Did the BBC spike Boris?

spiked has paraphrased the nub of Brendan O'Neill's latest piece into a tweet: 

We need to talk about the role the media played in toppling Boris. The BBC and others blew Partygate and Pinchergate out of proportion and goaded Tory rebels to resign. They helped to orchestrate Boris’s fall. That’s not democratic, says Brendan O’Neill.

Here's the passage that relates to the main theme of this 'ere blog:

But just because the push against Boris had no leader and no decipherable purpose does not mean it wasn’t orchestrated. This is where we come to the most chilling feature of this strangest of political takedowns – the role played by the media. As the old public realm has been denuded of structure and ideas, so the media have come to play an outsized part in shaping political discussion and even determining politicians’ fortunes. The media unquestionably stoked the anti-Boris revolt. First by blowing those daft scandals out of proportion, unilaterally decreeing that they were the most important issues in the land. And secondly by goading, subtly and perhaps only semi-consciously, each of the actors in the lonely faction.

Indeed, the rebels’ letters of resignation were primarily aimed at the media. They were for the BBC and the Guardian and social media, not for us in the now broken and disregarded realm of what used to be called public life. This is why they all first appeared on Twitter – where else? – and why they were written in such media-speak. Because the audience was the media elites, not the people. A clear symbiotic relationship has now developed between an isolated political class searching for a new public realm in which to execute its business and a media that can sniff the power it accidentally enjoys in the post-party, post-ideological age. Call me old-fashioned, but I see little positive in the removal of a PM voted into power by 14million citizens by disparate aggrieved Tory actors and a media establishment that understands us even less than politicians do.

Even if Boris deserved the boot, doesn't Brendan have a point? 

Can Helen Mirren ever be an authentic Golda Meir?

Disclaimer. This is nothing directly to do with BBC bias. I’m sneaking it in under the heading “anything else that takes our fancy.’ I’m apt to stray off-topic.

*******

Criticising Jews online acts as a purgative. It opens the floodgates and releases pent-up ordure that’s been held in ever since Jeremy Corbyn’s downfall made it unfashionable to express antisemitism. Now they can let rip.

The topic is Brendan O’Neill’s article in yesterday’s Spectator about Maureen Lipman’s ‘AsaJew’ remark concerning Helen Mirren’s suitability to portray Golda Meir. The headline writer has titled it Maureen Lipman’s ‘Jewface’ criticism of Helen Mirren isn’t fair. 

Look below the line if you have access. Do you agree that something whiffy has been unleashed? Not overt antisemitism, but unabashed anti-Maureen Lipmanism, a form of antisemitism-by-proxy.

Another disclaimer: I haven’t a clue about the veracity of Brendan’s opening salvos but I trust his sincerity.

a) For instance, I don’t know what “Mo” has actually said  - maybe there was some sort of qualification to her remark - but let’s assume she really thinks no one but a Jew should play a Jew.

b.) I don’t know how well Tamsin Greig portrayed a Jewish character in the sitcom Friday Night Dinner (because I never watched it.) 

c.) I don’t know whether the actress playing Joan Rivers (who was neither Jewish nor the actual Joan Rivers) persuaded the audience to suspend its disbelief because I never saw the play/film/ show, nor (d.) can I say whether or not any of the other ‘Jewface’  shows that Brendan cites had managed to convince us  - by employing the deceptive art of ‘acting’ - of the authenticity of the characters they were pretending to be.

Anyway, Brendan O’Neill took a lot of trouble to give a variety of examples of actors playing characters they’re not, such as able-bodied actors playing disabled characters and heterosexuals playing homosexuals and vice versa, which, he posited, is, or has been up till now, acceptable.

“isn’t the point of acting precisely to portray someone other than yourself? It surely negates the art of acting to suggest that people should only play roles they have a direct identitarian link to. That Jewish characters should only be played by Jews, lesbian characters by lesbians, autistic people by autistic people, What next – only folks with a few gangster crimes under their belts should audition for a Scorsese movie?”

Except that some of the actors who did play ‘characters they were not’ subsequently became overcome with remorse and regret, and have actually apologised retrospectively.

However, isn’t Brendan arguing that no decent actor should be disqualified from having a shot at playing any character they choose, as long as they are good enough at their craft?

That sounds fine to me. If it’s a case of how good an actor one is, surely Helen Mirren has proved herself to be pretty well equal to the challenge; and the Gold Meir prosthetics look jolly convincing as well. But, as certain commenters have pointed out, there are limits. Black people playing white people and vice versa is quite an awkward one. Or, transplanting black characters into historical situations in an inauthentic and ahistorical manner looks like 'diversity taken quite a few steps too far.' See Bridgerton (I haven’t watched that either)

There’s also something of an apologetic tone running through Brendan’s piece. It reads as if he’s afraid of coming across as an antisemite -  because he isn’t an antisemite - but he is aware that any criticism of Maureen Lipman will be deemed antisemitic.  Sadly i suspect this is what has happened, and is what has given the green light to all that pent-up anti-Lipman sentiment that was there all along, patiently waiting for ‘permission to happen’ and I think he knew that. And I bet he hesitated before submitting the piece. 

The point I’m making is not about whether Maureen Lipman is right or wrong. On the face of it, it seems she’s a bit more wrong than right. But, and it’s a big but, look at the borderline antisemites that have come out below the line. They’re acting as if Brendan O’Neill has given them permission to metaphorically evacuate their bowels over Maureen Lipman.

Although on the face of it, she seems wrong on this one, and a bit ‘OTT triggered’, I wonder if there is something intrinsic within ‘Jewiness’ that’s ethereal and subtle, and not easy to fake. It’s not as clear-cut as the black and white issue,  but some non-Jewish actors will be less effective than others at convincing us that they’re actual Jews. 

One example of someone doing a pretty good job of playing a convincing (too convincing) Jew is Eddie Marsam, a non-Jew, who played the Jewish taxi-driver character in Ridley Road. He was so convincing in character that he received “relentless antisemitic abuse”,  and if that isn’t an endorsement I don’t know what is.

Check your Israel privilege

Brendan O’Neil is on form. Wiley isn’t ill – he’s racist How identity politics helped to resuscitate anti-Semitism. 

