Anita Anand isn't beyond reproach

As a post on Friday here noted, Justin Webb was on the end of an official BBC 'correction and clarification' last week for inaccurately saying "Boris Johnson said the Royal Family's beyond reproach":

Wednesday 20th November 2019: Today, BBC Radio 4, 20 November 2019 

In a discussion about the impact of the Leadership election debate, we said Boris Johnson had said the Royal Family is beyond reproach. 

To be precise Boris Johnson had said: 'The institution of the monarchy is beyond reproach.'

As Anonymous noted in the comments, "Anita Anand isn't beyond reproach. On Any Answers? this afternoon she teed off with the same misrepresentation, asking whether listeners agreed with Boris Johnson that the Royal Family is beyond reproach".

She did indeed and, so, ought surely to receive the same ticking-off from the BBC?

Here for the record, is a transcript:

We can also talk about the Royal Family. After everything we've seen over the last couple of weeks, do you agree with Boris Johnson the Royal Family is really "beyond reproach"?

Any answers?

It's an old question, and I think we already know the answer, but here is is again:

Why did Any Answers?, where Britain had the chance to listen properly to one another & host was near invisible, go downmarket wth making callers who differ from Anita Anand's approved views have to justify themselves to her, while she intrudes, comments, interrogates, rudely?

And don't forget all her endless expressive noises - hums, ahems, oohs, ers, gurgles, etc!

Oh, and here's another question:

Was there ever anything so superfluous as Anita Anand telling the audience what are the subjects of Any Answers? Still, gives her the chance to make it sound like the Anita Anand Show, to use proprietorial language, prior to rude inappropriate interrogation. 

The ayes have it

I’m linking to this HoC Westminster Hall debate (3rd July) UK-Israel Trade, for a reason. Several reasons actually. Firstly it makes a nice change to see MPs debating Israel in a positive way without being shouted down by the massed choir of Israelophobes that usually dominate such debates. 

Secondly, I’m using it to highlight the way memes and tropes embed themselves in the language to be trotted out by the culturally and historically illiterate.

Looking at the list of speakers, certain names leap out - (from the left) habitual offenders in this respect. Predictably they duly chimed in, to the tune of ”occupied territories” “settlements”  “illegal under international law”. It’s dispiriting to witness Israel-bashing zealots citing institutionally anti-Israel organisations like the UN to back up their argument; more so when they are allowed to do so without facing robust challenges by wiser, better-informed and more legally literate opponents.

So let’s have a look at the memes and tropes concerning Donald Trump that have embedded themselves in the language, which are thoughtlessly bandied about by all and sundry.

Ed Miliband gave us a prime example. His explanation for his presence at an anti-Trump demo came simply in the form of a list: Fascist, Misogynist, Racist - there may have been another couple, which have momentarily eluded me.

We heard the same list again from a caller to Any Answers. The term Fascist has suffered extreme mission creep. It now seems to mean nationalist, or, if you like, patriot.  Misogyny is the label most commonly associated with Trump, which I assume stems from that infamous recording resurrected from his pre-politics era. The crudely worded confidences he blurted out to his companion seemed to me to be nothing much more than an inarticulate expression of delight and surprise at the unexpected benefits of power and success. It reminded me of Robbie Williams, half stoned apparently, crying out “I’m rich beyond my wildest dreams”. 

The real problem with The Donald is his limited vocabulary. You can tell he’s struggling with language, falling back on rudimentary words and expressions just as a small child would, but sometimes cutting through the bullshit and shaking up the torpid status quo in the process. 

I don’t think Trump is a racist. Or is Islam officially a race these days? 

The caged children thing is disingenuous. I understand that President Obama’s record is no less disrespectful of human rights, and for that matter, Bill Clinton’s and John H Kennedy's are no less misogynist and so on. This is one occasion when ‘whataboutery’ looks like a valid approach.

Another caller to Any Answers accused the BBC of whipping up anti-Trump animus, singling out John Sopel and Paul Wood. Anita Anand wasn’t happy. “They aren’t here to defend themselves”, she said, “and I’m not going to criticise my colleagues.” 

More trouble at t'mill

So, Anita Anand was apparently dropped from presenting this week's Any Answers (aka 'The Anita Anand Show') for speaking out on the BBC 'gender pay gap' issue. 

Oddly, she'll just-as-apparently be back on again next week. 

The BBC's answer to that Kevin Maguire tweet, if you're wondering, is that John Humphrys’s words weren't intended for public consumption, they were in private. 

Polls

"According to recent polling, if a referendum were held today Britain would vote to stay in", Anita Anand told us on Any Answers today. 

And she didn't fail to repeat the point either. 

How much recent polling has shown that or whether (as I suspect after Googling around) it's actually just that one single BMG poll for the Independent (showing 52% for Remain, 48% for Leave) I can't say for sure but, regardless, our Anita was certainly making the most of that 'recent polling' today.

(BMG's last pre-referendum poll last year predicted a 3% Remain victory. Their final pre-2017 general election poll predicted a 13% victory for Theresa May). 

Why oh why...?

I haven't listened to Any Answers for some time now. Listening today though shows that little has changed. 

Anita Anand's still there dominating the programme, turning it into The Anita Anand Show.

But, that said, she didn't seem as interventionist as I expected her to be this week. (I expected clucking on an industrial scale).

Just for fun though (Whatever!) I thought I'd count the amount of time Anita talked on today's edition to see whether my impression of her dominance was grounded in any reality whatsoever. (I counted very precisely, of course.)

The result?

Her voice accounted for 37% of the programme's airtime. Callers' voices accounted for 63%.

So Anita Anand talked for over a third of the programme's duration today.

As I say, she struck me as being unusually hands-off this week, so I suspect the ratio is usually even more in her favour.

As the callers today were full of interesting opinions, I'm still of the opinion that I'd like to hear less from Anita.

Make Any Answers a proper listeners' forum again. 

