Showing posts with label Andrew Neil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Neil. Show all posts

Saturday, 19 February 2022

Andrew Neil on the BBC's reporting of the SNP

  

Andrew Neil has a piece in today's Daily Mail headlined The sinister abuse of BBC star Sarah Smith...and how Scots 'cybernats' have turned independence battle into a toxic cesspit

Sarah Smith - the BBC's former Scotland editor, now North America editor - said this week that she's been looking forward to escaping the “criticism, bile and hatred” she's suffered as BBC Scotland editor and hopes her new beat will be far less stressful.  

Andrew Neil compliments her and says she was “scrupulously fair in her reporting” of Scottish politics as BBC Scotland Editor. But, he says, BBC Scotland itself “is too cowed by Sturgeon and her henchmen” and “generally timid in its coverage of the SNP”, adding:
It is significant that Auntie has barely reported Smith's remarks — which are, by any standard, a major story. But timidity trumps truth.

Thursday, 23 September 2021

Being kind


A tweet from Jeremy Vine today...


...hasn't struck people as being very kind, or classy. Here's a flavour of the reaction:

  • Genuinely. Is there any need for such a spiteful comment?
  • Anyway, sympathies today for anyone who thought Jeremy Vine was nice, whoever you are and wherever you may be.
  • It's an astonishingly wrong footed comment from Vine. Perfectly sums up what's wrong with the BBC: deep-seated self regard. Andrew Neil is one of their "stars". Colin comes from a different background, family man, working class and above all *normal*.
  • Classic BBC, pretends to be kind but can't help but bully anyone who is deemed beneath them. Colin Brazier is great. Calm, interesting, kind and patient with guests.
  • Really? I've been watching Colin Brazier's show since he stepped in and have been massively impressed by his work.

On Monday I pointed out that Jeremy Vine is paid twice more than our PM - wages we are legally forced to pay via the BBC license fee. I think publicly-funded broadcasters need to be careful how they express personal opinions. 


Update: Jeremy Vine has deleted his tweet. 

Did he delete it off his own bat, or did the BBC tell him too?

Saturday, 20 February 2021

Something rotten in the state of BBC Scotland


I'd seriously urge you to read two outstanding pieces before considering Andrew Neil's questions, as they provide all the necessary background and are much more about the BBC's role in the story than you might guess merely from their headlines:

Effie DeansIt's absurd to imagine there was a conspiracy

The ScotsmanDon't blame MSPs who try to get at the Sturgeon-Salmond truth - Brian Wilson

What happened this week is that BBC Scotland interviewed one of the women who accused Alex Salmond. 

This has caused some consternation, given that Mr Salmond was cleared by a jury.

And critics say that the BBC interviewer, Glenn Campbell, basically let her have a free run at Mr Salmond.

Effie Deans puts The Big Question in a nutshell: "The BBC acts as if Salmond were guilty even though he was acquitted. Why else interview someone the jury did not believe?"

She writes: 

The BBC are supposed to be impartial, but it is quite clear not merely from this interview but also because of the Kirsty Wark documentary that BBC journalists have taken sides. They think that Salmond ought to have been convicted for which reason they disbelieve the alternative explanation that there was a Scottish Government conspiracy against him. This is partly because of the liberal bias in the BBC that treats all accusations of sexual assault as true, because women don’t lie, but more importantly since 2016 the BBC has lost all objectivity about Scottish politics because Sturgeon campaigned for Remain.

But there are lots of other questions for the BBC to answer, which both Effie and Brian outline and which I think will prove a lot trickier for the BBC to answer. They are nitty-gritty questions that go to the heart of BBC Scotland's actions and motivations. 