I admit I hadn’t heard of Wiley aka Richard Kylea Cowie Jr., MBE (because grime isn’t my thing) until the latest hoo-ha about his racist Tweets. Oh, and by the way, I don’t Tweet myself - although I do spy on other people’s Tweets when my attention is drawn to them.

BON (a common abbreviation) receives some rather hostile comments for his troubles. (Don’t confuse him with Bono. Or Bonio.) He points out that many people are eager to excuse the poor chap - “he’s suffering from a mental illness” 

Then he gets to a broader issue and one I’m very familiar with.

“The NME even referred to Wiley’s tweets as his ‘Israel tweets’. ‘Wiley responds to anti-Semitism accusations over his Israel tweets’, a headline said. Israel tweets? His tweets were about Jews, those snakes who dominate everything, hate black people and are a destructive force. Even where he mentioned Israel, he was really talking about Jews, as is often the case, tragically, in certain sections of the ‘Palestine solidarity’ movement these days. For some people, Israel has become a proxy for the Jews. What they might once have said about the Jews – sly, controlling, bloodthirsty – they now say about Israel instead. We know this from the past few years of Corbynism, which attracted numerous anti-Semites masquerading as critics of Israel.”

The BBC has just come up with something rather spooky. 

“After an anti-Semitic tirade that prompted a Twitter boycott, rapper Wiley has written abusive posts aimed at his Jewish critics on Facebook.

“Jewish critics” BBC? a truly bizarre description of people responding to an “anti-Semitic tirade.

“The grime artist posted on his personal Facebook page under his name Richard Kylea Cowie, the BBC has discovered.”

Belated discovery, but you could plead ‘better a few days late than never’.

“He specifically named Jewish celebrities - including Lord Alan Sugar, comedian David Baddiel and BBC presenter Emma Barnett.”

Mr Willy’s ’s not keen on Emma Barnett then and I daresay it’s mutual.

A good speech from Barnett. But all this wondering where people like Willy-Kylie-Cowie get their memes from does 'take one aback'. Part of it is down to the organisation that you work for Emma. Look - it’s behind you!  

Banned!

BANNED!

A Typical black Person.

The racist movie (above) was withdrawn.  Graven images of slave traders (suitably labelled) will soon be available in a museum near you, for example, the portrait of a notorious slave master known as Papa Lazarou (illustrated below) 

portrait of slave-master (historic)

Brendan O'Neill brings us news of further dystopian developments.

I assume the BBC has compiled a list of things you can make fun of. Let’s call it a shortlist.

1. White men.
2. Conservatives. (Fatcher, Boris, etc)
3. Trump.
4. Christians.

Ermm…….

Who's the biggest liar?

We’re supposed to be talking about the BBC but I think Sky surpassed the BBC (and itself) on today's bias Olympics.

After Dominic Cummings’s press briefing/ debriefing Alastair Campbell was given free rein (uninterrupted) to spout utter bile.

"Campbell described Cummings’ statement as a “car crash” and said that it is “beyond belief” they are focused more on media reaction to Cummings than the coronavirus pandemic.

Hang on. Surely it’s the media that’s focused more on Cummings than on the coronavirus pandemic!

He explained: “Whether he was in breach of the lockdown rules, I don’t have any doubt about that whatsoever.

“And I think it is clear from the tone and tenor of all of the other questions, and I think they were reflecting... what viewers are thinking about the utter hypocrisy at the heart of this.

Hang on. I think some viewers might actually be thinking about the utter hypocrisy at the heart of the media?

“The other thing that is beyond belief here is that we are in the middle of crisis. The prime minister and the cabinet, their full attention should be on how to get us through this crisis, which they’ve handled so badly from start to finish.

Hang on, surely it’s the media that’s interfering with everyone’s attention on how to get us through this crisis?

“But they were all, all afternoon, sitting at their television looking at their Twitter feeds trying to work out what the right-wing media are saying.

The rest of Campbell's rant was plain nasty and doesn’t merit being broadcast at all.

“They are the most pathetic, craven bunch of people, and they do not deserve to be there.
“I am moving to the place where I sort of hope he stays, because they’re all done now for this if they’re not careful.
“So I don’t care what Johnson does, he’s been exposed for what he is, he’s a liar and a charlatan, and not up to the job.
“Cummings - you’ve seen what he is today.
He added: “I find it shameful that this is our government at this time of crisis. I find it utterly shameful.”

Whether or not Cummings believed he broke the guidelines (he did) he’s muddied the public health message and is distracting from the govt’s pandemic response. The only honourable thing to do would have been to apologise & resign. pic.twitter.com/UBvJwbsfjx

— Sonia Sodha (@soniasodha) May 25, 2020

I mean——- just——- - - does this animated spitting-image-like portrayal of indignation really reflect public opinion? She complains that Cummings has been occupying the news agenda for the last three days and has "distracted the machinery of government from the most pressing issues". Well, whose fault is that madam? I think you'll find it's yours.

On the other hand: (Brendan O'Neill - Spectator /Facebook)

“The media’s Dominic Cummings story has completely collapsed. He did NOT go to Durham a second time, which was reported on the front page of the Sunday Mirror and the Observer. He did NOT have any physical contact with family members. The police did NOT talk to the Cummings family about the Covid lockdown guidelines. Cummings did NOT carry on doing things that everyone else had stopped doing — he even missed the funeral of his uncle who died from Covid. He did NOT leave his London home for leisure reasons — he left it because he was receiving death threats as a result of media demonisation. He was very ill, his wife was ill, and at one point his child was taken to hospital in an ambulance in Durham.
His family has had a really rough time and the media have told lie after lie about him. The scandal is not Cummings’ behaviour — it is the collapse of ethics and objectivity in the British media.

So who’s the biggest liar? Cummings or the media?

I didn’t think Dominic Cummings had a pair of completely water-tight legs to stand on, but looking at the way the media has inflated this increasingly irrelevant tale to bursting point, I think I’ll go with Brendan.

Double standards

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Brendan O’Neill has written a sharp piece about ‘the problem we don’t like talking about.’

I urge you to read it, as well as the responses below the line. 

I’ll try to summarise, which is very cheeky and presumptuous, but I’ve learned that not everyone (especially me) has the time and patience to click on every link.

