 

The first focused on the campaign to boycott Israel and the last - hinging around the desire of a married Muslim man (from Polygam.com and secondwife.com) to have another wife - discussed whether polygamy might be a good thing?

Here's how Nicky Campbell framed the debates today:

• On Tuesday, Mrs May held talks at Downing Street with her opposite number in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Increasing trade and investment with Israel was high on the agenda. The day before, the Knesset, Israel's parliament, passed a bill legalising settlements on privately- owned Palestinian land on the West Bank, in direct contradiction of a UN Security Council Resolution. Mrs May was clear that Britain opposes settlement activity and believes the two-state solution is the best way to bring peace to the region. Should we trade with Israel now the settlements have been recognised?
• This week, the National Health Service has been acknowledged to be in crisis. Hospitals have been failing to meet patient targets for waiting in A&E, waiting for cancer treatments, waiting on trolleys, and waiting for ambulances to arrive. A key factor has been the inability to discharge patients no longer in need of medical treatment, that awful phrase bed blockers, because of the lack of social care in the community. And while the number of people over 65 has risen by more than 15%, budgets for adult social care run by local councils have been cut by 6.4% since 2009. Now local councils, who need to win a local referendum to raise council taxes by more than 5%, are raising or introducing charges for burials, parking, planning applications, and garden waste removal. And the councils with the biggest social care problems tend to be in the poorest areas. Has the time come to raise taxes to cover social care?
• It's World Marriage Day today, honouring the partnership of husband and wife and their faithfulness to each other as the foundation of the family. But across the globe, monogamy is not the most popular option. Six times as many societies, over 1,000, allow men to have more than one wife. Although only four allow women to have more than one husband. Is monogamy bad for marriage? 

Questions, questions

The 'big questions' on this morning's bad-for-your-blood-pressure edition of The Big Questions were framed as follows by Nicky Campbell:

• This week there's been more protesting against President Trump - this time over his new immigration policies for people entering America from seven mainly Muslim nations. But Britain's moral high ground looks pretty shaky. Last week a report by the Home Affairs Select Committee slammed the quality of accommodation used to house many asylum seekers in the UK as "a disgrace" and "shameful". Filthy, vermin-infested conditions, inadequate support for vulnerable people, contractors housing far more people than they are funded for and asylum claimants being concentrated in a small number of highly deprived areas while richer towns and cities took very few. Can Britain be proud of its treatment of asylum seekers? 

• And this year it has been the transgender cases that have been hitting the headlines. Last week, a High Court judge decided that the wife and children of a man who was now living as a woman should no longer have contact with their father in case they were excluded from their strictly orthodox Jewish community. And another woman transitioning to be a man decided to have a baby before continuing with her sex change but objected to being called a mother by the nurses. Others have faced problems when placed in male or female prisons midway through their transitioning process. And on Friday, Russell Brand declared that he wouldn't be "forcing gender" on his baby daughter, Mabel. Should we have the right to decide our own gender? Of course, the very verb is contentious. It is not a decision for some people. It is absolutely what they are, it is escaping from what they are.

• On Friday, the MP Dan Jarvis hoped that his private member's bill would change the Government's approach to child poverty. It ran out of time, at least for now, which is unfortunate as the number of children living in poverty is already rising and predicted to rise even more. According to the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, the percentage of children living in officially declared poverty in the UK will rise from 14.9% to 18.3% in the decade 2010 to 2020. Relative child poverty, that's the number of children living in households with an income less than 60% of median earnings, will also rise over the same period from 17.5% to 25.7%. These changes would reverse all the improvements made to levels of child poverty in the previous decade. But critics say the bold figures obscure a more complex picture. Will more children be raised in poverty? 

All were put from a left-liberal standpoint. 

Of course, Nicky could have just been playing devil's advocate and simply getting the (emotional shoutfest) discussion going (though he was playing devil's advocate very badly if he was)...

...but his use of the phrase "which is unfortunate" in his third introduction was surely well beyond the bounds of strict BBC impartiality, wasn't it? 

It surely strayed into party political matters.

(Some people - namely me - might think it sounded rather to much like a party political broadcast for the previous Labour government (and Dan Jarvis)). 

*******

If the questions were typical of the BBC, then so was the studio audience. 

At one point Kathy Gyngell told the TBQ audience, "It's very easy to virtue signal", and asked, "How many people here would take in a male economic migrant for an indefinite period?"

