“This week...Has Brexit done long-term damage to Britain?”

Six years ago today 17,410,742 million people [52%] voted to leave the European Union, 1.27 million more than the 16,141,241 [48%] who voted Remain. To mark that anniversary, here's John Simpson interviewing Mark Easton this week on his BBC Two series Unspun World:

John Simpson: Welcome to Broadcasting House, part of the BBC's iconic headquarters here in central London for Unspun World, the programme where the BBC's experts around the globe give in-depth answers to the big questions of the day. This week...Has Brexit done long-term damage to Britain?

Mark Easton: There's a sense in which we've not really been able to have sort of normal times to get stuff done. It's warped our politics and made it very difficult for our political leaders.

John Simpson: It's six years since, in a result that surprised most people, the United Kingdom voted by a very narrow margin to leave the European Union. The campaign was marked by some hugely controversial claims, which have resonated ever since - the hundreds of millions we'd be able to pump into the NHS among them. It's still too early to work out the exact pluses and minuses of Brexit, but the lines are becoming clearer. I asked Mark Easton, the BBC's home editor, for his views. Has Brexit been a boon or a disaster? 

Mark Easton: It is a sort of fundamental difference of view which actually goes to people's heart, actually. Almost a sort of visceral feeling, I think. People feel very, very strongly about it - on both sides of the argument. And that, I think, has been quite troubling. There's a sense in which we've not really been able to have sort of normal times to get stuff done. So I think that's been another problem with the whole Brexit debate. It's warped our politics and made it very difficult for our political leaders to really sort of plough a furrow as they want to do. For many communities where we saw very significant Brexit votes, it was about connection to power. It was a sense that they'd been ignored. Many communities that I went to, they felt that change was happening to their communities - demographic change, free movement within the EU. Immigration generally meant that the communities they lived in were changing, the shops were changing. 

John Simpson: Also hearing people talking Polish or Romanian and so on in the streets. 

Mark Easton: Exactly. In particular, people, people would say that the thought of hearing a foreign language on the bus was disconcerting to them. It was different. It wasn't what they expected, and no-one had asked them about it. I think it would be fair to say that very few of those communities feel that they are any closer to power today than they were six years ago. 

John Simpson: So it hasn't achieved that? 

Mark Easton: Not yet, no. I mean, I guess the Government would argue that, you know, their whole levelling up agenda is partly about that - it's trying to reconnect communities that felt separate. I think that is definitely, you know, job not yet done, but really, really important, whether you whether you voted Leave or Remain, actually, that Britain does better in making sure that, you know, thousands of communities up and down this land don't feel - as they currently do - that they are exempted from the decisions that actually affect their daily lives. 

John Simpson: Have there been any successes for Brexit? 

Mark Easton: Undoubtedly free movement and the end of that. I think you can say, well, yeah, that's something - those people who wanted that to stop, it's happened. That was a promise made and a promise kept. They were also told that we would move to a points-based immigration system, to ensure that we only get the migrants that we want and we need. And, yes, we do have...

John Simpson: Is that happening? 

Mark Easton: That has happened. 

John Simpson: And is it working? 

Mark Easton: Well, I think it's difficult because we do have shortages of labour in quite a number of areas, as we transition from what people would have said was our sort of - we'd become rather reliant on European workers and being able to turn on the immigration tap. 

John Simpson: Will Brexit destroy the United Kingdom? 

Mark Easton: Well, it certainly put the Union under very considerable strain. But what's interesting is that I think there is a pressure for more devolution, because I think there is a sense in which part of what Brexit was about was reconnecting people and they need power for that to happen. But what we've seen so far is not that - what we've seen, and perhaps a result of Covid - we've seen actually more power heading towards Number 10 and to Whitehall. 

John Simpson: Do you think at some stage there'll be another vote and we'll go back in? 

Mark Easton: I don't think that's going to happen for a very significant time. But it's interesting, I think, some of the economic realities which are coming into play and are going to become even more so if the forecasts for the UK economy prove to be correct, where people are going to say, well, hold on, are we really cutting off our nose to spite our face? And we need to have some kind of sensible arrangement with our nearest trading partners to make sure that we don't miss out on all those trading opportunities. Making it more difficult for people to trade with countries just over the Channel is not very sensible when your economy is facing so many other huge challenges. 

''Non-EU salt and pepper''

This was something I was going to post on Tuesday but ran out of time....

The reporting of the latest Twitterstorm is revealing of BBC bias. 

It's all about this label:

The Daily Telegraph headlines it like this:

Morrisons apologises to angry Remainers for 'anti-EU' chicken labelling. Supermarket responds to boycott threats over 'non-EU salt and pepper' label that complies with rules originally set by Brussels 

And James Crisp, the paper's Europe Editor, begins his piece like this:

Morrisons has apologised after Remainers threatened to boycott the supermarket chain because they were offended by packaging on chicken that contained “non-EU salt and pepper”. A Twitter mob accused Morrisons of pandering to Brexiteers by advertising British chicken with non-EU condiments, but the supermarket was only obeying rules originally set by Brussels.

Contrast that with the BBC's take. 

Their headline is Morrisons sorry for 'non-EU salt and pepper' chicken label and the anonymous BBC report begins:

Morrisons has backed down after customers complained about its labelling of a chicken meat product as containing "non-EU salt and pepper".

The supermarket chain's salt-and-pepper chicken crown features the Union Flag on its label, which says that it is "made from British chicken".

The label provoked an angry reaction on Twitter, including one accusation of stoking "anti-EU hatred".

In response, the firm said the wording was "an error for which we apologise".

"We are changing the packaging immediately," its tweet added.

I'm going to copy-and-paste both reports in full for posterity's sake, but I'll add a few points before doing so. 

The Telegraph piece tells it how I see it. A few loud hardline Remainers kicked up the usual silly, out-of-proportion, removed-from-the-public-mood, factually-wrong fuss on Twitter and a frightened supermarket panicked and apologised. 

The BBC tells it differently. According to the BBC it's ''customers'' who complained and made Morrison's ''back down''. 

I very much doubt that those responsible for this pile-on against Morrison's were typical ''customers'' - if they were actually 'customers' at all. 

So there's a clear difference of opinion between the Telegraph and the BBC: 

The Telegraph blames the EU, saying the regulation about requiring the phrase ''non-EU'' is an EU regulation copied over into UK law after Brexit and still operative until at least October 2022. 

The BBC blames the UK government, calling the use of ''non-EU'' 'government guidance' and uses language that obfuscates the contention that it's a leftover EU regulation.

This is a good test for accurate, impartial journalism. 

Both of the reports are fascinating in their clear biases.  The Telegraph piece has a pro-Leave bias, the BBC piece a pro-Remain bias. 