O’Neill is concerned that the conviction of Hashem Abedi for the murders of 22 attendees of Ariana Grande’s concert at the Manchester Arena hasn’t engendered an appropriate amount of media coverage. Although his brother Salman was the actual suicide bomber, Hashem Abedi was equally responsible for the crime.

Where is the debate? asks O’Neill, where is the concern that ISIS-inspired extremism has fuelled such atrocities?  He identifies the media’s gross double standards, comparing the ‘Don’t look back in anger’ approach and the therapeutic style ‘deradicalisation’ strategy prescribed to treat violence and terrorism motivated by “Islamism” with the unadulterated ‘blame’ we attach to ‘far-right’ acts of terror, which must somehow be defeated.

"The very use of the term ‘radicalised’ reduces them to passive creatures who have had something bad done to them, probably by a twisted preacher on the internet. Apparently, they need our help. Fascists must be defeated, but violent Islamists must be cared for, put on the couch, pitied.

It’s a powerful piece, but it leaves me with one or two unanswered questions.

 1) Why do people like Brendan glibly condemn Tommy Robinson in such a reflexive and out of hand manner? (However, I now see Brendan has cautiously re-framed that condemnation - I suppose I'll have to search again for 'people like him' distancing themselves from Tommy Robinson )  After all, Robinson, (aka S Y-L ) has made an admirable effort to study the ideology that’s at the very heart of the problem. In other words, his Luton accent and his volatility are not enough to make him into a mere racist thug.  In fact, it’s his fearless, perhaps innately pugilistic quality, (lacking in many a lesser, more easily intimidated critic of Islam) that has protected and prevented him from being utterly intimidated and silenced by ‘the system’. 

2) The murky distinction between the ’ism’ in Islamism and Islam proper is problematic. In some ways, it’s a mirror image of the ‘good’ (anti-Zionist) Jew and the regular Jew. After all, when push comes to shove, a Jew is a Jew is a Jew.  Are we now saying the only good Muslim is an ex-Muslim? I kind of think we really are.

See the comment from Geoff W 18th March 2020 at 8:51 pm (I don’t think I can provide a direct link) but arguably the way forward hinges on some sort of future enlightenment within the religion. But, isn’t there a built-in super-injunction (within Islam itself) against reform?

Fox in the henhouse

You know why I ignored Laurence Fox’s bombshell on Q.T. and focused instead on Shami?  It’s not just because she poo-poohed antisemitism. No, the reason I chose to highlight Shami’s performance (how can one be shamefaced yet brazen, all at once?) - is slightly different. I ignored Laurence just because I thought what he said was ‘normal’. It’s exactly what most people were probably saying at home. You know, (groan,) “A woman then!”.

Not that I agreed with Laurence that Starmer would make the best Labour leader. He’s not even the least worst.  As John Lennon might have remarked ”He’s not even the best drummer candidate in the leadership contest. 

However, I happen to think Laurence’s choice was a bit sexist, but not in a bad way. I think he was being ‘sexist’ in recognising masculinity's inherent authoritativeness. Shouldn't say so, but there you go. 'Trust him, he’s a bloke’ is how (I’m guessing) Laurence’s mind was working. 

Maybe he had mugged up on the Labour Party’s leadership race in anticipation of his stint on QT, but I’m thinking not. I bet he hasn’t been as obsessed with the matter as the BBC has been. (I love the way they call it a ‘race’ ) I’m sure the Beeb wasn’t half as interested in the minutiae of the qualities of the contenders for any other Party’s race.

This ridiculous kerfuffle has been all over the media. I’m just linking to Brendan O’Neill’s piece without even having read it yet, though I intend to do so in a minute.

Has Laurence been chucked out of Equity? Something like that. All the luvvies adhere to woke - it’s the rules.

Don’t read this, go and read Brendan.

Update:
Oh, and of course, Douglas

What about Islamophobia?

The following excerpts from articles by Charles Moore (Spectator) and Brendan O’Neill (Spiked) are probably regarded as ‘controversial’. Whether or not that is so, the fact that they felt they needed to write them indicates that ‘stating the obvious’ has become virtually taboo ever since the media and political classes tacitly colluded to pander to political correctness and bow to the undeclared blasphemy law. 

Charles Moore

“There may well be people in the Conservative party who have an irrational hatred of Muslims, but the term ‘Islamophobia’ should be absolutely resisted. Unlike anti-Semitism, this is a concocted concept. A strand of Muslim thought sees all criticism of the prophet Mohammed and his faith as blasphemy and labours worldwide to ban it. Such Muslims are driven mad by the way Jews can cry ‘racism’ when they are attacked, whereas they cannot. 

But in fact this is fair, because Jewishness is usually inherited and is not necessarily related to what you believe. Islam is. All belief systems must accept the danger of hatred, ridicule and contempt as the price for coexisting in a free society.”

Brendan O'Neill

The left, including the left that currently runs the Labour Party, is myopically devoted to distracting attention from the Islamist threat. ‘What about the far right?’, they’ll say. Such cynical and spineless whataboutery wilfully overlooks that the far right has not killed anywhere near 500 people in Europe over the past five years — Islamists, on the other hand, have. ‘Don’t look back in anger’, we are told after Islamist attacks. In short, lay a flower, be sad for a day, and then move on — whatever you do, don’t talk about it.

Common sense

I might have to apologise for saying this, and please don't twist my words, but he should have known; Jacob Rees-Mogg should have known better than to opine on anything as sensitive as Grenfell. 

The media already regards Jacob Rees-Mogg as ‘other’, and it’s on permanent, collective stand-by, waiting to pounce when he does or says the wrong thing, which he surely will and duly has.

He just about survived lollgate, but one has to ask - how woke does one need to be in order to survive? Woker than this, for sure. Is Rees-Mogg so disconnected from reality that he hadn’t even noticed that some things are sacred? 

In the light of the fact that a certain topic has been sanctified, alongside Jo Cox and Princess Diana, I wonder - is it, or is it not ‘common sense’ to steer clear of anything related to G-G-G-Grenfell? Did I really say that? Oh, my days. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry.

I’m not heartless or unsympathetic but the BBC’s fetishisation of the Grenfell tragedy has pushed me in that direction. Now I’ve been cornered into expressing heartless and unsympathetic thoughts. Actually, let’s not go there; suffice it to say that the media has erected a consecrated buffer zone around Grenfell Tower and its former inhabitants.