Anita Anand and Tom with the velvety voice.

The Any Questions from Crickhowell High School was a lively affair. Somehow the audience was entirely made up of shouty Corbynites who heckled and whooped loudly whenever anyone said something unCorbynist, so that once again Jonathan Dimbleby felt obliged to plead that the composition of the audience was Nothing To Do With The BBC. (“NTDWTBBC” )

The Shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffith didn’t seem to agree with her leader on the matter of the link between terrorism and ‘our participation in conflict’.

Of course there is a link between terrorism and “our foreign policy” in as much as the cause-and-effect  theory is the pretext routinely parroted by Muslims to justify or rationalise terrorism. They know they can get away with it, since no-one knows history these days.

Unfortunately Anita Anand is back in the Any Answers chair, her voice as strident and her opinions as intrusive as ever. She’s a female version of James O’Brien.

“Julian Biddlecombe, I hope I pronounced your name properly William - from Gloucester”  she announced, though why the name ‘William’ should be pronounced ‘Julian’ escapes me. There were gremlins on the line so she moved on to Valerie Ward from Plymouth who skated on very thin ice by mentioning Ed Husain and Ayaan Hirsi Ali while Anand huffed impatiently in the background. Shortly she couldn’t resist interrupting to say that more Muslims have been killed by ISIS than by terrorists.

William came back, but faded away again, then onto the call that really brought out the morality police within Anita Anand.

“Tom Walsh is calling us from Wigan. Good afternoon Tom?”  

“Hello Anita.”  

“There’s a velvety voice. Tom what did you want to comment on?”  

“Too much time is spent pussyfooting around, not wanting to cause offence. We ought to tell it as it is. Some people want to harm us, to kill us.”.

“Mmmmm.”  

“Politicians keep going on [...] my mother used to say you can’t turn a bad apple ripe.”  

“I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. So who are the apples you’re talking about here, Tom?”  

“Well, we can’t go on as we are. Something different must be tried. Civil liberties have to be curtailed for the duration and I’m sure the vast majority of people would be prepared to forego some freedoms for safety.”  

“Tom what do you want them to do? What are the freedoms you want curtailed? Let’s put it out on the table. What is it you want done!”  

“Well we must be - we’re going to have to think the unthinkable.”  

“What is that?”  

“Limited internment." 

“For who, Tom?”  

“For terrorists?”  

“Yeah well, once somebody’s a terrorist I meant there’s a pretty final kind of internment, and that’s prison.”  

“Yes. But you sound like you want to go further than that, I’m trying to understand what it is you’re talking about.”  

“Something different.”  

“Which is what?”  

“Internment. House arrest. Greater powers for the police. I know people say this will act as a recruiting sergeant but we can see there’s no shortage of recruiters. Also life should mean life for terrorist offences, and they should be isolated from other prisoners. Going back to the apple theme, one bad apple spoils the barrel.”  

“Right. So you’re talking abut internment but for those people who’ve been tried as terrorists and identified as terrorists, I mean that happens when they go to jail doesn’t it?”  

“No, no, internment’s a different thing. People would be interned without trial actually for a limited period and only the more serious - during the war there were three categories.”  

“Mmmm.”  

“Ah, ones that were known to pose a threat and they were interned immediately and b, were the darker ones who had restrictions placed on them, no radios, they needed permission to travel etcetera and these are the things they’re going to have to try.” 

“So the 3,000 who are on the radar, pick them up immediately and put them in a - a what, a camp or something?”  

“Well the ones that we know, and don’t forget the authorities know lot of these people that are definite threats, and they should be interned. We’re fighting a war. Not a religion. we’re not fighting a religion, we’re not fighting a people, we’re fighting an ideology.”  

“Okay. Alright Tom, thank you very much indeed let’s go to another caller”.

The Silly Season

It’s the silly season. There’s no Marr, no Neil and only an extremely silly version of Sunday Morning Live. 

I don’t usually warm to Naga Munchetti, but she and Jane Hill are more sympathetic hosts than Sian Williams; however, as far as jarring S.M.L. anchorpersons go Anita Anand takes the biscuit.

This morning’s edition looked like a hastily cobbled together cover version of standard issue. Anita Anand was understudying Naga Munchetti and the panel were subs.

It’s the silly season though. As everyone else in the country is stuck in a stationary queue just outside Dover, it didn’t matter who they dragged in to discuss “how faith leaders in the UK should respond to the killing of elderly Father Jacques Hamel on his church altar.” 

Tommy Sandhu has an unusual head; his features occupy the whole face, leaving little space for forehead or chin. I’m not sure what he is on the programme for, but one of his jobs is to go ‘on the road’ to capture suitable vox pops. This time he went to the Living Islam Festival in Lincoln to accost young Muslims and film them commenting on why Islam is so peaceful, and opining upon what’s wrong with the ‘Prevent’ strategy.

His other job is to read out messages from a giant screen in the studio. But the thing is, having begged the public to join in, the messages, identified in true Jeremy Corbyn fashion by first names or Twitter handles, are so inane that they’re ignored like an embarrassing smell. Also, as they are displayed in such a large format, viewers can easily read them for themselves, so they don’t need to be read out loud. Especially by someone who doesn’t necessarily do so accurately.

Anita Anand had plenty to say. Then, all of a sudden, a near earth-shattering incident shook the studio.

A panellist, The Most Rev Kevin McDonald, made an extraordinary remark, which sounded both controversial and disarmingly honest. Nodding towards Tommy’s Islam-festival vox-pops, the Most Rev said:

”Most of those young people would not call ISIS extreme”. 

The panel staggered back in horror! Anita Anand did a double-take! The clock struck thirteen.