But the Telegraph is fairer than the BBC in offering a wider range of voices from each side of the argument. In fact, though it starts its selection of direct quotes with two quotes from pro-Leave voices it swiftly follows them with three quotes from pro-Remain voices.

The BBC report simply quotes pro-Remain voices before tagging on a final sentence suggesting a different point of voice. 

And the BBC report 'curates' how readers are meant to think at least as much as the Telegraph piece does through its choice language. 

Compare and contrast:

THE BBC'S TAKE

Morrisons sorry for 'non-EU salt and pepper' chicken label

Morrisons has backed down after customers complained about its labelling of a chicken meat product as containing "non-EU salt and pepper".

The supermarket chain's salt-and-pepper chicken crown features the Union Flag on its label, which says that it is "made from British chicken".

The label provoked an angry reaction on Twitter, including one accusation of stoking "anti-EU hatred".

In response, the firm said the wording was "an error for which we apologise".

"We are changing the packaging immediately," its tweet added.

A spokesman for Morrisons said: "It is adhering to packaging regulations rather than making any political point."

The supermarket said it would change the packaging and de-emphasise the mention of non-EU salt and pepper, but said it would still have to be included somewhere on the wrapping because of packaging laws.

According to government guidance on food labelling, the term "non-EU" must be used on meat packaging when full country information is unavailable.

From October next year, following post-Brexit rule changes, this will be replaced by "non-UK".

Country of origin

Among the reactions from customers, some pointed out the irony of a soon-to-be US-owned supermarket displaying its British credentials.

Last month, Morrisons shareholders approved a multi-billion pound takeover offer from US private equity group Clayton, Dubilier & Rice (CD&R).

Others poked fun at the wording in other ways, with one person tweeting: "I've just had a look at my salt and pepper and it has no country of origin on it. It's from Aldi...

"Does that mean it's non-EU or not? Is it safe to put it on an English chicken? Asking for Morrisons..."

One customer raised the issue of food miles, saying: "In other words, they get their S&P from somewhere further away, creating more impact on the climate."

Another queried how useful such information was for shoppers, tweeting: "Aside from anything else, I'd have thought most normal people want to know where foodstuff IS from, not where it isn't."

The move comes in the midst of a debate in the food retailing industry about firms' increasing tendency to use patriotic imagery on packaging, with trade publication The Grocer identifying it as part of a post-Brexit "culture war".

However, those who support the trend see the "made in the UK" tag as a sign of quality rather than a political statement.

THE TELEGRAPH'S TAKE

Morrisons apologises to angry Remainers for 'anti-EU' chicken labelling 

Supermarket responds to boycott threats over 'non-EU salt and pepper' label that complies with rules originally set by Brussels

By

James Crisp,

EUROPE EDITOR

Morrisons has apologised after Remainers threatened to boycott the supermarket chain because they were offended by packaging on chicken that contained “non-EU salt and pepper”.

A Twitter mob accused Morrisons of pandering to Brexiteers by advertising British chicken with non-EU condiments, but the supermarket was only obeying rules originally set by Brussels.

“Why have Morrisons apologised for following rules originally imposed by the EU? They must have turned chicken,” said David Jones, the deputy chairman of the eurosceptic European Research Group.

“And who are they apologising to? People who are such fans of the EU that they would prefer a supermarket to break the law?,” the Tory MP for Clwyd West said.

The label reads “Salt and Pepper Chicken Crown. Roast in the bag. Made from British chicken and non-EU salt and pepper”.

“Tell me Morrisons that this is not real. Your response will dictate whether or not I ever shop at your stores again,” said Lee Williscroft-Ferris, a writer, as the latest twist in the Brexit culture war gained traction on social media.

“It’s annoying but necessary to boycott b******ery. Morrisons joins the list,” tweeted Chris Kendall, an EU official and host of the Cakewatch podcast.

“US-owned Morrisons stokes anti-EU hatred,” tweeted “Kristina #FBPE”. “Won’t be going back until this is withdrawn and an apology is issued.”

''Our chicken label is adhering to British packaging regulations, however we will be redesigning it to make it clear this is not a political commentary,'' a Morrisons spokesman said.

The label of a Morrisons roast in the bag garlic and herb whole chicken states it is made from "British chicken and non-EU and EU garlic and herbs".

Brussels rules require the “non-EU” label on packaging when products contain ingredients from more than a single country outside the bloc.

Those regulations were copied into UK law when Brexit took legal effect on December 31. Suppliers have until October 2022 to change the label to non-UK instead.

Because the label makes clear the chicken is British, one interpretation of the regulations is that the fact some of the ingredients are non-EU have to be as prominent.

The non-EU label will still have to be retained but is likely to be de-emphasised in the redesigned package.

It is not the first time that Morrisons has become embroiled in controversy over Brexit and food.

In Christmas 2019, it caused a social media sensation after removing the word “Brussels” from bags of Brussels sprouts.

Instead sprouts were sold as Lincolnshire or Yorkshire sprouts, depending where they were grown, much to the delight of some Brexiteers.

Chicken has also played a prominent role elsewhere in the Brexit culture wars. Those opposed to a post-Brexit trade deal with the US have warned it could lead to British consumers having to eat US chlorinated chicken.

'Fails on every count'

     

The BBC News website's take on the UK-New Zealand trade deal accentuates the negative.

Typically with these kind of biased articles, there are lengthy quotes from opponents of the deal contrasting with the shortest of quotes from a supporter. 

Remarkably though, Newssniffer reveals that the BBC has actually toned it down slightly.

If you look at the report now the two sub-headings are Step to bigger trade deal? and 'Nothing for farmers'.

There was originally an extra one, however, that said 'Fails on every count', quoting Labour's Emily Thornberry.

They've removed that now.

Brexit bias? BBC faces a difficult balancing act in polarised nation

This article by Roy Greenslade in the Guardian caught my eye.
If you really want to immerse yourself in a parallel, Brexit-dystopia-style world, read the comments. You don’t have to be semi-literate to join in the discussion, but it helps. (As the saying goes.)

You might need the Antidote below

Hardline hornets in hats (featuring Kate Hoey and BBC Complaints)

hardline

Regular readers will know that I've had a hornet in my Homburg hat for months about the BBC's use of the word 'hardline'. 

I closely tracked the BBC's use of the word and found it was nearly always used about certain kinds of people.

To recap, the VAST majority of the BBC's recent use of the word 'hardline' - and its beloved sibling 'hardliners' - have been connected to Brexit-supporters, especially those in favour of leaving the EU on WTO terms (i.e. supporters of a 'no-deal', crash-out-and-apocalypse Brexit). 