These are the very ones Andrew Neil's encapsulates so well here:

  1. With a major h/t to Brian Wilson I put the following questions to BBC Scotland News.
  2. First, what was the provenance of your recent interview with one of the complainants in the Salmond affair? Did you approach the individual? Did she volunteer? Or was she offered up by the spinners surrounding the First Minister?
  3. Second, is she independent of the current political ructions within the SNP? If so, fine. If not, why were viewers not told. And if that was not possible on grounds of self-identification, then why was it still OK to broadcast the interview? Some disturbing things are happening in Scotland and BBC Scotland is clearly in the thick of them. 
Various other thoughts:

I wonder if the BBC will reply to Andrew Neil? I suspect they'll have to, as he's a tenacious journalist and will follow it through.  

And these are serious questions that could genuinely damage the BBC's reputation as an independent, impartial broadcaster if the BBC fails to account for themselves. This could spiral out of control for them.

Some are calling for Tim Davie himself to look into what's going on at BBC Scotland as a matter of urgency. 

He should, of course, be doing that already. This has been brewing for a while. And if he's not doing that already then he might be in for a rude awakening shortly.

"BBC diversity of opinion in action"

 

If this blog becomes nothing but sponsored ads then maybe we'll need Andrew Neil to launch Andrew Neil's Is the BBC biased? 

He seems to be limbering up already. This was him on Thursday:

Should the state play a bigger role post-pandemic?
Good question.
BBC R4 Today just devoted its prime post-0800 slot to it. 
Three guests - all in favour of bigger, more active government. The consensus was never challenged.
BBC diversity of opinion in action.

Sunday, 24 January 2021

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye

 

The BBC's main defender in print, The Guardian/Observer, has a piece today that comes out very strongly against Andrew Neil & Co. and their new television service(s). 

The first witness it calls in opposition to Andrew Neil's GB News (and another new service) is none other than the BBC's Jon Sopel. 

The Observer introduces his contribution by saying that he "sees the promised channels as a greater potential threat to democracy than Britain’s already openly biased newspapers."

And what is Jon Sopel then quoted as saying by The Guardian/Observer

Well, he's quoted at some length but I can sum it all up in a few words: He thinks that he's getting it about right, and that the BBC and the other existing main UK news channels are also getting it about right. Why? Because, he says, he and they seek to be 'fair' and 'balanced' and don't propagandise. 

Paging Mandy Rice-Davies!

And pull the other one!

I'm surprised Andrew Neil hasn't commented on this on Twitter yet, as far as I can see (and I've checked). Wonder what he thinks of Jon Sopel's appearance in this anti-GB News piece?

*******

UPDATE: On a related theme, and fresh in...SHOCK NEWS!!! The Guardian (which 'some say' is the inky wing of the BBC) comes out in favour of the BBC: 


*******

FURTHER UPDATE: And here's a little Twitter feedback for Jon Sopel:
Martin Daubney: Absolute cobblers here from BBC’s North America Editor who sees new British TV channels as a “threat to democracy”. If the BBC & the rest had been impartial over Brexit/Trump/COVID we might not need alternatives. Bring it on - and let the market decide!
Ella T: The BBC's Jon Sopel said what? Can there be a more biased, warped individual reporting from USA than him? The gravy train for him and his ilk is coming to an end.
Richard Hammonds: Sopel has been a Trump hater from day one. Every single report he makes is negative biased and twisted. Just watch him about turn into the 'love-in' mode for Biden. Utter garbage is the BBC. It is now a propaganda unit not a news outlet.

Sunday, 10 January 2021

Sooner, tougher, longer

 

This time last week Andrew Neil was criticising Andrew Marr for his Boris Johnson interview, saying "Another interview with the Government in which the broadcaster’s sole theme is — why didn’t you/don’t you lockdown, sooner, tougher, longer?".

Well, this week's Andrew Marr interview with Sir Keir Starmer was a close variation on that and AN might well have tweeted this week, "Another interview with the Opposition in which the broadcaster’s sole theme is — why didn’t you/don’t you call for lockdown, sooner, tougher, longer?".