Disappointingly, there was a qualification. Panic over. The Most Rev Kevin McDonald patiently explained why he thought most of those young people would not call ISIS extreme - not because they’d come to terms with the fact that the ideology of ISIS wasn’t a million miles away from the ideology of mainstream Islam. No. The opposite. They wouldn’t call ISIS extreme simply because they wouldn’t even call ISIS  anything at all to do with Islam, let alone an extreme version of it”

Anita heaved a sigh of relief.

The final segment was about internet trolls. The young lady who had lost a leg in that horrible Alton Towers accident has been trolled by people who accused her of exploiting her accident, which is a bit rich, since nearly  everyone on TV is exploiting some accident or other, be it an accident of birth, like talent, good looks or plain luck, good or bad. She looks defiantly glamorous; good luck to her and long may she exploit her situation and .......Get off Twitter. 

Why am I here?

The funny thing is, she looked completely surprised to find herself sitting there between, let’s face it, some decidedly unglamorous wimmin who had either been trolled  or had opinions about being trolled. She must have been wondering  what on earth she was doing there. Some of us were wondering what any of them were doing there.

"Trolls do not watch S.M.L"

P.S. You know how people with an agenda will seize upon dissenting voices to discredit their target, e.g., when the BBC cites snippets from Haaretz to back up their own creepy anti-Israel campaign?

We all understand that natives who criticize their own country -  or for that matter family members who criticize other family members  - usually have their country’s or their family’s best interests at heart and will ultimately close ranks if challenged from outside.  Freedom of speech is paramount, but at the same time it’s probably foolhardy to cavalierly hand ammunition to one’s enemies.

If anyone thinks our criticism of the BBC is aimed at its destruction, they’re mistaken. We do not have such a charter. Our criticisms are supposed to be constructive, even if they don’t always look that way. I duly acknowledge the negativity in the above post about S.M.L. 

Another snapshot

And here's Anita Anand on this afternoon's Any Answers introducing the programme:

Well, as you have been hearing in the news, the first Muslim mayor of any major Western capital has been sworn in. I'd love to know from you today what does the election of Sadiq Khan do to our political status quo? What does it say about London? What does it say about the rest of the country? And what should parties take away from this? There have been accusations of anti-Semetic behaviour against Labour, Islamophobia against the Conservatives. What exactly is going on with our politics right now? And is the EU debate just going to exacerbate the very worst? What is it about our style of campaigning these days that obscures or maybe even destroys integrity? I don't know whether you saw, but Zak Goldsmith's sister Jemima criticised his campaign yesterday on Twitter saying "It's sad that Zak's campaign did not reflect who I know him to be - an eco-friendly, independent-minded politician with integrity." Your thoughts on that. And, yes, what about across the pond? We've just seen the anointing of Donald Trump as the Republican candidate presumptive. I'd love your thoughts on that. What would that kind of world be? All that, and I'd love to hear from you if you are a teacher or a parent. What have you made of the government's latest u-turn on academies?

And here's Anita interrupting a caller who was complaining about  people (like Anita) mentioning Sadiq's Muslims background:

It's signalling though. I mean, I understand what you're saying and I hear what you're saying but there have been a lot of editorials in foreign newspapers also saying, 'Look, this is extraordinary. We've been writing about the tone of this campaign' - and they have, in America, in Pakistan for example, which is the country where Sadiq's par...Khan's parents came from and yet, you know, despite everything, this is a city...and in the words of one editorial...'enlightened enough' to vote for a man of that heritage nonetheless. So you don't want them to mention it at all and yet this is now...this is a ball that's rolling all over the world.

Is the BBC 'Judeophobic' or just 'anti-Zio'?

How is the BBC handling the antisemitism crisis in the Labour Party? 

There seems to be a split between the camp who want to treat it as honestly and impartially as they can without upsetting too many Muslims, and the camp that has gone rogue. 

I almost see a hideous parallel with Ken Livingstone’s assertion that Hitler supported Zionism before he went mad and killed some Jews. 

We know the BBC is institutionally pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist. I mean, from top to bottom. 

We know this because they magnify every detail of what they see as Israel’s human rights violations and crimes against humanity, without noticing any of the numerous and blatantly obvious examples of human rights violations and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel’s enemies - against their own populace as well as Israel’s. 

However, we are where we are, and the BBC’s failure to notice the antisemitism in the Arab world is something we have to deal with, until some kind of miracle occurs.

Also, the BBC is obliged to be seen to be impartial, and many of them do the best they can to confine their prejudices to Twitter and leave them there the minute they put on their BBC hats.

However, the camp that has ‘gone mad’ (or gone rogue) is alive and well. 

There was a prime example of that on this morning’s The Big Questions. Someone decided that it would be good for the ratings to invite onto the panel Zionists and anti-Zionists to discuss the question: “Is anti-Zionism anti-semitic?” By doing so, equal credence is given to the opinions of both sides. 

Did they think someone like Tony Greenstein or prof Moshé Machover, a dissident Israeli and  an anti-Zionist, (who ruthlessly exploit their AsaJew status to protect them from accusations of antisemitism) would ever admit for one second that anti-Zionism was antisemitic?

If you were hoping for a rational debate, would you invite, say, Adolf Eichmann and David Irving into the studio to discuss antisemitism? Perhaps you could ask them if they thought  Haj Amin al-Husseini was antisemitic. I’m sure that would generate a productive debate.

not antisemitic

No-one will admit to being antisemitic. I daresay not even Raza Nadim of MPACUK.

Pitting the likes of Louise Ellman, Angela Epstein and Joy Wolfe against these volatile and belligerent racists was mischievous and sensationalist, and the people who decided to do that clearly regard the whole thing as nothing more than populist entertainment.

In sharp contrast, Andrew Marr’s programme was the model of sanity. I must admit I found the idea of appointing Mark Regev as Israel’s new Ambassador to Britain as quite a risky move. He has already earned himself a reputation as apologist for an unpopular government, which seems to be an opinion shared by all and sundry in the UK. Every time he has appeared on our screens he has faced hostile and aggressive questioning, and is regarded as a figure of hate and bile by the pro-Palestinian community.