But 'the others' in my surveys have been equally predictable to anyone who's watched the BBC over the years: Trump's immigration policies, tax-cutters in the US, the right-wing Austrian government (over immigration), the Italian populist government (over immigration) the national-populist Hungarian government (over immigration and everything else), European governments in general that oppose mass immigration, the conservative CSU in Germany (over immigration), a Turkish right-winger not part of Erdogan's party, Hindus in India, France's yellow vests ...plus clerics in Saudi Arabia who oppose women drivers. 

To bring things up to date, and tracking the word's use by BBC folk since the start of February this year on BBC One, BBC Two and the BBC News Channel...

Yes, the term 'hardline' is still mostly used - again and again and again and again and again - in connection with 'Brexiteers', and all the variants thereon.

Seriously, using TV Eyes to monitor 'hardline' brings up masses of BBC reporters/presenters endlessly spouting the term in connection to Brexiteers, the ERG, Conservatives, Eurosceptics, etc. 

I've not found a single counter-example, so pro-EU, hardline Remain types who want to overturn the 2016 referendum remain once again untainted by the loaded term in the BBC's output.

The exceptions this time are, again, mostly familiar - Hindu nationalists (repeatedly) and parties in Italy opposed to mass immigration - but there's also a one-off criticism of anti-China US politicians and (more predictably) Australia's immigration policies.

To sum up, the BBC uses the term 'hardline' almost invariably against right-wingers, opponents of mass immigration, Hindu nationalists, and strong supporters of Brexit.

It's a trend that's so overwhelming that it should speak for itself and dispel any doubts about the BBC's biased use of language here.

Specifically tracking the use of 'hardliners', however - besides the many, many incarnations of 'Tory hardliners' - also brings up something that might seem less predictable at a first glance but has long been a BBC 'thing' - multiple mentions of Iranian 'hardliners' (who the BBC often also label 'conservatives'). That's nothing new though. It's long been a thing hereabouts to complain about the BBC using the term 'conservative' to describe the most hardline Islamists in the Iranian revolutionary regime. 

Given the John Simpson transcript I posted earlier, this latest finding in the Iranian context is particularly intriguing. 

*******

Anyhow, all of this leads back to Kate Hoey MP's potent complaint to the BBC about their perpetual use of 'hardline' in reference to people who think like her (whether left-wing or right-wing or whatever) on the subject of Brexit.

If you've not read it already, please read it.

*******

And that in turns leads on, as knights follow daze, to News-watch's David Keighley and his powerful new article at TCW, ‘Hardline’ Hoey and the BBC at its slippery worst - which is a 'must-read'. (So please read it!)

David crystallises the argument and details Ms Hoey's exchanges with the BBC - and the BBC's (oh-so-familiar) "blinkered", "self-righteous" replies. 

The whole first section of David's piece, however, needs quoting in full as it might be new to you. And even if it isn't new to you it remains, frankly, quite staggering:

ONE of the huge frustrations about the BBC is that they have a defence for every complaint, made up according to their own ever-shifting rules, and adjudicated mainly by their own staff. 

When David Cameron formally announced that he would hold an EU Referendum, Newsnight reported the development with a programme which included 18 Remainers (one who was said to be a businessman but actually was a Liberal Democrat politician) and just one who wanted Leave. 

News-watch complained. The BBC’s response? Months earlier, Newsnight had presented an edition which contained someone who put the case for withdrawal. The programme with blatant 18-1 stacking was thus fine because this was ‘due impartiality’. Of course.

Ah yes, good old BBC 'due impartiality'! - about as flexible as term as you could imagine. 

...and any other matters that take our fancy

Away from matters BBC-related for a moment, here's a Twitter thread today from Dr. Matthew Goodwin relevant to the news today:

• One critical point about the vote for Brexit is that it marked the first moment when a majority of British people formally asked for something that a majority of their elected representatives did not want to give. It was always destined to lead us here.
• Contrary to popular claims, we now know from a dozen+ studies that Leavers knew what they were voting for. They had a clear sense about how they wanted to change the settlement; they wanted powers returned from the EU & to slow the pace of immigration.
• We also know that for large chunks of the Leave electorate this vote - a rejection of the status quo - was anchored in high levels of political distrust, exasperation with an unfair economic settlement & a strong desire to be heard & respected.
• I do not think that it is hard to imagine what could happen if Brexit is delayed, taken off the shelf altogether or evolves into a second referendum that offers Remain vs May's deal, which Leavers would view as an illegitimate 'democratic' exercise.
• We have evidence: 
• (1) Professor Lauren McLaren has already shown that even before the first referendum people who wanted to reform the existing settlement but who felt politicians were unresponsive became significantly more distrustful of the entire political system.
• (2) Professor Oliver Heath (& others) have found that as British politics gradually converged on the middle-class at the expense of the working-class the latter gradually withdrew from politics, hunkering down and becoming more apathetic.
• This is partly why the first referendum was so important, where we saw surprisingly high rates of turnout in blue-collar seats. Because for the first time in years many of these voters felt that they could, finally, bring about change.
• And we'd already seen an alliance between middle-class conservatives and blue-collar workers to try and bring about this change when they decamped from mainstream politics in 2012-2015 to vote for a populist outsider.
• So I think that we do know what the effects of a long/indefinite delay to Brexit, or taking it off the table altogether, will be. Either we will see a return to apathy & ever-rising levels of distrust which will erode our democracy and the social contract from below, or another populist backlash, anchored in the same alliance of disillusioned Tories & angry workers who - as we've learned - are very unlikely to just walk quietly into the night. If anything, this will just exacerbate the deeper currents we discuss here https://amzn.to/2VfkpCa.

Intrusive thoughts

Another benefit of subscribing to the Times (in addition to privileged access to the btl comments) is watching those mini videos titled “Liddle’s Got Issues”. Not that Rod is particularly charismatic or easy on the eye, but the one I watched today about the reluctance of the Remain protesters to engage was well worth the sub. The idea was that he would accost some of the banner-wielding folk that were hanging about in the freezing cold and try to get one or two of them to explain why they were there. Well, we kind of knew why, but what was their message? "Why exactly are you against Brexit?" The best (and only forthcoming) response was “Because it’s a bad idea”, at which the speaker was hurriedly whisked away. 

On the surface, this was an amusing demonstration of the total absence of substance behind the demonstrators’ cause.

But on another level, it was reminiscent of those hearty brush-offs that baffled poor Gabriel Gatehouse when he tried to talk to some Dutch Tommy Robinson supporting activists (September 2018): 

 "The biased BBC? You must be joking!", one woman yelled at me down the phone. "You just want to stick me on TV and call me a racist”.

So maybe those annoying, banner-waving, in-yer-face protesters were struck dumb by a fear of being misrepresented by The Times. Or maybe they were just dumb.