It began:

Andrew Marr: Last week I spoke to the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, in the first of our Leaders interviews this year. This morning I’m joined here in the studio by the Leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer. Sir Keir, welcome. Are these new rules tough enough?

Sunday, 3 January 2021

Andrew Neil sees it

 

Andrew Neil on Andrew Marr's interview with Boris Johnson this morning:

Another interview with the Government in which the broadcaster’s sole theme is — why didn’t you/don’t you lockdown, sooner, tougher, longer?

I'm watching now, and that's exactly how it's going. 'Sole theme' is spot-on.

Saturday, 17 October 2020

Is Baroness Hoey being lined up to be the next BBC chairwoman?


Kate Hoey:The next BBC chairwoman?


Have any of you been mooted as the new BBC chairman yet? Pretty much everyone else has, if you believe the papers. 

The latest headlines concern the Europhile former chancellor and 'man of a hundred jobs already', George Osborne. Having failed to land the plum Royal Opera House job, the Daily Telegraph's Choppers now claims the Government is "lining him up" to replace Sir David Clementi. 

There are lots of 'woulds' and 'ifs' in the article and Christopher Hope adds that "some government sources" have "downplayed" for the ex-chancellor's chances. The piece ends by saying, "Mr Osborne declined to comment" and "The Daily Telegraph understands that he has not yet been approached about the role". 

So frankly we're barely any further on that when George Osborne was first mooted weeks ago. 

Andrew Neil, for one, doesn't reckon much to the story. "I bet he's not", he tweeted in response to the headline about Mr Osborne being "lined up" by the Government. 

Anyone who wants drastic surgery to save the BBC won't be looking to Mr Osborne, who would be almost as bad as David Dimbleby. Michael Portillo, Trevor Phillips or Sir Robbie Gibb would be better bets. 

No one's mentioned Kate Hoey though, have they? Should we start a rumour here in her favour and pass it onto the Telegraph? Yes, let's! I've a feeling "some government sources" might possibly have mentioned her at some stage, and she'd be great. 

Saturday, 26 September 2020

"Much-loved"

 


The BBC's statement on Andrew Neil's departure from the BBC was pleasingly warm:



I did chuckle at the bit about This Week being "much-loved". 

It begs two obvious questions: So why did the BBC cancel it? And will the BBC now admit they made a mistake?

Sunday, 20 September 2020

Charles Moore for BBC chairman?

 

Well, if the sources in Downing Street cited by the Mail on Sunday's political editor Glen Owen are correctly reflecting a serious, determined intent on the part of Mr Cummings & Co. to replace the departing Sir David Clementi as Chairman of the BBC with Charles Moore of all people then that would probably be the biggest shock to the BBC's system since time immemorial. 

The newly ennobled Lord Moore of Etchingham is definitely the cat the BBC pigeons would least prefer to have put among them. 

Unlike Sir David, Charles Moore wouldn't go native. Under him, the BBC would be shaken up, beginning next February. 

It's quite a tantalising thought. But is the Government brave enough?

*******

Andrew Neil is being characteristically droll about it, even employing the time-honoured "choking on their muesli" crack:

BBC executives were choking on their muesli when it was reported that I was in the running to be next Chairman of the BBC. I have no interest in the job. But now the Daily Mail is reporting Charles Moore is favourite for the post, I expect BBC to be begging me to take it.

Monday, 14 September 2020

Andrew Neil has his say again

 

And here he is again

Andrew Neil: When it comes to the EU the British media’s general default position is to treat anything UK government does as a deceit/lie/obfuscation/matter for ridicule, while treating anything out of Brussels as gospel. When did you last see a Barnier-type given a tough interview? 

What a good question! 

Andrew Neil has his say

 

And talking of Andrew Neil, here he is:

Andrew Neil: Now that Bahrain has joined the UAE in recognising Israel, Saudi Arabia cannot be far behind. A sea-change in the geopolitics of the Middle East is underway, leaving the Palestinian leadership isolated.