This is not so much about What Jacob Said as about what the media said he said. Wouldn’t it have been much more expedient for anyone with the nous to consider the possibility that Grenfell has been Dianafied, (JoCoxified if you’re a bit younger) to have stayed woke and kept one’s cake-hole firmly closed? In the present zeitgeist, I mean. 

What I’m saying is, in the days of ‘watch what you say! The media’s looking’ hadn’t you better keep your head well below the parapet? Isn’t the best thing to do just to keep shtum? Watch it!! You’ll be crucified!

  

Here’s the thing. I just read Brendan O’Neill’s article  Jacob Rees-Mogg is right about Grenfell. We know Brendan is a bit of a controversialist, (and why not?) and there’s a generous helping of common sense in there for sure, but was Jacob Rees-Mogg really 'sensible' to express, in public,  his thoughts on what kind of behaviour represents ‘common sense’ at all? Even more so when these particular thoughts concerned a situation in which he was unlikely ever to find himself. Namely, living, with all one’s worldly goods and chattels, in a twenty-story tower block, engulfed in flames and hotter than Hades? I mean, we’ve all heard tales of smoke-filled single, solitary stairwells and what can happen when panicking men women and children are all trying to flee at the same time. 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I wouldn’t have thought ignoring the advice of the fire service would necessarily represent one’s immediate and obvious common-sensible reaction. Of course, instinct says get out while you can, but on the other hand, sometimes best practice in certain situations does (apparently) turn out to be the most counter-intuitive. So I’m told.

I mean, apart from that quibble, Brendan is right. However, my point is that if we all have to take the hyper-woke diktat of the scandal-hungry media into account before we open our mouth we’re in big trouble. 

Should the media, especially the BBC, be allowed to try, convict and crucify anyone it feels like? The cavalier way it twists and massages these things to fit its agenda is truly chilling.

Apologies in advance and now I’ll shut up.

Things I don't want to see

Things I don’t want to see on TV (or read online or in the press.)

1) Do people really care what Boris Johnson did under the dinner table twenty years ago? Back then the killer look was an effective way of dealing with creepy things like that.

Norman Smith is in Manchester. He likes to use his own brand of flippancy to spin the news. He thinks Boris’s irrelevant, electioneering-motivated promises about 'busses' is sheer deflection from the far more serious matter of inappropriate thigh-squeezing. In the studio, Joanna Gosling jokes chummily, “He likes busses” 

If that ain’t Naga style editorialising I don’t know what is. 

Don’t you just hate it when people you quite like say really stupid things?

2) Take, for example, Brendan O’Neill. He’s written about Naga-gate over at the Spectator - You’ve probably read it by now. Everything he’s written is negated by his opening remark, which is that Trump’s abbreviated (quote-mined)  tweet was racist. Fortunately for my continuing sanity, most of the btl comments took him to task over this. 

To elucidate: Trump’s tweet was crude but he was trying to say to those dear ladies that they’re in no position to criticise. In playground language, “you can’t talk!” or, “If you can do any better, go ahead, let’s see you do it.” He sees their ‘holier than thou’ criticism of the US as disloyal and unAmerican. Simples.  And surely it’s not automatically racist to allude to someone’s geographical ‘ancestral’ origins nowadays, is it? 

3) Here’s another one. I really admire Rachel Riley for what she is doing to raise awareness of the alarming tsunami of antisemitism that’s sweeping the world. She’s putting her popularity, her beauty and intelligence to good use; making the best of her assets by devoting them to a worthwhile cause. 

However, I was disappointed to see that she too has used the Corbynista “all forms of racism” appendage in her anti-antisemitism speech at the Algemeiner  “J100 list” ceremony.

If you read her full speech you might notice that she alludes to people who have stood up against antisemitism, specifying: “Jews, Christians, Muslims. People of all faiths and people of none.” 

Fair enough if she’s praising religious and non-religious groups (including Muslims) who condemn hatred of Jews. But is she? it’s not clear whether she actually means ‘people who fight antisemitism’ or if she’s merely empathising with everyone who has suffered from ‘bigotry.’ 

Further on she declares her support for a bill in the UK Parliament to make online hate a criminal offence.

“….material that incites violence against women, against Muslims, indeed against any group they seek to target with their bile, to make them civilly and criminally liable for the content they recklessly allow to be published there.

This skates perilously near to blasphemy-law territory. I want her to at least acknowledge that much of the problem emanates from Islam. Rachel Riley came to the party surprisingly late in the day. She only noticed antisemitism after the “Enough is enough’ protests. So where was she during the 2014 anti-Israel crescendo? I may have got this wrong, but I can’t help being disappointed.

4) Criticism of the BBC. That’s another area that’s full of stupid stuff. Not only the ‘complaints from both sides’ meme - people saying the BBC is too right-wing - but eg., on rare occasions on our ‘sister’ blog when a commenter cites or links to an antisemitic website or makes a hideous, white-supremacist type of comment. The Biased-BBC comments field fills up fast, so the admin team (if there is such a thing) has its work cut out, but these things need to be flagged up so they could at least be challenged.

5) Last but not least, I’m puzzled by the fact that so many erudite and knowledgeable writers and bloggers who are brave enough to criticise Islam and the Islamisation of the West are terrified of being associated in any way with the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley Lennon. 

He’s working-class, and self-educated (to a pretty remarkable degree) on the subject of Islam. He’s reckless, impulsive and can be his own worst enemy, but I can’t quite work out whether he’s earned the disdain of people I admire merely because of class prejudice or for some other reason beyond my ken. After all, some of these people have been on ‘journeys’ themselves - commonly from the political left to the right rather than from skinhead to the Oxford Union if you see what I mean. But a journey is a journey. 

So, these are five examples of the things I don’t want to see on TV or read online. Maybe this post itself is something you don’t want to read either; but if you have been reading, 'thanks for your time' as they say on TV,  and be thankful that I’ve only got up to number five.

Go Gentle

This is a thing now. Elderly (no-longer-young) people are thanking their lucky stars that they’ll soon be able to opt-out of Madness gawn Absolutely Mad. Enough already. Please, may we be excused?