While watching Rod, I had an intrusive thought. No, not about a load of filth, but, like the heroine in the new Channel 4 thing “Pure”, (I haven’t watched it yet) I do get intrusive thoughts. Not particularly of incest, bestiality or fantasies involving TV presenters, but in this case, of Rod’s scarf (which looked decidedly girly) and which was wrapped several times around his neck as if to keep out the cold. If so, why leave a triangle of exposed flesh above such a thin-looking shirt? What about the draught?  That was my intrusive thought and it wouldn’t go away.  

Other intrusive thoughts are possibly the result of being too immersed in this kind of blog. When I’m watching, say, Andrew Marr interviewing, say, Barry Gardiner - rather than listening to what they’re saying I  find myself automatically wondering why they’re saying it. Suspicious, I am.

Michael Gove: the speech

Everyone else has done it so we might as well publish the barnstormer we enjoyed yesterday. Funnily enough, the BBC chose instead to feature Tom Watson’s effort, over which the spectre of an enormous  ‘elephant’ loomed.

I have to admit that many of my political and philosophical positions are primarily emotional. For example, I’ve loathed Corbers ever since he hove into view alongside his Judeophobic colleagues, like, say Andy Slaughter and, I don’t know, Chris Mullin. That was long ago. Back when the prospect of such a wrong-headed individual becoming leader of the Labour Party was simply unthinkable.

But I’ve admired Gove, particularly are reading his 2016 Times piece (£) on antisemitism, way before the issue became a hot topic. 

From an emotional angle, admittedly, I think the label ‘back-stabber’ is unfair because I can very well understand his misgivings about Boris’s leadership potential and his reluctance to be closely associated with what he foresaw as a potential accident-waiting-to-happen. With hindsight, it may or may not have been a big mistake, but I like to believe it was sincerely motivated rather than malevolent. 

One might consider how Tom Watson must feel, knowing that despite losing an elephantine amount of weight he’s still shackled to another humungous elephant.

'Grid' (again)

It is interesting looking back at that leaked 'grid' ("a note passed to the BBC") that the Government tried to dismiss ("Downing Street says it's not Theresa May's plan and the childish language in the notes shows it's not an official document"), for I'm seeing more on more of the things on the 'grid' happening, and the BBC duly reporting them. The Japanese PM has popped up today (a few days late admittedly), and the "lots of former foreign secs" spoke out in concert the other day (and got interviewed on Today), "Jeremy Hunt on Marr" happened on the exact day stated, and we learned yesterday (via Buzzfeed) that Downing Street did try to get a 1-on-1 interview for Mrs May with David Dimbleby. And to think I was sceptical about it!

A Modest Letter

I think this is going to have to go under the "...and any other matters that take our fancy" part of the blog, as it's not BBC-bias-related. It's just a letter sent today by one Conservative MP to another Conservative MP and it made me laugh. In fact as satirical letters go, its artistry is almost on a par with C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters: 

(As they say on all good blogs, click to enlarge.)

Ah, I can relate it to the BBC after all, as I see that ITV News has the story of John Hayes as one of its top news stories - indeed, ITV's angle is this very letter: Shock knighthood for Tory Eurosceptic John Hayes sparks croynism row and extraordinarily mocking letter from fellow MP. 

And Sky News has it as a top story too: Brexit row: 'Utter c**k' slur as eurosceptic Tory MP awarded knighthood.

The BBC News website's homepage is presently steering clear of the whole thing.

Angles

Here's a comment from Biased BBC this morning:

Gammon

November 9, 2018 at 9:33 am

Listening to R4 this morning. UK STOCKPILING FOOD.

They had a man on who owns a massive refrigeration facility here in the UK. Because of UK STOCKPILING FOOD he has sold all his space for Q1 2019. Because of BREXIT…. the UK IS STOCKPILING FOOD.

Who is buying he space? Oh says the chap – EU FOOD PRODUCERS…. why? Because THEY are worried about borders and selling their EU food into the UK.

So the story is EU STOCKPILING FOOD TO SELL IN THE UK

The story is that EU NEED AND WANT SMOOTH TRADE as much as we do

But no – BBC focus on UK STOCKPILING FOOD and no interest in the real story or getting behind the headline

This made me question if this was Bias or just media always looking to stir things up and create conflict where there is none. Media as the enemy of the people and a force for ill not good. Bias yes but perhaps worse.

And here's a transcription of that very Today interview where, as Gammon says, Mr Miles makes it clear that the demand for storage is coming from panicking European food producers but Nick Robinson doesn't pick up on that and sticks with plugging away at the "the food industry [generally] is stockpiling in the run-up to Brexit" angle instead: 

Nick Robinson: Brexiteers say there's no need to worry about food supplies if there is no deal, but the food industry is stockpiling in the run-up to Brexit. One firm in Wales, Wild Water, has told the BBC it's renting and buying extra space. And I've been speaking to Jon Miles, UK director of NewCold, whose cold storage warehouse in Yorkshire is one of the biggest in the country. I asked him if they were running out of space.

Jon Miles: Yes, we've got one huge Wakefield warehouse that we extended by 150% last year, and in the first half of next year we've already sold all of that space, or committed all of that space. 

Nick Robinson: And you do link that directly to worries about Brexit?

Jon Miles: Yeah, I think there were constraints in the market anyway, there was capacity issues anyway, but certainly the Brexit issue...We've had people contacting us - European food producers - asking us for space in the first six months of next year which we now just can't provide.

Nick Robinson: So who are the sorts of companies that would use your facility?

Jon Miles: Any frozen food producer realistically. So we work with some big UK brands - so McCain and Aunt Bessie are two of our customers for example - but any frozen food producer really. We store specifically for frozen food companies. 

Nick Robinson: And the argument for them needing the space now is a worry that the borders simply might not allow, border controls might simply not work, in the way they have been.

Jon Miles: We've got our anchor customers - they're UK-based predominantly, so there's less impact on them - but the other people that...the other companies that have contacted me have all been European-based food producers who import to the UK and they're now really concerned about the borders, yeah.

Nick Robinson: Some might say, look, this is a sensible precaution and when we know whether there's a deal and also what sort of Brexit deal there is, yeah, people will be able to cancel the orders they put your way.

Jon Miles: Yeah, yeah, they could. I think we're trying, obviously, we're trying to get people to confirm that they'll take that space. So if we do deals - we don't have room now - but if people are dealing deals for Brexit I imagine they will be charging for that space anyway. And I think depending...it's obviously dependent on what deal looks like...I think there's also concern about how long this might go on. I'm certainly not an expert - there'll be people from the DFT that can talk about this much more eloquently than I - but some of the horror stories you hear about queues backing up back up to the M25 and the M20 and beyond, I think there is a real concern.

Nick Robinson: A real concern that's now leading to potential stockpiling of food.

Jon Miles: Correct. Yeah.

Nick Robinson: Jon Miles UK director of NewCold, thank you.

Scoop?