What chance has he of charming the British? However, Andrew Marr was respectful, and let him speak, and he was eloquent and measured. Diane Abbott, on the other hand, was evasive and uncomfortable. It was she who was given the role of defending the indefensible. Andrew Marr was okay.

Back to Newsnight. The one with Emily Maitlis, doing her best to play the hand she was dealt by the rogue faction, for it must have been they who invited a notorious activist for the Palestinian cause, and, let’s face it, a rabid Jew-hater, into the studio to demonise Israel.   

“Listen. I am an expert on people being uprooted, and transported. I am a Palestinian. And I and hundreds and thousands of Palestinians were really and properly transported from our homeland, many into refugee camps so it wasn’t an idea, it wasn’t a little thing on Facebook, it was a reality. I know all about that.”

It’s understandable that Ghada Karmi wants us to see it this way. To give her the benefit of the doubt, she probably genuinely sees it that way herself.

But you have to concede, whichever side you’re on, that Ghada has adopted the emotive term ‘transported’ for a very good reason. It emotes Jews riding in cattle trucks to the death camps. You might call this a kind of cultural appropriation.

History tells us that the Palestinian Nakba was not ‘transportation’. On other occasions Ghada herself has used the more accurate term: ‘fled’. 

The fact is that Karmi is a well-known activist who devotes herself to advocating the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their ‘homeland’, Israel. Several million of them, wielding the symbolic key.

This blog by Noru Tsalic puts the other side of the story:

“ the vast majority of ‘Palestine refugees’ have not fled from anywhere or anything – in fact they tend to live in the countries where they were born, many of them for 3-4 generations.”

To qualify as a Palestinian refugee, you just have to be the descendant (paternal line only) of someone who resided in the British Mandate of Palestine for a minimum of two years before 1948. Your qualifying ancestor could have been a worker from Jordan “who, in 1946, found work harvesting oranges in a Jewish orchard.” 

The original refugees are currently outnumbered by UNRWA employees who are funded by taxpayers to feed, clothe and supply these people and their 4 million plus descendants with healthcare and education, etc. 

This preferential (and incomprehensible) interpretation of refugee entitlement is uniquely applicable to Palestinian refugees. No others on this Earth.

As for being uprooted or ‘transported’, Arab leaders were responsible for creating the 1948 exodus, using scare tactics so that the intended Arab war of the destruction of the State of Israel could go ahead unimpeded. They promised the Jews would be defeated in a few days. Some Arabs chose to flee, escape, shelter, while others stayed where they were. 

“In April 1948 great-great-granddaddy fled to Jordan, having heard that the Jews are coming to kill all men, rape all women and eat all babies.”

I don’t know Ghada Karmi’s particular story, but she likes to say that her family were transported. Perhaps they were driven out, perhaps they were amongst the ones who made a wrong decision, and fled; unlike the Arab families who chose to stay where they were, and made the right decision.  You start a war, you risk losing it.

 The irony of Ghada Kharni’s position is that the whole catastrophe could have been averted, but for the Arabs’ hatred of Jews.  Pretending that anti-Zionism is ‘nothing to do with’ antisemitism is ludicrous. The hatred still stands, as virulent as ever, and even more pernicious when disguising itself as something else.

Emily Maitlis started questioning Karmi, using the tactic that flummoxed Malia Bouattia on Channel 4. Why do you only criticise the State of Israel and no other country? Both Ghada Karmi and Malia Bouattia could only reply: “But we’re only talking about Israel”

Peter Hitchens nails it. 

"Everyone howls at batty Ken - but they wouldn't dare tackle racist Muslims"

“On visits to the Muslim world, from Egypt to Iran, Iraq and Jordan, via the Israeli-occupied West Bank, I have repeatedly met foul and bigoted opinions about Jews which people in this country would be ashamed to speak out loud. 

I have no doubt that there are plenty of Muslims who do not harbour such views. But there are those who do, and British political parties which seek the support of Muslims have often been coy about challenging this. As for all these people who have suddenly got so exercised about Judophobia, and wildly worked up about Ken Livingstone’s batty views on Zionism (standard issue on the far Left for decades), I have some questions for them: 

Are you prepared to put the same energy into challenging and denouncing Judophobia among the Palestinians you support abroad, and the British Muslims whose votes you seek here?

On The Big Questions Tony Greenstein couldn’t stop screaming, and he behaved in one of the rudest and dare I say most unhinged manner I’ve ever seen on TBQs, and that’s saying something;  but he did manage to ask a question that sounded plausible: 

Why is it that a Palestinian Arab refugee who was born in Jerusalem can’t go back to his place of birth, when I, a Jew, who was born in Britain, have the right to go and live there? 

Rational as that question may sound, no-one reminded him that Israel’s Right of Return is devised as a safe haven for Jews, should the genocidal antisemitism that motivated Hitler ever resurge. Never again, remember? Angela Epstein did remind him that AsaJew, he would not be immune from such a fate, however passionately he had sided with the Islamists. 

"dropping white phosphorous on children"

The final BBC programme I have to mention is Any Questions and Any Answers.  Anita Anand was obviously out of her depth and too ill-informed to chair the discussion properly. Do BDS-advocating ‘AsaJews’ and ‘Jews for Jeremy’ really represent the majority of callers? 

Anita Anand sounded irritable when addressing Jonathan Hoffman. One gets the feeling she’s not a fan. 

When sensitive topics like this one come up, the BBC should employ someone capable of responding in an informed  fashion.  Ignorance is no defence. 

While the Labour party is examining its morals, the BBC needs to have a good look at its own. Preferably not under the chairpersonship of Shami Chakrabarti. 

Any Answers?

Today's Any Answers was wholly given over to the Labour anti-Semitism row. 

Anita Anand is another of those BBC types who pronounces anti-Semitic “anti-Semetic” (see Sue earlier). She did it throughout the programme.