Brendan O’Neill and Douglas Murray are not alone. Lots of us are exasperated by gender-non-specific individuals requiring plural pronouns and butchering language and grammar.  Then they add insult to injury by carelessly calling them/selves “I” rather than ‘we’. Even Afua Hirsch, an earnest supporter of the plural pronoun malarkey caught herself out by accidentally using the explicitly masculine terms “he” and “him” in the course of arguing the case for ‘them’ and ‘their’ We/I  am/are are not amused. None of us are. Including me.

Genuine question: What do they do about languages where inanimate objects have genders? Animals? What about, say, “La France”?  Must they be plural now? Are France plural?

*******

What about that virtue-signalling investigation into Islamophobia that the Conservative Party was bumped into announcing, live on TV? In particular, what about Boris “calling Muslim women ‘letter-boxes and gangsters’?“ Didn’t the lady from Vice UK (As per Craig’s piece about today’s Daily Politics) comprehend that  - for some serendipitous reason known only to him - Boris was arguing against the wretched Burka ban, and when he likened the appearance of the Muslim uniform to a letterbox (which, with its slits-for-eyeholes, it kind of is) he wasn’t actually calling Muslim women  letterboxes or bank robbers? 

Are people so terrified of causing offence that they’re actually arguing for a blasphemy law these days? No bloody wonder we see our hastening demise as a blessed release. 

*******

Here in Cornwall, there’s a tradition called “Darkie Day”. I haven’t witnessed it personally, but I heard that it was tagged ‘controversial’ some time ago and (to avoid being racist) was re-titled “Mummer’s Day” and granted a reprieve. (Not banned) 

“In spite of the fact that the police were brought in twice to film the events, and both times declared that there was no evidence of offensive behaviour, the spectacle of an entire town taking to the streets with blackened faces and singing about 'niggers' was understandably deemed by some to be inappropriate. In response, the festival organisers agreed to change the name of the event to Mummers Day (which brings it into alignment with England) and to try to change the songs back to the original Cornish ones.

We don’t know if the event is/was/will be currently permitted to go ahead, or if blacked-up revellers risk being convicted of hate crime.   

*******

Quick, Dial 999! I’ve had a racist /Islamophobic/transphobic/homophobic/politically incorrect thought and I want to turn myself in and maybe go gentle into that good night.

Forgive and forget

I think I am handicapped by my long and unforgiving memory. So I can hardly complain about the media attaching all those ‘long-lost’ labels to Tommy Robinson. Nevertheless, I do complain.

Take the Lib Dems. I can’t get my head around Luciana Berger joining the Lib-Dems after they (as a Party) tolerated those two arch antisemites, Jenny Tonge and David Ward. Former Brent Central MP, Sarah Teather, obsessed with defending her radical Muslim ‘constituents’ wasn’t much better. Admittedly, the Lib Dems sacked Tonge under Clegg and Tim "Ward is unfit to represent the party"  Farron. Yes, the party eventually got rid, but it took them forever and a day. I suppose the Lib-Dems held seats in many predominantly Muslim constituencies at the time, but what if they regain them in future?

Here’s another example of me as ‘hostage’ to my lengthy, unforgiving memory. It concerns Sarah Champion. I can’t forget her appearance at that Muslim-heavy council meeting where she was filmed obsequiously pandering to some full-on, undiluted, Israel-bashing. (See vid below)

When she is held up for her ‘bravery’ in publicly identifying the grooming-gang phenomenon as being perpetrated by “mainly Pakistani men’  and getting herself demoted by Corbyn into the bargain, she meekly toed the line thereafter. Where’s the bravery in that? She should have kicked up a fuss. I think it’s high time to resurrect one of my abandoned (gone but not forgotten) posts. It’s no longer topical, but what the hell.  Here goes:

"Covering your arse". (Working title)

"I caught part of the select committee debate on LGBT education with Sarah Champion MP speaking passionately in favour of  LGBT education. Brendan O’Neill has written a curate’s egg of a piece about Pakistani grooming gangs. It’s mostly critical but he sneaks in a jarring note to distance himself from nasty ‘right-wingers’, like so:

“it plays into the hands of hard-right elements who politicise the issue of Muslim grooming gangs. It actually empowers these troublesome political groups who will say: ‘Only we are brave enough to talk about this problem.’ And of course they talk about it for very cynical reasons — in order to promote a view of all Muslim men as predatory, and all Muslims as a problem.

However, he receives plenty of flak below the line for that arse-covering paragraph. He praises Sarah Champion for her ‘bravery’ in specifically mentioning ‘Pakistani’ men in a famous article she wrote for the Sun; the one for which she lost her shadow cabinet role. (Sacked by Jeremy Corbyn.)

“Look what happened to the Labour MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion, when she wrote about the problem of largely Pakistani gangs abusing white girls. She was demonised by Corbynistas. She was forced out of Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet. The message was clear: talk about this issue and you will be punished

says O’Neill, admiringly. What did she do then, though? Did she make a fuss about being sacked? No, she did not. She toed the line and she’s still in the antisemitic Labour Party backing Jeremy Corbyn for PM. 

Now she’s taking another risk. She’s risking the ire of the Pakistani councillors (her constituents) by defending LGBT education. Brave again? Mixed messages from opportunist Champion? - she was, after all, MP for Rotherham during the period when the Pakistani men were happily a-groomin’. 

Brendan O’Neil again:

“Strikingly, the judge didn’t only condemn the men – he also criticised the authorities in Rotherham. He said they had at best been ‘totally ineffectual’ and at worst ‘wholly indifferent’ to the abuse of girls by Muslim gangs. He said he was ‘quite satisfied’ that the ‘relevant authorities’ in Rotherham knew girls were being targeted for sexual exploitation. And their failure to do anything about it is a ‘lamentable state of affairs’.”

Surely she must have had a little inkling about what was going on under her nose? She never said a word until the whole thing was out in the open. Her ‘bravery’ entirely consisted of using the words “largely Pakistani men”, rather than obfuscating like everyone else did, by using the misleading term “Asian”; to me her belated outrage looked more like covering her arse for (at best) ‘not noticing’ what was going on, than *bravery*.

Am I just being bitchy, or is all this criticism fundamentally because she was filmed chairing a meeting of the Pakistani councillors that represent her constituency.  She was ingratiating herself with these men by enthusiastically castigating Israel for retaliating after a heightened spate of rocket attacks fired from Gaza.