As discussed on the Open Thread, the BBC really did appear to get a major scoop yesterday.

Some notes were "passed to them" of a step-by-step timeline ('grid') of how the Government might try to sell a Brexit deal to the public and parliament. The Government is denying that it reflects government thinking and is denying its authenticity, but it's a fascinating read nonetheless - and, were it authentic, it would be deeply worrying, as it would prove Government manipulation on a grant scale. Time will tell if any of it still pans out and confirms it. (But if it is genuine, won't it be scrapped now, following the leak?)  

It transpires, though, as so often whenever the BBC claims a scoop, that it wasn't quite the 'BBC exclusive' they implied it to be. Both the Guardian and PR Week make it clear that these 'notes' were leaked to several media outlets, including the Guardian, and not just the BBC. (So why are the BBC so obsessed with claiming 'exclusive' status and with not acknowledging other media outlets?)

Anyhow, as also noted on the Open Thread, it's striking how little use the BBC has made of its 'scoop'. Yes, there have been the US midterms to keep them (very busy), but even that still doesn't account for their quickly-waning interest in the story.

It appeared on last night's News at Ten. "BBC News has seen...", "a note passed to the BBC", said Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg:

Ministers have been told there may be a cabinet meeting, later this week to approve a plan for Brexit. And BBC News has seen a suggested timetable for how the Government might try to present its Brexit deal to the public and Parliament. 

But a note passed to the BBC suggests they'd wanted to review a deal today and announce big progress this week to kick off a three-week grid, a process to sell the deal to Parliament, and to you. This, then, suggests a day by day, blow by blow guide, to how the Government hopes to sell a deal to you and to Parliament. A speech by Theresa May, speeches by other Government ministers, former Foreign Secretaries and foreign leaders coming on board, businesses coming out to back the deal, and a plan for each day of debate in the House of Commons with a final vote saying yes or no to the deal at the end of this month. That is still not impossible for such a timetable to work but it is certainly right now far from being guaranteed. Downing Street says it's not Theresa May's plan and the childish language in the notes shows it's not an official document. But there are clearly plenty of discussions about how to broker the deal with the public, if it can be done with Brussels. 

But, checking TV Eyes, thereafter it pretty much disappeared from the BBC News Channel (only a mention or two on the paper reviews when reading out a Daily Telegraph headline as far as I can see). 

Did the BBC instantly lose faith in it? Or did they bury it (either to help the government or their own anti-Brexit agenda)? 

The section that stood out for me from the 'grid', for obvious reasons, is the one that read:

26th - theme is taking back control of our laws, Raab doing media. PM interview with Dimbleby.

Does 'Dimbleby' (either David or Jonathan) do interviews with the PM these days?

All eyes then on Mr Raab and Mrs May on 26 November then (or thereabouts)!

"No, I can't see that at all"

Also from this week's Newswatch:

Samira Ahmed: It was also interesting this week seeing you and other BBC journalists on TV directly answering viewer questions about Brexit. What was the thinking behind that? 

Nick Robinson: I think the thinking was that wherever you go around, if you do my sort of job, if you do the job of senior editors at the BBC, people will stop you on the street and say "We don't really understand this". And actually this particular set of items came from a conversation I had in a shop. I was buying a cheap plug in Maplin, when it was about to close down, and a guy came up to me and said, "Nick, why haven't we left? I don't really understand it". And I found myself explaining to him and enjoying the process of saying to him, "Look, you're not hearing this on air? Are we not explaining this to you on air?" And he said to me, "You know what? You've been clearer in this conversation than anything I think I've seen". So I then went to the 10 O'Clock News and said, "How's about I make this conversation as a piece?" And it seems to me every so often we need to correct ourselves and say, we are in too deep, we know too much detail, pull back and try to explain it in a way that people will follow more easily. 

Samira Ahmed: With all these questions, some viewers feel that the BBC has focused too much on the potential problems and pitfalls, and that can seem anti-Brexit. 

Nick Robinson: Well, there are certainly people who say that, why do you follow this forecast, or that warning, or that projection, aren't you being sort of anti-Brexit as a result? The answer to that is, that is our job. It is our job to report on the warnings made by authorities, whether it is the IMF or the Bank of England, the warning that comes from the biggest companies in the land, for example Jaguar-Land Rover, again, something I put to the Prime Minister and other people this week. It is our job to warn about it. Clearly, in the process, we have to also say to people there is a difference between a worry, a concern, a forecast, and a fact. Forecasts are not facts. That's not what they are. But I think to say that we ought to be positive about Brexit, to say we should be cheerleaders for Brexit, to say we should be patriotic, which sometimes people do, is to misunderstand the role of a journalist. It is not the role of a journalist to be on one team or another. We don't wear the scarf. We don't sing the songs. It is our job to report on the match, to do it fairly and, if you hear things you don't like, I am afraid that is the nature of BBC journalism. You are going to hear people you don't like saying things you don't agree with. 

Samira Ahmed: The political pressure for another referendum is getting more and more airtime. Can you see why some viewers feel it is effectively supporting it? 

Nick Robinson: No, I can't see that at all. I think that is again to misunderstand how reporting on something is advocating something. If we report there are calls for a second referendum it is not the BBC taking a position on whether there should or should not be another vote of the public. It is reporting. That's what reporting is. The truth is there is now a highly organised campaign for what they call a people's vote. There is evidence in the opinion polls of it picking up some support. There are some prominent politicians, Justine Greening for example, the former education secretary, coming out in support of it. It is our job to report it. It is not our job to say that because it might offend people who don't want a second referendum, or who voted Leave, or who see this as undermining democracy, we mustn't report it. What we ought to do is while reporting calls for a second referendum, also report on the objections to it. 

Samira Ahmed: Nick Robinson, thank you. 

Making a point

When the good news about unemployment falling and wages outstripping the cost of living broke yesterday I wondered how BBC One's News at Ten would report it and whether they'd use it to make an anti-Brexit point. Well, even I was surprised at how quickly that anti-Brexit point came last night:

Huw Edwards: Wages grew faster than expected in the three months to July, as they continue to outstrip the cost of living for the fourth month in succession. Official data shows that pay, excluding bonuses, rose by 2.9% during the period, while unemployment has continued to fall, remaining at its lowest level for over 40 years, Our economics correspondent, Andy Verity, reports. 

Andy Verity: The firm that runs this construction site in Salford has no shortage of work. But a shortage of skilled workers is a growing problem. Until this year, its subcontractors could find the staff they needed easily, mostly from the rest of the European Union. 

Ged Rooney, Bardsley Construction: We've got Albanians working on here now but the dry liners, joiners, tilers tend to be Eastern European. So, in some instances, when they leave, it gets very, very difficult to entice the British workforce back on to the sites. 

Is that a record?