She also didn't seem to have much of a clue what 'BDS' involved either, apparently thinking it's all about 'no platforming'. (This arose when Israel-bashing BDS campaigner Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi rang in and took centre stage).

Those defending Israel got the worse end of the stick from the ever-interventionist Anita, but there was a fair spread of opinion and some of the contributions were well worth listening to (especially the octogenarian Shirley Murgraff from Hackney). 

Naturally, there were plenty of 'eyebrow-raising' moments too. Mine shot up Mars-wards at Andy from Edinburgh complaining: 

We don't do that with any other country. When we criticise Italy we're not anti-Catholic. So what's wrong with criticising Israel but we're not anti-Semitic? 

His point (if you followed it!) bangs up straight against an obvious counter-point (though it clearly wasn't obvious enough for Anita to have made it!):

"We" don't criticise Italy, do "we"? "We" do criticise Israel however. And "we" have a very bad habit of only criticising Israel. And that's what makes "us" strongly appear to be anti-Semitic.

Viewpoint

There was an interesting piece from Alan at Biased BBC a couple of days ago concerning an article Anita Anand has written for the BBC News website about the Koh-i-Noor diamond. 

In the BBC piece "BBC broadcaster and author" Anita questioned the legality and the "clear immorality" of the UK's possession of the British crown jewel and outlined a black-and-white version of how we came into possession of it that makes us look very bad indeed. 

(She's presently working with William Dalrymple, whose history The Last Mughal I can see presently see on a bookshelf in front of me. That was also a bad-and-white exercise in making us look very bad indeed). 

Alan spotted - and NewsSniffer confirms the fact - that after article was originally published it was then amended (to correct a date) and that someone added the word 'Viewpoint' to the title of the piece about twenty hours later. 

Someone at the BBC must have got cold feet about putting such an article on the BBC as if it were a piece of 'impartial BBC writing', or someone may have complained. (Who knows?)

What's missing from her BBC article is that the diamond taken from "this small child...alone and terrified...and surrounded by grown British men" had been obtained by the small child's father by means that were at least as legally dubious and clearly immoral...and that the diamond has been obtained that way for centuries.

That was a point made by many commenters at another Anita Anand article on the same subject - this one (you probably won't be surprised to hear) written for the Guardian  - a piece in which, among other things, she describes an article on the theme by historian Andrew Roberts as "drivel".

At least there she provides a bit more context and lays out her own position even more clearly:

If you ask me, we should leave the wretched rock where it is. It is no longer the same stone that was cut from India’s dirt and the claims are too manifold and messy. But don’t pretend the British hold it legally, and don’t be surprised if tourists from India and Pakistan continue to hiss while touring the Tower of London. They are perfectly entitled to do so.

Still, it would be rather rude of them to do so though, wouldn't it?

"I'm confused"

Another reliable source of BBC bias is Anita Anand on Any Answers. Here's how she began this week's edition: 

So tell me, just between friends: Are you finding the EU referendum debate a bit...well...boring? If you are, what can the politicians do to engage you? What will Brexit do to the UK's skills base? Is it going to weaken it? Is it going to strengthen it? Particularly keen to hear from you if you're running a business which maybe employs a significant proportion of EU workers. What happens the day after if we leave? 

Some leading questions and a specific invitation to people who are likely to be pro-Remain. How very Anita in its impartiality!

Still, there was a fair spread of opinion and little of of the blatant one-sided hectoring from the presenter that can sometimes mar the programme.

There were, however, a few callers who sounded as if they were auditioning for Down the Line and Anita didn't entirely refrain from hectoring either - such as this call which I would be seriously failing in my duties as a blogger not to transcribe in full (as it's pure comedy gold):

Caller: Afternoon. I'm really confused now. For years and years and years I've been a firm federal Europist. With David Cameron's shenanigans - because nobody really believes what he said and it was all done to placate the Tory Party...

Anita (interrupting): What shenanigans are you talking about? The renegotiation - that he could renegotiate from the inside...aha?  

Caller: The renegotiations, or whatever you'd like to call it, yeah. They're all done to favour the internal workings of the Tory Party not the national interest. So I then went to 'Out' and I'm now dithering because I really think a strong Europe is a good thing to go, but I actually want to....

Anita (interrupting): I'm confused. So hang on a minute....No. I'm confused. I just want to chart your journey. So you were a strong 'In-y' and now you're an 'Out-y' and I'm still trying to find the bridge that led you from one camp to the other there. 

Caller: Because I don't believe what Cameron, and I actually want to...

Anita (interrupting): But, but, but...to not believe what Cameron did means you thought there was a problem. Being an 'In-y' there was something very, very wrong with the status quo that you wanted a renegotiation and you didn't believe that it happened?

Caller: I don't think what he came out with wasn't already there. I think it was just presented as a new way of looking at it. 

Anita: OK, but now you've gone from being happy with what was the status quo to being very unhappy with it and wanting to get out and I'm just wondering what it was that pushed you over that edge?

Caller: Well, what I'm happy with..what I'm unhappy with is the way Cameron went about it, and I want to vote 'Out' purely to show I don't want Cameron to crow on the basis he approved a negotiation and we all won.

Anita (interrupting): So the future of Europe is dependent on you basically delivering a slap to the Prime Minister? 

Caller: Well, that's my dilemma at the moment because I actually firmly believe in Europe but I actually want to give a slap to the Prime Minister. And I can't find any other way of doing it. But there's a 'yes or a no' not a 'yes and swing about' bit. 

Anita: OK, all right, thank you very much.

A-ha

The lion's share of today's Any Answers was spent discussing the migrant crisis. 