Nicky Campbell, seizing the moment, dramatically spun on his heels and asked the audience that very question.

Being a BBC studio audience, the majority of them raised their hands. A mere smattering of hands went up when Nicky asked them who wouldn't take such a person in.

Nicky said that showed what a compassionate audience it was.

When Kathy and Dan Hannan forced a third question on them, "And how many of you have taken in a migrant or a refugee?" only one hand went up (a pro-refugee charity worker).

Says it all really.

*******

I know that Nicky Campbell has his fans, but I can't say that I find he makes for pleasant viewing at times. 

Or that he's even-handed. 

His treatment of Peter Saunders from the socially conservative Christian Medical Fellowship during the transgender discussion, for example,  was strikingly different to his treatment of the socially-liberal voices ranged against Mr Sanders (meaning, strikingly less respectful). Nicky's first interruption, "Please just answer the question", came literally after just second of his first answer - and, though he was then allowed to speak, Nicky's evident disdain for his views didn't seem to diminish.

Rupert in the lions' den

If you're thinking of watching Nicky Campbell's The Big Questions tomorrow (and may the Lord have mercy on your soul if you are!), The Times Literary Supplement blog has a piece about it by one of the people who will be appearing on it: Christian writer Rupert Shortt.

I say "appearing on it", but the piece make its clear that the episode of TBQ to be broadcast tomorrow was actually recorded last Sunday, so he's already "appeared" on it. Rupert is describing his experiences on a programme the BBC hasn't yet broadcast. 

I had absolutely no idea TBQ was pre-recorded a week in advance. When you watch the Marr show and see Nicky's plug near the end of it, you see Nicky, his guests and his studio audience as if 'live', ready and waiting to spring into action five minutes later, just-as-live on BBC One. I'd also assumed there were 'live'. Not a bit of it it seems. Another little bit of BBC artifice, apparently.

Anyhow, I'm gathering from Rupert's piece that he found himself in the lions' den, so to speak. That wouldn't have been a surprise to regular TBQ viewers, but it seems to have been a big surprise to Rupert himself (bless him!):

Though promised “an in-depth encounter with more time than usual” by a Corporation researcher, I was largely relegated to the role of spectator. Apart from bowling me a googly (“Aren’t religions by definition exclusionary?” – a question almost impossible to answer in a nutshell), Campbell gave me no opportunity to speak at all. Instead, the baton was passed again and again to the shouters and mud-slingers, especially on the atheist side. One of the more constructive non-believers was kind enough to note the oddness of all this in a message to me afterwards. “Nicky is very uneven-handed in terms of the people he turns to”, this person wrote.

None of that, in fact, will surprise regular (or even occasional) TBQ viewers, and "shouters and mud-slingers" sums up much of the programme's regular invitations list to a tee.

It's all par for the course, frankly.

(P.S. The rest of Rupert's piece argues various religious points that I don't agree with {being a non-believer}, but enjoy hearing {being a very-slightly-regretful non-believer}, and I see his point about how his way of thinking gets repeatedly marginalised by the overwhelmingly secular BBC which confines religion to pigeon holes like Songs of Praise and Thought For The Day {his examples}.

...and Sunday, Sunday Morning Service, Prayer for the Day, Choral Evensong. Beyond Belief, etc {my extra examples}).

Should we be proud of the British Empire?

After last week's absolutely disgraceful edition on the subject anti-Semitism I really couldn't face watching today's The Big Questions on the question: Should we be proud of the British Empire?

I've not looked at the guest list yet but if I know The Big Questions the front row won't be full of mutually-respectful academics and authors. It will probably be full instead of flame-throwing controversialists. 

So let's look at the programme's website now:

Taking part are the writer and historian Lawrence James, writer and historian Charles Allen, Owen Jones of the Guardian, commentator David Vance, the speaker's chaplain, the Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the entrepreneur Dr Kartar Lalvani, Femi Nylander from Rhodes Must Fall Oxford, Dr Andrea Major from Leeds University, Dr Anindita Ghosh from Manchester University and Jagraj Singh from the educational charity, Basics of Sikhi.

Well, it looks as if I might be mostly wrong. I see academics and authors after all, alongside Sunday morning BBC One regulars Owen Jones and David Vance (and both Owen and David are first-rate, watchable controversialists). 

Still, I'm going to sit this one out. If any of you watched it please give us your take below. (Consider it a (very) Open Thread if not. Did anyone watch Robert Peston's new show on ITV?).