Numbers

Charlotte Gallagher, Radio 4's correspondent for PM at the anti-Brexit rally in central London, made quite a statement on the programme about the respective numbers attending today's two marches. She said:

Now, there was also a pro-Brexit march taking place in central London at the same time as this one today but on a much smaller scale. We are thinking a few hundreds people were at that even compared to obviously the 100,000 people at the main event at Parliament Square.

How does she know there are 100,000 people at the anti-Brexit rally (as its organisers claimed before and during the event)? Shouldn't she have added some distancing caveats to that, saying that it's only a claim?  

Jon Donnison is back

BBC news correspondent Jon Donnison was interviewing a couple of anti-Brexit marchers at the People's Vote March in London a few minutes ago (just after 2 o'clock) and, doing his 'BBC impartiality' bit, asked one of them: 

Again, people would say: There was a referendum. People voted. It was close - 48 to 51 -- but the 48 lost. 

He could have said, "Again, people would say: There was a referendum. People voted. The 48 lost", but he didn't. He had to add, "It was close". (Was it? There was a 4% difference.)

Also, the result wasn't "48 to 51". It was 48 to 52 (48.11% to 51.89%).

Checking back, he also called Leave voters "the 51%" earlier too (just after 1 o'clock), so it wasn't a random slip.

Was this evidence of bias or just factual inaccuracy on Jon Donnison's part?

Two sides to every story

Lead story

Alastair Campbell & Co. have been banging on all week about the BBC 'failing' to cover today's anti-Brexit march so as to pressure the BBC into giving it massive coverage. And guess what? This morning the BBC News website is leading with that very march (even though it hasn't even started yet!). 

Does this prove that their dishonest campaign of bullying the BBC works? Or would the (anti-Brexit) BBC have led with it like they've done this morning (before it even happens) anyhow? 

We'll never know, of course, now.  Anyhow, it's leading the BBC News website.

and here's Rob:

Brexit dividend (3)

Alastair Campbell

I suppose we could just assert that all those wild claims of 'pro-government BBC bias' from the likes of arch-spinner Alastair Campbell (and myriads more on Twitter) over the corporation's reporting today of Mrs May's NHS funding/Brexit dividend pledge as simply the result of the partisan stupidity and utter mendacity of far too many people on Twitter (including Big Bad Al), but I think that blogs like this ought to at least try to do better than that. 

So here's a snapshot of this afternoon's coverage of the story...

You'll find below six lovingly-prepared transcripts of this afternoon's hourly BBC Radio 4 news bulletins. 

Do they prove pro-government bias from the BBC? 

I know I shouldn't ruin it for you with spoilers, but the answer is emphatically 'no'. 

When you see it laid out before you, in print, six hours of BBC Radio 4 reporting becomes sharper in focus. 

Every one of those six bulletins began by framing the story with criticism of Mrs May's Brexit dividend claim. 

All of them gave the the lion's share of the bulletin to reporting the views of critics of Mrs May and her Brexit dividend claim. 

And as for the clips from interviewees chosen, two were from Labour critics of Mrs May and one was from Paul Johnson of the IFS, also being unhelpful to Mrs May. The other (Helen Stokes-Lampard) fell closer to criticism than to praise. None was from someone defending/supporting Mrs May. 

Plus, the only Tory quoted (other than Mrs May) was Sarah Wollaston, who called Mrs May's comments "tosh". 

So there's no reasonable case to be drawn from this whatsoever that the BBC demonstrated a pro-government bias here. They most certainly weren't backing Mrs May and her Brexit dividend.

So does that prove then, as per 'complaints from both sides', that the BBC got it about right?

Well, no. In fact, far from proving that the BBC behaved impartially, I think these transcripts provide compelling evidence that the BBC was actually biased against the government (however right you or I might think they were to be so in this instance). 

The framing of the story and the choice of voices were so starkly 'one-directional' here as to leave a massive question mark hanging over Radio 4's impartiality this afternoon. 

Please read them for yourselves and see if you agree...

Update: Though it's aesthetically unpleasing, I've now coloured the transcript to more clearly show the balance (or imbalance) in the BBC's reporting. Blue is for bits that 'help' the Government. Red for bits that 'don't help' the Government. Uncoloured are the bits that are either obviously neutral or which can't easily be ascribed. As you'll see there's much more red than there is blue.

Midday

The head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies Paul Johnson has said there is no Brexit dividend to provide more money for the NHS. He was responding to Theresa May's announcement that NHS England will receive an extra £20 billion a year by 2023 in part because of money saved when Britain stops paying into the EU budget. Mr. Johnson said the exit bill and commitments to fund farmers meant that there was arithmetic no money. Labour also dismissed Mrs May's promise as a "hypothetical". The shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry has said it left too many questions unanswered.

Emily Thornberry: How are they going to pay for it? They say that they're going to increase taxes but we've yet to hear who's going to get their taxes increased and how. They say they going to increase borrowing but they haven't told us by how much, and they haven't told us what the effect will be. They've told us they're going to pay for from a Brexit dividend. We don't really know what that means because we don't know what the deal is going to be and what the overall effect on the economy is going to be and, actually, whether Brexit is going to end up costing us a great deal of money.

But the chair of the Royal College of GPs Helen Stokes-Lampard gave the announcement a cautious welcome.

Helen Stokes-Lampard: It's not quite as much as most health leaders have been asking for. The Institute for Fiscal Studies had been pushing for nearer 4% so that we can not just sustain the NHS but really push forward. But nobody's going to be turning their noses up at the 3.4% a year in real terms. So it's how we spend it that will matter.

Separately, the shadow health secretary Jon Ashworth said Labour would match the government's funding promise, which he described as "baseline".

1 o'clock

The economic thinktank the Institute for Fiscal Studies has questioned the idea of a Brexit dividend, raised by the Prime Minister when she promised an extra £20 billion a year for the NHS in England by 2023. Theresa May told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show that the country would be contributing a bit more, but she said it would also benefit from no longer sending vast amounts of money to the EU. The director of the IFS Paul Johnson said an extra £20 billion meant higher taxes and/or borrowing. Labour says it will match the government's pledge and go further. Here's our political correspondent Jonathan Blake.

Jonathan Blake, BBC: Making a link between increased funding for the NHS and savings as a result of leaving the EU allows Theresa May to say to Brexit supporters in her own party and beyond that the much-criticised promise on the side of the campaign bus has been met and that the government has gone further. But economists have rushed to point out that once the broader economic picture is taken into account the Government will have less money to spend in the short term after Brexit not more. The Conservative MP Dr Sarah Wollaston called the Brexit dividend claim "tosh" and accused Theresa May of taking the public for fools. Mrs May's suggestion that taxes will also have to rise to pay for this increased spending on the NHS is a significant statement for a Conservative Prime Minister.