Here's how Anita Anand framed the discussion this week (persisting, as ever, in calling it 'the refugee crisis'):

So, as you've been hearing in the news, the number of Syrian refugees heading for the Turkish border has nearly doubled in 24 hours. 35,000. What should we do about this? How much should we be doing for refugees? $10 billion raised by an international effort this week, but let's talk about the number of people you think this country should be welcoming. And what about unaccompanied children in those camps in Calais? Does their need cross the red lines regarding who we do and do not take? Love your thoughts on this. I know you have a lot to say. 

But first...it's leading the bulletins. It's also foremost in your minds this afternoon. Let's talk about the refugee crisis.

Anita was as hands-on as ever, especially as most of the callers were against us taking in lots more migrants/refugees. She did plenty of interrupting and contradicting and added a couple of 'mini-editorials' of her own between callers:

OK, right. you're happy to pay a premium but these refugees must be kept near their homeland, Turkey, Jordan.  Thank you very much Peter. I'm going to take another call on this because we did hear the King of Jordan saying, 'Look, we have always said yes to the West. We have always said we will take in all the refugees who are crossing our border. But we cannot take any more.' They are talking about a lack of space, a lack of infrastructure. Where do those people then go? Where does that overflow go? Elizabeth Fitzgibbon is calling us from Elgin in Moray. Hello Elizabeth. Hello. What did you want to say?

No, I totally take the point and Margaret thank you very much indeed. Margaret, you bring up the point about paedophiles. I just want to read a startling figure that's just leaped out at me and there's a report by Europol that was released on Monday that says "There are 10,000 missing children, raising concerns that these children might have fallen into the hands of traffickers". I mean, some may just be accounted in the system because of this mass movement of people but I think that is quite a terrifying figure. Colin Pine calling us from Hornchurch in Essex. Good afternoon, Colin. Yes. What did you want to say Colin?

Talking of Colin from Hornchurch, here he is in mid flow near the beginning of his fine contribution. Anita soon interrupts to 'correct' him:

Colin: What you've got to remember and the audience has got to remember is the Prime Minister has pledged that we take 20,000 in the next five years....

Anita (interrupting): Next ten years. Over the next ten years. 

Colin: Ten years.

Anita: A-ha.

Well, that was as much news to me as it was to poor Colin - and, I would bet, to Anita's BBC colleagues too! They've persistently reported (as has the rest of the media) that David Cameron's 20,000 Syrian refugees pledge was for over the next five years. Anita might want to take it up with her colleagues.

And then there's the number of refugees at the Zaatari camp in Jordan... 

Here she is, talking to a caller called Joanne, who she'd introduced as having "actually worked with refugees" (The sigh in Anita's voice when it turned out that Joanne was also against bringing them here - when they could stay in existing, safe camps - was very evident to this listener):

I mean, places like this..the Zaatari camp...I don't know how many millions are in there at the moment...

Well, according to Wikipedia, there were estimated to be around 83,000 there at the last count, so - unless Wikipedia is out by a huge margin - Anita got that massively wrong too.

Oh Anita! That would never have happened if you'd just sat back and let your callers speak!

Anita's Got a Lovely Bunch of...Refugees

Yesterday's Any Answers was worth listening to. Yes, Anita Anand clucked at some of her callers (none of whom were playing ball on the 'migrant children in Calais' question), but she wasn't too bad this week and her callers were interesting throughout.

The only point to be made about it here is that Anita Anand persists in talking about 'refugees' rather than 'migrants'. 

She's been quite dogged about doing so over the months (eg. "this refugee tide", "a worsening refugee crisis", "but as columns of refugees attempt to gain entry into Austria and our screens are filled with images of long and beleaguered lines of human being trying to get out of one area and get into another in Europe, I'm asking for your thoughts on this") and she was doing it again this week:

Is David Cameron right to say that by taking refugees from the camps in Europe we encourage many more to risk their lives in the sea? 

I know there are those of you who want to talk about refugees.

She keeps doing so despite the growing official admission of what a lot of people suspected all along - that most of these people are not refugees, they are economic migrants. (Even Sweden and the European Commission are admitting it now.)

Anita did mention the m-word (well, one of the m-words) in her introduction though:

'A bunch of migrants'. Those four words uttered at the despatch box this week at PMQs have caused a storm of controversy. Just what do you make of the words chosen by the Prime Minister in his taunt to Jeremy Corbyn? And what of the sentiment behind those words? 

"A storm of controversy?" Rod Liddle, writing in The Sunday Times, agrees with Sue here about that (and I agree with both of them):

It wasn’t just the ol’ Grauniad; the BBC went into overdrive, too, interrupting its hitherto non-stop news coverage of a mild form of dengue fever — aka the zika virus — which has affected almost nobody in the UK and has killed nobody anywhere. They went into “bunch fury” overdrive. 

So did the opposition politicians, beside themselves with outrage that anyone could use a word like “bunch” when referring to people. And you are left with the distinct impression that either they are all mentally ill or that this is a confected outrage that has no purchase whatsoever beyond the opposition front bench and the BBC PM studio.

Framing the debate

There wasn't time to discuss the subject, apparently, on Any Answers, but still, this is how Anita Anand initially framed what might have been the discussion on events in Germany:

The widespread sexual assault of scores of women in Germany, that's sparking heated debate. Is this kind of spectacle inevitable when you let outsiders in? Are some hijacking the crimes of a few to shut the door on asylum seekers who truly need help? Is this a clash of ideology?  

Good things

Has Anita Anand taken notice of all the flak that's recently been coming her way for her "hectoring and disapproving and opinionated" behaviour on Any Answers? 

I think she might have done given because her behaviour on this week's programme could hardly have been more different (for the most part). It really sounded to me as if she was deliberately on her best behaviour, taking a much more hands-off approach to her callers, allowing them to speak at length, asking them non-loaded questions (sparingly), not huffing and puffing at them if they said something she didn't approve of and not sounding as if she was pushing her own opinion either. Only near the very end, when an elderly lady who pronounced Kenya as 'Keenyer' and began arguing that Cecil Rhodes wasn't a racist appeared, did a bit of Anita's old disapproving tone begin to resurface, but even here she held herself back from actually hectoring the lady. 