İyad el-Baghdadi: When Israel's "diplomatic progress" depends upon normalizing relationships with Arab dictators, it follows that democracy in the Arab region would be a severe diplomatic setback for Israel. Israel's regional ally is dictatorship. 

Andrew Neil: If Israel was to limit its dealings to Arab countries not run by dictators, it would very quickly run out of Arab countries to talk to. Indeed it would soon be talking to itself.

Sunday, 13 September 2020

Peace again


The piece deal between Israel and Bahrain is another historic breakthrough, following Israel's recent  peace deal with the United Arab Emirates. 

The BBC hasn't paid it much attention, but their Jerusalem reporter Tom Bateman has covered it. He ended his report on the story with the following, downbeat pay-off line:

The Gulf countries believe their move could nudge forward an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but critics see more self-interest than peacemaking for the parties involved. Tom Bateman, BBC News, Jerusalem. 

Earlier in his report, which stressed how the deal "leaves the Palestinians feeling sidelined", he'd seemed to be giving succour to those critics himself by stressing the "new security ties" that could develop "among countries that share a common adversary in Iran". 

A contrasting take comes from Andrew Neil on Twitter:

Now that Bahrain has joined the UAE in recognising Israel, Saudi Arabia cannot be far behind. A sea-change in the geopolitics of the Middle East is underway, leaving the Palestinian leadership isolated.

Consider this from the state-backed Saudi Gazette: "Palestinian politicians have sabotaged negotiations and rejected all peace initiatives for six decades in order to keep the aid funds flowing to their private bank accounts."

Or this: Bahraini activist: “Growing awareness among many in Arab world that Jewish people not foreign colonialists in Land of Israel, but part of this land, and part of our region… it’s a fact, and we can do many things together for prosperity, security and peace for region.”

And Abu Dhabi's official National newspaper: “The UAE-Israel accord is a win for every Muslim … Since 9/11, Muslims across the world have been on the defensive. I saw the suspicion of Muslims in the eyes of American officials. It always boiled down to: show us peace in Islam. Now, with visionary accord between UAE and Israel, a new horizon is opening to reinstate Muslim dignity by showing peace between peoples. We can now say: ‘A new way of co-existence is achievable. We are not pawns for mullahs of Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood. Look at the UAE.’”

Saturday, 12 September 2020

You know it makes sense

 

The news that Andrew Neil looks set to return to the BBC with an enhanced role, with Tim Davie highlighting his importance by talking to him on Zoom on his second day in the job, is a good sign. 

Mr Davie's prompt call stands in marked contrast to the previous BBC regime which, according to the Daily Telegraph, didn't contact him even once after his programme was taken off air. 

The downside, of course, is that Andrew might have to tone down his barbed remarks about the Corporation again.

A constructive suggestion: How about moving Newsnight to 8pm and replacing Emily Maitlis with Andrew Neil? 

And why not lure back Giles Dilnot in place of Lewis Goodall too?

Friday, 31 July 2020

Further to Arthur T's post...


Andrew Neil isn't overly impressed with the new artwork on Trafalgar Square's fourth plinth:


Will he be toppling it? 

Monday, 27 July 2020

But doesn't this apply to the BBC too?


Andrew Neil is no fool, so he knows that people will join the dots when he tweets something like this:

Litigious news and other stories

So the BBC is cancelling Andrew Neil to make way for more diversity and youth-orientated content. Well, there does seem to be support for left-wing, antisemitic-flavour broadcasting.  Jeremy Corbyn’s go-fund-me pot has reached a quarter of a million pounds and rising, so the demand is obviously there.

‘Adolf Hitler’ and ‘B’stard Son Of Netanyahu’ help fund Corbyn’s legal costs  by Adam decker
A Go Fund Me page set up to finance the former Labour leader's court battles has raised £231,000 due in part to the generosity of self-proclaimed racists.
[…]
“Among the most generous donors are former deputy leader of Liverpool City Council Derek Hatton who’s given £1,000, prominent anti-Israel campaigner and Labour member Susanne Levin who’s offered £500 and music producer Brian Eno, who’s provided £500.”