Health bosses have welcomed the promise of extra funding, though a number have said more is needed. Concern has also been expressed about the absence of a commitment to provide more money for social care. Here's our health correspondent Dominic Hughes.

Dominic Hughes, BBC: Since the NHS was established 70 years ago its budget has risen by an average of 3.7% a year, but since 2010 that figure has been about 1.2%. At the same time demand for healthcare has been growing, so across the NHS there's a feeling that this settlement is just enough to stand still but it falls short of the 4% budget increase that most analysts felt would be needed to make up lost ground and bring about real change. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will also get extra funds but the devolved administrations will decide how they're spent. This announcement leaves some big questions unanswered, not least the funding of social care, which has such a profound impact on the Health Service. Without those details there are no guarantees even this extra money will significantly ease the long-term pressures on the NHS.

2 o'clock

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has questioned the 'Brexit dividend' quoted by the Prime Minister in her promise of an extra £20 billion a year for the NHS in England by 2023. Theresa May said the country would be contributing a bit more but it would also benefit from no longer sending vast amounts of money to the EU. The director of the IFS, Paul Johnson, said the extra funding meant higher taxes and more borrowing.

Paul Johnson, IFS: If you look at the arrangement we come to with the European Union in terms of paying our exit bill or and if you add to that the commitments that the Government's already made to keep funding farmers and so on there is literally, arithmetically, no money. And, in addition, we know, because the Government's accepted this, that the public finances will be worse as a result of the Brexit vote, the OBR has said by £15 billion a year. It could be a bit more. It could be a bit less. 

Labour said its tax plans meant it would spend more on the NHS and social care.

3 o'clock

The director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has questioned Theresa May's claim that an increase in NHS funding in England could be paid for with a post-Brexit windfall. Mrs May told the BBC that money saved by Britain leaving the EU would help to provide an extra £20 billion a year by 2023, but Paul Johnson told the BBC the UK's exit bill and a commitment to keep funding farmers meant there was arithmetically no money. The shadow health secretary Jon Ashworth said Labour would still spend more on the NHS than the government.

Jonathan Ashworth, Labour: Now the government have announced these new baselines for the NHS we'll match that. That is the baseline that will become accepted, but we're saying you can go further and if the government made the taxation changes we're prepared to make it could be giving even more to the NHS. So Labour will be spending more on the NHS the Tories even after these announcements today.

4 o'clock

There's been criticism of Theresa May's announcement that a Brexit dividend will help pay for an increase in NHS funding in England. Mrs May said an extra £20 billion a year by 2023 could be found partly because the UK would no longer be paying into the EU budget, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies insisted there would be no Brexit windfall because the UK faces a steep exit bill, and the shadow chancellor John McDonnell described the pledge as a publicity stunt. 

5 o'clock

A senior Conservative MP has dismissed as "tosh" Theresa May's claim that a Brexit dividend will help to boost funding for the NHS in England by £20 billion a year by 2023. Sarah Wollaston, who chairs the Health Select Committee, said people were being treated like fools. Mrs May said the country would benefit from no longer sending vast amounts of money to the EU, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies said the Government has accepted that the public finances would be worse as a result of Brexit. 

BBC One (Monday to Friday): A Brexit Survey

As I said in the previous post, it's us who claim that the BBC is biased against Brexit who have the evidence. 

And here's some more...

******

Using TV Eyes, I've tracked every mention of Brexit on BBC One over the past week (Monday-Friday).

As TV Eyes uses the London version of BBC One, the following includes BBC London news programmes too. 

65 results came up.

And here's what BBC One has been up to...

******

Monday began (overnight) with two reports on a campaign by anti-Brexit campaigners to have a second referendum.

And then came a Hardtalk interview with an anti-Brexit Northern Irish politician (Monica McWilliams of the Women's Coalition (Sample - BBC interviewer: "Maybe one reason, for more than a year, it hasn't worked is because Brexit seems to be directly affecting the mood of people in Northern Ireland, because one of the biggest controversial and unknowns right now about Brexit is what it's going to do to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. How big a factor is that, do you believe?" Monica McWilliams: "Huge, and it's - you've put your finger on it, it's unknown. It's the uncertainty, it has driven us back into silos that we did not need to go back into"). 

Further repeats of both followed. 

BBC Breakfast discussed Brexit in the course of a segment on farming. The BBC interviewer's question was "And that is one element of the cost, that the weather has been so bad when there is extra bedding and feed to pay for. A lot of uncertainty as well around Brexit, which will affect what farmers invest in" and the reply came" and the reply was negative and about the problems faced because "our biggest market is Europe". No one said anything optimistic about Brexit.

A later interview with the Manic Street Preachers promised they'd be "political" about Brexit, but, oddly, they didn't mention Brexit. So that was a damp squib (probably thank goodness). 

BBC One's News at Six cryptically tied in Brexit with the Windrush controversy. (John Pienaar: "This department is under pressure. Brexit is coming and they will be watched very closely as they deal with people in this country, individuals and families, many of whom have been here for you is").

BBC London's local news programme majored on "a senior business group [the Institute of Directors]...warning there's an "information drought" on Brexit - making it hard for companies to plan ahead". A company worrying about access to the Germany market was its focus. It wants something like the Single Market we have now to continue. Opposing voices weren't featured.

Soon after the same BBC London local news programme discussed the pressure on secondary school places in London. "All this is a real headache and a constant balancing act. House prices have an effect, Brexit has an effect", we learned. Quite what effect Brexit was having wasn't explained, but it was obviously somehow adding to the "real headache".

Next came this gem from Eastenders:

How can I say it? ..a con woman. Yeah! Ye... No, it's nothing to be proud of. I've been called worse. Well, why not try to prove them wrong by boosting the local economy, providing employment during these tough Brexit times, eh? I can get you your money, Mas. All of it. In a week. 

BBC London's late night news bulletin repeated the 'worried about Brexit' company and the IoD's concerns.

A repeat of Have I Got News For You mocked David Davis over his negotiations with the EU.

******

And God saw that it was biased and the evening and the morning were the second day, Tuesday.

And Tuesday began with some early morning good news:"The British pound has hit its highest level against the US dollar since the Brexit referendum in June 2016".

There was nothing else Brexit-related until a Stephen Lawrence documentary that evening featured  clips of a small white supremacist group in the UK chanting for repatriation and a black man saying that "Brexit has changed the nation" and "brought back these feelings of, 'Maybe I'm not part of this community'", thus tying Brexit to racism.

That night's News at Ten had John Pienaar on again, relating Brexit to the Windrush controversy. ("More broadly, this could make harder her mission of protecting Britain's standing and influence up to Brexit and beyond. A member of the negotiating team says that Europeans may fear harsh treatment when they assert their rights to stay in the country. Ministers would deny that, as they you would expect, but this has all come with a cost in moral authority, certainly to the Government, possibly also to the country").