The result was refreshing and interesting, and long may it continue that way. 

And while I'm giving credit where credit's due, this week's Dateline London was also refreshing and interesting with a decent range of views and some of my favourite Dateline guests - Thomas Kielinger, Agnes Poirier, Alex Deane and John Fisher Burns. 

They talked about the UK and the EU, the Middle East and Libya, and...of course...Donald Trump.

The mere mention of Donald Trump brought derisive laughter and some of the familiar kind of criticisms of The Donald that we've been hearing across the BBC for what feels like forever and a day now. However, John Fisher Burns of The New York Times did make the point that the second part of Donald Trump's statement about not letting Muslims into the U.S. - the bit about "until we can figure out what the hell's going on" (to paraphrase the point) - will strike a chord with a lot of people everywhere, and Alex Deane got to put a counter point to Thomas Kielinger, Agnes Poirier and Gavin Esler:

Well, I have bad news for you. That is, we - that is both 'we' the people sitting around this table and 'we' the people who might watch Dateline London are not Donald Trump's perfect audience. We are not the people he's seeking to communicate with and in the efforts he's making to win the nomination from his party he's doing very well. And when in fact you say you want to 'ameliorate some of his outrageous statements' it's those that mean he does best in that environment. 

And unless I've been misunderstood, and I don't think this was going on at this table at all, it has been very obvious that many people don't want him to succeed and I would suggest to those people that sneering at him is the worst tactic of all because when people sneer and say 'You know, this statement's been outrageous or that view is unacceptable' people who are deeply afraid about their children and their lives say, 'Actually, he speaks...I thought he had a point but now you say what he says is unsayable. He speaks for me. He's the only one that's saying it'.  

And while I'm praising stuff, I was going to write my own words of appreciation for David Aaronovitch's excellent Radio 4 discussion, What is IS? - one of the most interesting programmes from the BBC this year; however, as commenters at Biased BBC have put it so well already, I shall simply copy-and-paste their comments below and add 'Amen' to them:

Stuart Beaker

December 19, 2015 at 11:42 pm

David Aaronovitch What is IS? R4 22.15, repeated from earlier in the week.

I have said before that we should be prepared to recognise and praise good programmes that the BBC produces, and journalists who present them. This was such a one, I think. I thought this kind of discussion had died a long time ago for the BBC. It was informative, it failed to patronise the listener, and above all it did not appear to be biased.

I am unsure whether Mr Aaronovitch has been pilloried here before, but this was indisputably a good programme, going into fascinating detail about the eschatological basis for Islamic jihad and (mainly) Isis, but also other apocalyptic Islamist groups. I found out much that I had not heard before, and the cross-referencing to non-Muslim cults through history seemed sound to me (I am much more familiar with Christian heresies and cults), which gave me confidence to trust what was being said about Islam in its radical formats.

Others might pick holes in its approach, contents, or conclusions, but that is not the point – it set out an ‘honest stall’, whose content invited comment and perhaps argument, but not the justifiable blanket condemnation that so much of the Corporation’s programming achieves now. I say well done!

chrisH

December 20, 2015 at 1:08 am

Agree entirely Mr Beaker.
I praised it earlier in the week, alongside Jonathan Freedlands programme on the Shoah film.
Neither were prefect-but Aaronovitch asked good questions,and genuinely seemed to want to know the answers. He was honest in his own limitations ,and inability to understand the eschatological implications of IS and what fuelled them.
Which I found refreshing and informative from a BBC who always seem to think they KNOW what answers their agenda requires-and will try to mould the quotes and soundbites for the editing suite to “analyse”.
Praise where praise is due-if only the BBC would not insult our intelligence with forever trying to cover Muhammads arse…the facts speak for themselves, and all involved in this programme gave us enough truth to draw our own conclusions,,,felt the Jonestown parallel failed, but at least they didn`t gloss over Islams ultimate aim…sad to say, it`s so unusual to get such a show these days though.

The Jonathan Freedland programme that chrisH praised there, Shoah in Jerusalem, was also exceptional and informative, containing several lump-in-the-throat moments. I'd urge you to give it a listen - and to read Jonathan Freedland's accompanying Guardian article, The day Israel saw Shoah, as your 'weekend long read'.

Browbeater Anita

My bumper Christmas edition of the Spectator arrived through the door yesterday and I had a good laugh today reading James Delingpole's Twenty things I will ban when I am elected your Dictator For Life in 2016. 

(Of course, some of you might have read it for free online, but I'm not going to let my inner fury about that spoil my fun!)

No.9 in James's to-ban list is the following:

9. That frightful woman who does BBC Radio 4’s Any Answers. She’s just awful: so hectoring and disapproving and opinionated in an all-too-predictable BBC direction. Any Answers is supposed to be where Real Britain responds to all the drivel they’ve been infuriated by on Any Questions. Not a place for them to get sneered at yet again.

You may have read something like that on this very blog many, many times before but it's good to know that we're not alone. 

Following on from the previous post, noting the BBC's online downplaying of the findings of anti-Semitism by Ofsted, guess how Anita Anand - the "frightful woman" in question - introduced the subject today? 

Yes, by also completely cutting out the anti-Semitic element. Oh, and by removing the Muslim element too:

Good afternoon. Welcome to Any Answers? Ofsted has discovered unregistered schools in Birmingham which are peddling what they are calling "misogynistic and homophobic" education.

No, Anita, Ofsted are actually, unequivocally, calling it "misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semitic" education. Why on earth is Anita Anand also missing the 'anti-Semitic' part out? 

She continued, still avoiding the 'Muslim' question: 

So, is the home school system itself too open to abuse? Do your children maybe go to an unregistered school?

Ah yes, the familiar charge against 'home school' teaching - never a favourite with pro-state education types!