Update! As you were! The fund has so far reached  (a staggering!) £300,000 

Strangely, the BBC seems to be embroiled in a complicated tangle of litigation, would-be litigation and counter-litigation. Who’s suing whom? It’s as farcical as one of those ‘you couldn’t make it up’ farces that cry out for the erudite clarification of a Captain Blackadder.

Panorama has been going since 1953! In all that time the BBC has exposed many scandals and injustices, but I have found just three litigious cases involving something that could be interpreted as vaguely ‘philo-Semitic’. 

In 2005 a case involving the BBC’s John Ware drew a complaint from the Muslim Council of Britain. 
From the BBC report:
"MCB secretary general Sir Iqbal Sacranie complained the show was "purposefully trying to sabotage" the progress Muslims were making in the political mainstream.


Panorama reporter John Ware also found groups affiliated to the MCB promoting anti-Semitic views, the belief that Islam was a superior ideology to secular British values and the view that Christians and Jews were conspiring to undermine Islam.
MCB secretary general Sir Iqbal Sacranie complained the show was "purposefully trying to sabotage" the progress Muslims were making in the political mainstream.
"John Ware's team have made a deeply unfair programme using deliberately garbled quotes in an attempt to malign the Muslim Council of Britain," he said.

The BBC rejected that complaint.

Another case followed a couple of years later when the BBC was made to pay damages. 
"The former general manager of Islamic Relief UK, Waseem Yaqub, today accepted undisclosed libel damages and a public apology from the BBC at London’s High Court over a Panorama programme called Faith, Hate and Charity.
Mr Justice David Eady was told that the programme was broadcast on BBC One and investigated the London-based charity Interpal which gives funds to charities on the West Bank to help needy Palestinians.
It was said to reveal that some of the charities were linked to Hamas and helped build support for the movement by spreading Islamist ideology.
22nd July 2020  and we’re back in the room. John Ware is at the centre of a sue-storm; a blizzard of articles appeared in the press. Who’s suing whom? I can’t reliably put the articles in chronological order, but things are happening. 

'That Panorama’ was aired on BBC Two one whole year ago.  “Is Labour Anti-Semitic?” A bit like this blog - the question is rhetorical. David Collier had already exposed the tsunami of Corbynite/ Momentum antisemitic material that had engulfed Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour, both in real life and on social media. A certain amount of momentum had been created, a demonstration had occurred in London and more and more ‘incidents’ were being unearthed. Yes, we all knew the answer to the question. Labour definitely is antisemitic,  but the Panorama exposé was still unexpected.  The BBC allowing such an overt critique of their beloved Labour Party?  Whatever next?” 

Here’s what was next. The Labour Party’s vengeful treatment of the “Panorama whistleblowers” became the subject of a court case resulting in Labour being forced to apologise and to pay damages to the seven former employees appearing in the programme. The BBC published this report, no byline:
Anti-Semitism: Labour pays damages for 'hurt' to whistleblowers 
The party has issued an unreserved apology in the High Court for making "false and defamatory" comments about seven whistleblowers who spoke out in a BBC Panorama programme last year.
The individuals had criticised the then leadership's handling of complaints.”
Laura Kuenssberg also produced a report
Labour’s agony over anti-Semitism far from over
Astonishing still that the Labour Party, a political movement based on fighting for equality and against racism, found itself in a situation where its members and officials have been playing out a battle over anti-Semitism for so long - on the airwaves, in constituency meetings, in executive meetings and also in the courts. The argument is not settled.”