We spotted her appearance on a BBC documentary about the HoC.  “I don’t understand how you can have negotiations when you only talk to one party,” said Sarah Champion. Of course, she’s not talking about Corbyn.

 I blogged it at the time and have referenced it whenever the opportunity arose because I don’t think of her as ‘consistent and certainly not ‘brave’. Rather, she comes across as an opportunist with no principles.

Perhaps she's changed. Should I forgive and forget?  I might be able to 'forgive', but it's oh so hard to 'forget'.

Much discomfort in woke-left circles

I bet the BBC (singular) were *was delighted to report that a bunch of teenage Israeli tourists had been arrested in Cyprus for the rape of a 19-year-old British woman. Something to counter-balance the UK’s grooming-gang debacle perhaps? 

As well as initially getting their ages muddled (one of the accused was 20 so not a teenager) the incident didn’t turn out to be quite the story they *it (singular) had hoped for. 

(* Oh, Jacob Rees-Mogg M.P., Esq., this is getting weird.)

Of course, this may not be the end of the tale. Some Israelis, perhaps protective of their country’s image, are angry with the boys for taking advantage of this girl and, to make matters worse, filming whatever it was that happened. 

If the girl made up the accusation to cover her humiliation, that was a bad choice; worse than involving herself in the first place. 

I’m not gloating over the BBC’s loss of a good story, though.  It might not turn out well for anyone.

To cheer yourself up, read about the terrible dilemma thrown up by the shocking incident of the niqab-clad homophobe and the gay. “The clip has caused much discomfort in woke-left circles.”

Disgusting homophobic abuse at those on Waltham Forest Pride today.

No matter what form hate comes in, we must stamp it out and say no to all forms of hate! Also, very importantly we cannot call out one form of hate but be silent/complicit on others. @GalopUK @stonewalluk pic.twitter.com/kDAFoAb8Vw

— Yusuf Patel (@YusufJP_) July 27, 2019

Brendan O’Neill is on top form.  Much discomfort all round.

Glasto: like being hit over the head with a copy of the Guardian

So much to say - so little time  - but I thought this was worth a read. Brendan O’Neill is spot on here! (and it’s BBC related)

The great irony of Stormzy’s Glastonbury set. (£) Poor you if you haven’t got access to Speccie online. Here’s a taster:

“Watching Glastonbury feels increasingly like being hit over the head with a copy of the Guardian. David Attenborough rocked up to congratulate the festival on giving up plastic. ‘Yaaay!’, screamed the crowd, before heading back to their plastic tents. (Attenborough rather overlooked the fact that, thanks to the plastic-bottle ban, people had to queue for ages in blazing heat for water refills…) 

Olly Alexander of Years and Years gave a five-minute lecture on the meaning of the word ‘queer’, because that’s exactly what you want when you’re at a rock gig, right? There were anti-Brexit posters — put up by the billboard movement Led By Donkeys — and what could be more establishment than loathing Brexit? 

Columnists caught the spirit of the new, stiff, PC Glastonbury with articles titled ‘Beauty tips for Glastonbury that don’t include cultural appropriation’ and ‘Can Glastonbury help me shed my toxic masculinity?’”

If you’re not a subscriber you’ll miss the comments, they’re mostly spot on too. Of course, there’s one jarring note (Isn’t there always?) It’s the first para. B O’N calls Stormy a talented guy and says he likes his new single.

Well, I suppose one might flag that up in one's intro if one doesn’t want to seem like a grumpy old codger.

Me? Just call me Mrs Pickles.

His Honour James Pickles. R.I.P.

Frit

A couple of new pieces by Melanie Phillips are out. The first one covers very important issues and I commend it to this house.

Isn’t it odd how many below the line contributors respond to Melanie’s pieces with a preliminary disclaimer that goes something like: “I don’t usually agree with Melanie Phillips, but…”

The other one, which appears in The Times (£) addresses Andrew Neil’s confrontational head-to-head with Ben Shapiro. It’s an interesting read, but I think Melanie was being over-generous to Andrew Neil, who subsequently seemed quite taken aback by the negative reaction to his interviewing style, while Shapiro’s critics were thrown into confusion by his abject, post-interview apology. 

Below the line opinion is divided. Towards the end of the article, she describes audiences’ inability to accept nuance and subtlety, especially in America, where you’re rigidly viewed as either one thing or the other; no room for Mr In between.  I totally get that. I litter everything with ‘on the one hand, and on the other.’ ‘I used to be indecisive but now I’m not so sure’-ism.

One paragraph in Melanie’s article that caught my eye was:

“In similar vein, I’ve found to my cost that among many conservatively minded Americans it is not acceptable, for example, to oppose Tommy Robinson for his thuggish approach to Muslims in general and the rule of law; ….”

Obviously, the confusing bit is: 

“Tommy Robinson for his thuggish approach to Muslims in general” 

because ‘the rule of law’ could be: ‘potentially causing a trial to collapse’. However, I understood that that allegation was thrown out by the court. I’m still genuinely wondering what she means by  ‘his thuggish approach to Muslims in general”

I’d really like to know, because it seems to me that Tommy Robinson is a critic of Islam, just as Melanie herself is, and, like Melanie, Tommy Robinson takes pains to point out that he’s not a racist and he’s not simply “against Muslims”.

I’d also like to know - perhaps someone will explain it to me - why critics of Islam, or as some would have it, the Islamophobic community, are, to a man, loath to be caught out expressing anything less than outright hostility towards “the thug Stephen Yaxley”.

Is there one ’mainstream’ critic of Islam who hasn’t distanced him/herself from Tommy Robinson? Brendan O’Neill, Melanie Phillips, the entire Jewish community, Nigel Farage, I can’t quite remember what Douglas Murray has said but I’m betting it ain’t complimentary - and now Rod Liddle.  His piece was particularly sour, and below the line, he got a jolly good hammering for it.

One often thinks that the terrifying rise of Islam would be better countered if all its critics were able to band together. Take, purely as a model, our traditional political system. Both main parties describe themselves as broad churches; both are made up of individuals from all corners of the political spectrum, but at least they all recognise that ‘united you stand, divided you fall’. The only other anti-Islam politician I’ve heard not criticising Tommy Robinson is Anne Marie Waters, and now I come to think of it, it was the other way round. He said nice things about her.