And Anita's next question, generalising away from the 'Muslim' question?:

Should we say 'no' to all types of segregated learning? What about faith schools? Are they OK? I mean, they are religiously exclusive too. I'd love your thoughts on that. 

Her first caller, however - Neil Winton - came straight back at her, albeit politely not putting her in the frame:

The first question gave me a bit of a problem because it was explained as a story about corrupt education in schools and it didn't mention the crucial element of the newspaper story that it came from - that this was a Muslim education institute. Your chairman should have explained this so that it wasn't completely mystifying to your audience and your four fearless opinion formers should have mentioned it too, but they all skirted around the issue and didn't mention the fact that these were... these schools being criticised were Muslim schools. 

"Hmm", said Anita in an unambiguously sceptical way.

That seems to me [continued Neil] to be rather a shirking of responsibility on the chairman's part, apart from the participants too. 

Anita then leaped in:  

Well, I think...I think the thing that was important from the Ofsted point of view was not that they were Muslim schools but that they were unregistered schools. They didn't investigate them on the premise that they were teaching Islamic teachings. They were investigating them because they had unregistered and...not approved or DPA-cleared teachers who were teaching pupils, that some of them were dirty. That was...that was the reason that they were investigated and that was the reason that they were talking about there.

Neil leaped back at her:

No, there were three points. The points were that they were being taught homophobia and, erm, anti-...er...Jewish...er...

"Anti-Semetic?" offered Anita, interrupting [and pronouncing it exactly as I transcribed it - ie. as 'anti-Semetic' rather than 'anti-Semitic'] - thus obviously revealing that she knew about that aspect of the Ofsted report all along (so why not mention it earlier?)

...anti-Semitic, yeah. So that gives the clue I think as to what we're talking about here [continued Neil] that your chairman...

Anita began interrupting again, saying "But what exactly...yeah", but Neil ploughed on: 

...and your panellists wouldn't talk about there.

As per James Delingpole, the hectoring presenter of Any Answers? [as her tone really did sound pretty 'hectoring' here] then disapprovingly huffed (as if that wasn't a good enough reason by itself to ring Any Answer?):

Well, apart from berating them what was the point you wanted to make?

Neil, having made the main point he wanted to make, he could make no other immediate answer than: 

Well, apart from that, well, there was no point in having answers to a question where the main point isn't mentioned...

...which, obviously, brought Ms Anand panicking right back in, "All right, well, let me...let...", but Neil's attempts to continue and give that other "point"..:

...But the second is...but the second is....

...were halted by Anita's "All right, well, let me...let me put a question to you if you don't have a point. I will put a question to you", but Neil was up to the challenge and charged on:

I do. The second item was on Donald Trump and how outrageous he is about his references to Muslim immigration. Your participants have fallen into the very trap that makes Donald Trump so appealing to some people. They didn't mention it themselves, so they censored themselves on the previous question and then they had the audacity to criticise Donald Trump for actually mentioning what some people think is the truth.

All credit though to Anita here for not instantly indulging in her usual behaviour and responding, "OK, that's interesting. So you would actually say that Trump dares to tread where others don't?"

"Erm", began Neil.

"And you applaud him for that?", continued Anita, not allowing him an immediate response but seemingly thinking aloud and saying, "I mean I want to know where you're coming from as far as...I mean, if we're coming onto the Trump point of view..."

Neil continued:

Well, we come onto the issue of freedom of speech and will the BBC censor that? And...

Guess what happened there? Go on, go on, go on, go on! Have a guess!

Answer: Anita crashed back in. Here's the exchange:

Anita: I'm not censoring...

Neil: [hard to decipher the first bit as Anita was talking over him...]...all the time.

Anita:....Look...

Neil: ...but you're not doing it now. No.

Anita: Neil, there's not much point talking about censorship when I'm asking you direct questions and allowing you time to speak. Tell me whether you think Donald Trump is speaking for you and whether there should be more of that kind of sentiment that's expressed.

Neil: Well, he's not speaking for me but he does attempt to tell the truth as he sees it. and...

Anita: Well, everybody tries to do that Neil, but is that something that...

Neil: Yes they do but when your audience want to ban him...and...

Anita: OK.

Neil: ...some people don't but we don't want to ban him. We want to hear what he's got to say and disagree if we do...

Anita: OK.

Neil: ...and...

Anita: OK, and a direct question to you Neil: Do you disagree with what Donald Trump has been saying?

Neil: Yes, I do disagree, yes. 

Anita: OK. OK. Thank you very much.

As soon as Neil had gone, Anita did what she so often does. She read out the phone number for Any Answers? and continued the argument with the previous caller - with the added benefit (for her) of him having gone and no longer being able to answer back!

She started, chewing on the same bone, by saying "No censorship here. You're all welcome to call", and then introduced her next caller by going straight back to Square One - ignoring the chief inspector's concerns about anti-Semitism and focusing on her original point: 

Good afternoon. Now you also wanted to speak about this Ofsted inspection. So let me make it very clear: Ofsted. They made a report on unregistered schools. That's what they were talking about. And their main worry, according to the chief inspector, was misogynistic, homophobic education being taught, teachers who were not registered and not cleared in any sense of the word. And also lack of hygiene in one particular school was fairly disgusting in their...Chris, what did you want to say about this?

Quite what Chris said, or anyone else said, in response to that I really can't say and I'd had enough of Anita again by this time....and, amazingly, we were still only five minutes into the programme. 

James Delingpole's Speccie piece was meant to be light-hearted festive fun, but his point Number 9 is both spot on and bears repeating in the light of what's gone before:

9. That frightful woman who does BBC Radio 4’s Any Answers. She’s just awful: so hectoring and disapproving and opinionated in an all-too-predictable BBC direction. Any Answers is supposed to be where Real Britain responds to all the drivel they’ve been infuriated by on Any Questions. Not a place for them to get sneered at yet again.

I suspect Neil Winton would second (or third) that!