You can say that again! Next, still on 22nd July, an indication that a challenge is in the offing; The Guardian,

Corbyn-era Labour figures may challenge antisemitism settlement by Jessica Elgot and Lisa O'Carroll
Senior party members understood to be mulling legal action over verdict on treatment of whistleblowers
“Key figures in Labour when Jeremy Corbyn was leader are mulling a challenge to the party’s settlement with a BBC journalist and seven of its former staff over a libel case relating to a Panorama programme last year about its handling of antisemitism.
It is understood the former Labour leader himself as well as his former director of communications Seumas Milne have taken legal advice about the settlement and apology set to be read at the high court on Wednesday.”
and also from The Guardian:
Antisemitism settlement plunges Labour party into civil war 

“Jeremy Corbyn’s statement caused astonishment among litigants in libel action.
Labour’s decision to pay a six-figure libel settlement to ex-staffers who claimed the party was failing to deal with antisemitism has plunged the party back into civil war, with Jeremy Corbyn publicly condemning his successor’s decision to settle the case.
Corbyn’s statement caused astonishment among the litigants in the libel action, with the Panorama journalist John Ware confirming to the Guardian that he was “consulting his lawyers” and raising the prospect of another costly court battle over Labour and antisemitism.
[…]
Mark Lewis, the solicitor who acted for Ware and the whistleblowers, revealed to the Guardian that he had been approached by 32 individuals who want to take action against the party for a range of allegations, mainly centring on the fallout from the leaked report.
On the same day (22nd July) The Jewish Chronicle came out with:
The Corbynites have lied with impunity - now they face the legal consequences
"John Ware explains why he sued the Labour Party - and why his case is merely the first of several against alt-Left sites and individuals who lie
A year ago, the Labour Party declared all-out war on the BBC. Why? 
I was the reporter on a Panorama programme in which seven former Labour staffers blew the whistle about antisemitism in Corbyn’s Labour Party. They explained how they felt a growing factionalism had created a safe space for antisemitic views inside the party.
Labour responded by accusing me of having flouted journalistic ethics. I had, Labour alleged, knowingly promoted falsehoods and invented quotes. I had misrepresented and fabricated facts.
You don’t need much experience of television to know that the BBC’s editorial processes simply don’t allow for such mammoth corruption of the editorial process, especially a programme that examines such an incendiary subject as the relationship between the leader of the Opposition and antisemitism. Every line of my commentary was trawled over by the editor, lawyers and the BBC’s editorial compliance panjandrums. The whistle-blowers were also extensively cross examined."
Also on 22nd July 2020, Jewish News printed this:

Panorama journalist John Ware planning to sue Jeremy Corbyn By Jack Mendel
The journalist behind BBC Panorama’s on Labour’s antisemitism row is planning to sue Jeremy Corbyn for libel.
Labour falsely accused Ware of “deliberate and malicious misrepresentations designed to mislead the public” regarding the show.
Media lawyer Mark Lewis said: 'I can confirm that I have been instructed to pursue claims' against the former Labour leader
It’s irritating when journalists like Philip Collins allude to 'journalistic ethics' as if the BBC were a paragon of excellence in the journalistic ethics department. In one paragraph in an otherwise laudable essay, titled “Time to root out Corbybites once and for all” Collins wrote:
“The response of the Corbyn team to the allegation that Labour was not really serious about investigating antisemitism was to pour scorn on the journalistic ethics of the BBC.”
If it weren’t for the fact that this particular Panorama was a remarkably unrepresentative example of the BBC’s normal output, ‘journalistic ethics-wise’  Collins would have had a valid point. 