Of course, there’s Gerard Batten, and his relationship with TR has done him nothing but damage.

Maybe that’s what they’re all afraid of. “Frit,” as Margaret Thatcher might say.  I do realise that Tommy Robinson can be embarrassingly impetuous and reckless. But he’s fundamentally rowing the same boat as the rest of them, which suggests they’re either huge snobs or plain frit.

‘cos I is classist?

Recently I mentioned Brendan O’Neill’s confusing and (to me) inexplicable denunciation of Tommy Robinson’s “views”. 

“It doesn’t matter what you think of Robinson’s views — like the vast majority of people, I oppose them.”

That’s what he wrote in the Spectator. Yet he’s recently penned this piece in Spiked, titled: We must have the right to blaspheme against Islam.  (note: I don’t know why our sidebar link to Spiked isn’t updating properly) The article has also been endorsed by Kathy Gyngell over at Conservative Woman.

“We must have the right to blaspheme against Islam Student unions agitate for the banning of speakers who criticise Islam too harshly (whom they of course brand ‘Islamophobic’). Charlie Hebdo continues to be shamed by British leftists as a publication that ‘punches down’ because it dares to publish cartoons that mock Muhammad or take the piss out of Islamic beliefs. Even the Metropolitan Police recently decreed that it is ‘Islamophobic’ to describe Islam in any of the following ways: as a ‘static’ belief system, as ‘other’, as ‘irrational’, ‘sexist’ or ‘aggressive’, or as a ‘political ideology’. Apparently anyone who holds these entirely legitimate views of Islam is guilty of an act of ‘phobia’ – which in essence means blasphemy.”

So what’s going on?

It’s just that when critics of Islam take pains to distance themselves from Tommy Robinson’s views it smacks of a class thing. It’s understandable if they don’t agree with his  - shall we call it ‘ham-fisted’ M.O., but to say they disagree with "his views" needs a bit more fleshing out. 

Resist it while you can

Everyone will have seen the video of milkshake-gate by now.

No use crying over spilt milk - but it went all over Tommy’s favourite jacket and stale milk does have an unpleasantly pervasive stink.

Now, one might speculate that Tommy (Real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) was almost asking for it - he knows it’s the kind of thing that happens to him, as it has happened many times before.  He’s been hit, punched, sworn at and called a fascist and a racist.

He’s often excitable, his body language can be provocative, and if someone is confrontational and aggressive with him, he can be equally confrontational and aggressive back. The fact that he’s not as afraid of a punch-up when push literally comes to shove gives him the edge over your average shrinking violet. I suppose John Prescott had that going for him back in the day.

I think Tommy’s excitability, impetuousness and tendency to make exaggerated claims weaken him and undermine any credibility he might otherwise have. These shortcomings allow people like Brendan O’Neill, who’s usually pretty smart, to say something as annoying as this... 

“It doesn’t matter what you think of Robinson’s views — like the vast majority of people, I oppose them.” 

...without feeling the need to qualify it further, which is what he says in an article that actually sets out to defend Tommy Robinson’s right to go about his lawful business - campaigning as an independent for the upcoming Euro elections - unimpeded.

The fact that the police got in their car and scarpered at the first sign of trouble added insult to injury. 

The comments below the line are mixed. Several commenters take issue with the assumption that “the vast majority of people oppose his views.” Yes, it’s likely that the vast majority of people dislike Tommy Robinson, or consider him too toxic to ‘like’, but do the vast majority really oppose his views? If so, which views? Do “the vast majority of people” support the Islamification of Britain, or support the introduction of Sharia Law? Or any of the other cultural differences that are gaining notoriety?

Probably the people who agree with Brendan O’Neill’s “opposition” to Tommy Robinson’s views inhabit what is often described as the “media bubble”.

We’ve come a long way from the days when Christopher Hitchens tried to warn us. How perceptive he was. Resist it while you can.

...and on and on...

Meanwhile, following Sunday's The Andrew Marr Show, the War of Arron's Ear rumbles on...

spiked's Brendan O'Neill has written what I think is an absolutely spot-on defence of the BBC over at the Spectator. (And Rob Burley will love it).

Brendan rails against the "self-important" enemies of free speech - and a free media - who want to force the BBC to permanently exclude people whose views they dislike, and contends that such people's "unhinged Banks-bashing" is merely a cover. Remember, remember, he argues. "Remember it is voters they’re really hating on" - Brexit-voting voters:

It is the role of a news organisations to decide what is interesting, to arrange interviews, to interrogate people who are involved in politics or business or some other important public pursuit. That is exactly what the BBC is doing this morning. It is contributing to a healthy open society. Those trying to starve Banks of the oxygen of publicity are doing the opposite: they want to limit media freedom, freeze difficult discussion, and force broadcasters to conform to their worldview. They are a menace to democracy and open debate.

Meanwhile, over at the Guardian, those very people are out in force. There's Lord Adonis, of course,  who described Andrew Marr's treatment of Arron Banks as "pathetic", but also Suzanne Moore (who I can never think of without thinking of Germaine Greer's infamous description of her "hair bird's-nested all over the place, f*ck-me shoes and three fat inches of cleavage"), who talks of "Marr’s failure to press Banks" - which certainly isn't what I saw - and of the BBC having "the Ukippy right wing...run circles around it" - which is just plain silly (as anyone who saw Jo Coburn's recent interview with Gerard Batten will testify).

'Complaints from both sides' arguments are shown up again here. The likes of Lord Adonis and Suzanne Moore are talking complete nonsense. One side is merely frothing (or fake-frothing) at the mouth.

P.S. Arron Bank's would-be nemesis, Carole Cadwalladr, wasn't happy with The Andrew Marr Show:

• Nice work BBC. You just provided a platform to a liar. Who has just smeared me on live tv. Thank you so much.
• Add it to the bill.
• This whole episode is utterly shameful. And you owe me an apology.
• I had to be pre-recorded to go on BBC R4 Today to talk about Arron Banks . Why wasn't he? #Marr. Serious serious editorial mistakes here.
• I am genuinely shocked and upset about this. If you value what The Observer has been trying to do for the last 2 years, please consider supporting our work. We don't have a licence fee. We have a fraction of the BBC's resources. And we need your support. 
• Or give money to openDemocracy. Proud to have worked with @PeterKGeoghegan & @maryftz on these latest revelations. Their work (and @AdamRamsay) has been exemplary.
• The editor responds. I don't even know where to start with this. The last few minutes were a car crash. Lies upon lies. All unchallenged. He lied about Eldon, what had been declared to Electoral Commission, the "emails", me.
• Banks is happy though.