I can think of but one or two other exceptions to the BBC’s default Labour-leaning perspective, one, in particular, comes to mind.  Jane Corbin’s Panorama titled “Death in the Med’ where she quite rightly sided with the Israelis over the Mavi Marmara affair. If I’m mistaken and the other cases I’ve cited were in fact ‘the norm’ for Panorama, the BBC in general and not exceptions at all, please forgive me. I had the impression that Panorama’s output since 1953 has generally been in accord with the BBC’s left-wing ethics rather than plain and simple ‘journalistic ethics’.
“To declare war on all of the mainstream media is a disastrously stupid strategy for any political leader. In due course, Sir Keir will be well advised to be much more forensic than this in his choice of media enemies. He will need some — a media bogeyman is always handy in politics — but it most certainly ought not to be the BBC.”
..adds Collins. Why ever would a self-proclaimed Labour supporter like Philip Collins suppose Starmer is likely to alienate the BBC? The BBC loves Labour under Starmer and I daresay it’s mutual.

I have no idea what Seumas Milne and Len McCluskey are up to, but if antisemitism is really going to be deemed beyond the pale they’ll have to carefully consider the best use of the monies generously donated by ‘Adolf Hitler’ and ‘B’stard Son Of Netanyahu’

The BBC is dumping Jane Corbin I hear, as well as Andrew Neil. I rest my case. (M’lud.)

Sunday, 26 July 2020

Still hanging on in there


Many have taken the decision to drop Andrew Neil's 7pm Wednesday programme, following the previous dropping of This Week, as yet another nail in the BBC's coffin, and a lot of people assume it's because the BBC wants rid of him because he sticks out like a sore thumb there. But Rob Burley (editor of live political programmes) has kept insisting throughout that that's not the case - and, to do him justice, Rob does seem to be trying his best to keep the BBC's finest interviewer at the BBC. It would be very bad for the BBC if they 'lost' Andrew Neil, intentionally or otherwise:
Andrew Gregory: Andrew Neil, excuse me if I've missed a statement, but is your programme on BBC2 on Wednesdays coming back? My 92 year old father and I looked forward to your probing, insightful interviewing, a shining beacon in the confused, chaotic and downright biased reporting of elsewhere. 
Andrew Neil: No. It’s not coming back. The BBC said it could come back if I accepted a new, late afternoon time in the BBC2 schedule. But BBC2 bosses did not want it back at 7pm. I declined the new time so the show was cancelled. Sorry. Thanks for your interest. Best to you and father.
Liz: Bad show Rob Burley. Thumbs down 👎.
Rob Burley: Hi Liz - I don't think (quite understandably) you know how these decisions are come to if you want to blame me for it. As we have said, we want a new show for Andrew sorted ASAP!
Andrew Neil: If there’s blame to go round, Liz, none of it should be laid at Rob’s door.
Update 2:30 pm:  
Andrew Neil: BBC2 never wanted the show at 7pm in the first place. The then DG insisted. Now he’s gone it was no surprise to me BBC2 made a land grab to get it back.

Friday, 29 May 2020

Ho hum


Andrew Neil has always stood out as being different, almost unique, as far as the BBC is concerned - except, perhaps, for his propensity for expressing his opinions on Twitter.

Here he is last night, responding to a Guido Fawkes piece headlined Nissan Shifts Manufacturing from Europe to UK, #DespiteBrexit:
Imagine the twitter storm tonight if this had gone the other way. It would have been of biblical proportions. For some reason it’s not getting much traction on the MSM either. Ho hum.
And by "MSM" he's presumably including the BBC?

Thursday, 5 March 2020

Missed opportunity, retrieved

I was hoping that  Oliver Dowden’s suggestion that “The BBC must reflect nation’” was going to be one of the topics on Politics Live’s agenda. When I saw Melanie Phillips on the panel I thought she might be up for it.  Apparently, it was on the list; but they ran out of time.

They had a satisfactorily robust, if brief, airing of “Labour’s antisemitism problem” with special reference to Rebecca Long-Bailey’s awkward non-response to Andrew Neil’s persistent questioning on his show yesterday evening. 


I think R L-B’s goose is cooked.

Gratifyingly, Neil focused on the incident that passed her (and Sophy Ridge) by during Sky’s leadership hustings.

I mentioned this annoying omission in an earlier post. It certainly makes a change to see this kind of thing not being allowed to pass unchallenged.