Comments could have gone far better for her though. 

Lots of people picked up on her "give money to openDemocracy" tweet as revealing something they think she's not been straightforward about (which given her complaints about transparency might be considered hypocrisy on her part). 

openDemocracy's largest funders are organisations belonging to a single foreign donor who, coincidentally, is campaigning in the UK to stop Brexit - namely He Who Mustn't Be Mentioned, one George Soros.

Maybe Rob & Co. at the BBC can investigate that?

Inside Boris's mind

What is in Boris’s mind?               

"Take the vip from him! Why not?" 

That was from the sound-bite clip of Lord Sheikh that was shown at the head of Mark Urban’s Newsnight, which was great fun. Hysterical.

“After a couple of days of antisemitism, the Westminster pack has moved on to Islamophobia,”

 announced Mark Urban.  The Westminster pack? The BBC is going ballistic over it today, so make that the BBC pack.

Newsnight says the P.M. and Brandon Lewis think Boris should apologise. Lord Sheikh (or is that Sheikh Lord) demands that the whip is taken away from Boris, (or was it that the whip should be applied to his backside?) I can’t quite remember.

Tom Newton Dunn seems to think this is a deliberate manoeuvre by Boris, whom Jawed Iqbal describes in The Times (£) as “a cynical political opportunist” and not about the burka at all, but a much larger issue. (Even larger than a burka?) 

Two Shazias V one Laura.

The all-female studio guests consisted of two Muslims, one with a headscarf, and Laura Perrins of The Conservative Woman.

The three ‘Conservative’ ladies were in the studio waiting to speak. Two Muslims named Shazia, (one headscarved, one bare-headed ) and an immodestly bare-armed infidel named Laura Perrins. 

The first speaker was Shazia Awan-Scully, an ex-Conservative, who said there is a huge problem with Islamophobia in the Conservative Party. She blames those out-of-touch, middle-aged white men, whose principal concern is ‘don’t make trouble for the Party’. 

The next speaker,  Shazia Bashir, is still a Conservative councillor, but she thinks Boris should apologise. “We don’t have space for these kinds of comments. Disciplinary action is the way forward”.

Mark Urban turned to Laura Perrins to ask what was in Boris’s mind. She claimed she didn’t know - (a likely story!) - and deftly avoided answering that question by saying the burka issue was a debate that we need to have. Mark Urban wasn’t convinced. “What was in Boris’s mind, though?” he persisted, to no avail. For some unknown reason Laura remained tight-lipped about the workings of Boris’s mind, which as a non-Muslim and a Tory, she must know. Try as he might, Urban couldn't prise that fascinating secret information from her.

Before you go, some essential reading. If you haven’t already read it, it’s your homework.

BRENDAN O’NEILL

“What Boris’s shrill detractors are really demanding is that he respect everything about Islam. That he be unquestioning towards this religion. That he celebrate it and love it, unconditionally. But why should he? His responsibility, as a politician, is to never interfere with people’s religious freedom; he doesn’t have to like people’s religious beliefs. 

The attacks on Boris are a reactionary, illiberal assault on his right to be critical of certain aspects of religious ideology. People are not demanding that he support freedom of religion, because it is clear from his column that he already does. Rather, they are demanding that he bow and scrape before Islamic values and never criticise them again. This is a medieval demand, a war on heresy, dressed up as a progressive critique.

DOUGLAS MURRAY

“……..portions of the left have decided to counter what they regard as the ‘anti-Semitism card’ with the ‘Islamophobia card’. Of course there are other people hanging around with not very much to do who are very happy to join this bandwagon. ‘You criticise me for anti-Semitism? Fine – I raise you “Islamophobia”.’ 

“Thus somebody called Mohammed Amin who heads the ‘Conservative Muslim Forum’ told the BBC’s Newsnight yesterday, ‘This should have been a good article opposing the Danish niqab ban. But instead Boris spent about half the article slagging off Muslim women.’ The first part of which suggests that we’re all completely agreed that the Danes are wrong, and the second part of which is provable rubbish. 

Meantime the Labour party’s Naz Shah – along with Jess Phillips and others – has decided to try to escalate the ‘letter box’ comment. Ms Shah has even written to the Conservative Party Chairman, Brandon Lewis, insisting that the party put Boris Johnson into mandatory ‘diversity training’. I presume that this training is now so perfected that anyone who goes into it is guaranteed to come out saying that far from looking ridiculous, women in burkas are in fact mega-hot and total babes. We’ll see. In any case it would be easier to listen to talk of mandatory diversity training for ‘Islamophobia’ if it was not pushed by Naz Shah, who has a recent history of anti-Semitism so extreme that the modern Labour party suspended her for her anti-Semitism a couple of years ago. Which is quite a feat. “

JAWAD IQBAL

This piece is in The Times, (£) and it’s a bit of a mishmash. Make of it what you will.  

“Some dismiss Johnson as a buffoon but that’s a mistake. He is a cynical political opportunist who knows exactly how his remarks will go down with the Tory grassroots.”

Hmm. If you say so. He’s not happy with Boris’s critics, either.

“What should give pause for thought is the reaction from his self-appointed Muslim critics. They claim Johnson’s views are further evidence of the Tories’ wider “Islamophobia” and that the party must lance this boil by launching a formal inquiry.

Mr. Iqbal continues by criticising of Baroness Warsi ‘who has never been elected to public office’ and the Muslim Council of Britain ‘a group that in the past has faced allegations of holding extreme views.’

Incidentally, I see Janice Turner has retracted her description of Tommy Robinson as a girlfriend beater. It was false. 

At the bottom of the article, should anyone who originally read it happen to return for another go, this amendment has been added:

“This article has been amended. We wrongly referred to Tommy Robinson as a “girlfriend-beating football thug”. His 2005 conviction was in fact for assaulting an off-duty police officer who had intervened in a domestic incident. We apologise for the error.”