******

And God saw that it was biased and the evening and the morning were the third day, Wednesday.

Overnight came extensive clips from a parliamentary committee interview about Cambridge Analytica, Brexit, Arron Banks and Leave.EU featuring the testimony of someone highly critical of the aforementioned. 

A business interview around 5.45 featured a newspaper report saying that if we get a decent Brexit deal it could see the UK outstrip the Eurozone. The response? It's all about uncertainty. It's "difficult to predict". Will we get a decent deal? That's "the big thing here". 

For Wednesday's BBC Breakfast, the Windrush-related angle was:

Questions about the competence of the Home Office and this morning. Also questions from Brussels about what all this says about how the Government will handle the registration of EU citizens who will be staying here after Brexit.

A business guest at 6.45 am was optimistic that we will get a Brexit deal and said "that has given a short-term slight stability to the outlook for Britain versus what we've had in the past." The BBC interview (looking on the dark side!) responded, "We know how quickly that can change, so if we're looking at this and thinking we're in a good position right now, how do we make the most of it and bank that rate?" 

A BBC Breakfast interview with Bill Gates about malaria saw the BBC immediately reminding him about his earlier plea that Brexit shouldn't lead to UK aid budgets to tackle malaria dealing slashed and asking him if he was "still concerned about that happening". Mr Gates refused to be drawn on that into making further derogatory remarks about Brexit.

A very brief news report then said:

British firm De La Rue has said it will not appeal against the Government's controversial decision to choose a Franco-Dutch company to make the new blue UK passports after Brexit. De La Rue, the current passport provider, said that it had "considered all the options", but would not challenge the move, which will see the half a billion pound contract handed to Gemalto, which has its headquarters in Amsterdam.

On BBC One's News at One we were being given the EU's perspective on the Windrush controversy: 

In Brussels, officials are watching with concern. The government's handling of the Windrush fiasco has not filled them with confidence about how EU nationals will be treated in the UK after Brexit.

That evening's BBC One News at Six covered the House of Lords voting down the government and demanding that the UK stay in the EU Customs Union. (The word "unelected" wasn't used). It wasn't good news for the Government and John Pienaar concluded by saying, "You may have thought the Battle of Brexit had gone quiet, but there are plenty of battles still to come. And the shape of Brexit and the authority of the government and the Prime Minister rest on the outcome". 

The same story was covered on that night's BBC One News at Ten with the same report.

******

And God saw that it was biased and the evening and the morning were the fourth day, Thursday.

Naturally, overnight the BBC continued reporting the pro-EU Lords' defeat of the Government over the Customs Union.

And then a BBC Click episode about automation on farms. This was classic BBC as far as language about Brexit goes - e.g. (from the BBC presenter):

1. "Brexit threatens to cut down the number of people available to work on the land"
2. "There are fears about the availability of migrant workers post Brexit".

Brexit also got a mention on that evening's BBC One News at Six. Kamal Ahmed has been talking to Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England:

He said why this is a big year for Brexit and that would weigh heavily on their decision-making. The big picture, for people watching, is that, yes, prepare for a few interest rate rises over the next few years.

The story that a cross-party alliance of MPs will follow the Lords in forcing a vote to make the UK stay in the EU Customs Union was also a story on BBC One News at Six.

The One Show had a Brexit-related quip:

It would be nice if it was cold during the week and hot at the weekend. We should make that a condition of the Brexit deal .

Mark Carney was a lead story on BBC One's News at Ten that Thursday:

The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has told the BBC that a rise in interest rates this year is still likely, but that any increases will be gradual and will depend on progress in the Brexit negotiations. 

The phrase "Brexit uncertainty" was used repeatedly.

This Week featured Richard Madeley (of Richard and Judy fame) reviewing the week. He covered the latest calls for a second referendum and the Lords' defeat of the government over us staying in the EU Customs Union. Quite what Richard's view of Brexit it I'm not sure after this. Pro-EU Alan Johnson and anti-EU Priti Patel then debated it. (Fair enough).

******

And God saw that (except for This Week) it was biased and the evening and the morning were the fifth day, Friday. 

The early hours saw an airline business owner being asked by a BBC reporter, "How worried are you and your clients about the Brexit effect and the open skies agreement?". The businessman said his company had "prepared to switch to other countries" but his "personal opinion" was that "I don't think [the worst case scenario] will happen".

A review of parliamentary proceedings included a section beginning, "The Transport Secretary has dismissed the idea that holiday-makers could face air travel delays after Brexit". An SNP MP had raised a scare story. 

By the time of BBC One's News at One, James Lansdale was back linking Brexit to the Windrush debacle:

Theresa May had hoped to use this summit to highlight Britain's global ambitions after Brexit. But the row over Caribbean immigration has made that harder.

The same bulletin later including a segment beginning:

Newsreader: The EU's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, has warned there is still a chance that talks on Britain's withdrawal deal from the bloc could fail. Mr Barnier said that while three-quarters of the deal had been agreed, the Irish border issue remained a key stumbling block. Our correspondent Gavin Lee is in Brussels for us with the latest. Tell us more. 

Gavin Lee: This is the EU's chief negotiator for the EU making crystal clear that whilst three quarters they are pretty much in agreement on what the Brexit deal or the withdrawal agreement of both the UK and the European Parliament have to ratify by March next year, the last 25% come because of the series issues involved, said could be problematic and risks failure, he said. 

BBC One's News at Six was back at it too, linking Brexit to the Windrush debacle:

Newsreader: The meeting of the Commonwealth leaders was supposed to be a chance for Theresa May to talk about matters such as trade but instead it ended up being overshadowed by the row over the Windrush migrants.
John Pienaar: That's right. This week, the Commonwealth Summit was supposed to be a show of Britain's weight in the world. Instead, we saw the Prime Minister saying sorry for the mistreatment of Commonwealth migrants and their families by a country once known as the mother country. And not just the government, the Home Office, which Theresa May lead for years, reflecting her own unyielding approach to immigration control in a way that her successor Amber Rudd described as appalling. Mrs May was meant to be standing tall among Commonwealth leaders but we saw her saying sorry again and again to leaders of countries Britain wants to have as friends and needs as trading partners in the world beyond Brexit. 

The latest Have I Got News For You - just like the previous week's edition - made a joke at David Davis's expense, EU-negotiation-wise, and a passing quip at some comedienne insulting a pasty eater saw a comedian quip "This is how Brexit happened".

Finally, BBC One's News at Ten saw John Pienaar continuing the BBC Theme of the Week, Brexit-wise, over the Windrush affair:

Downing Street clearly wanting to be seen to be making amends. Climbing out of that hole. Maintaining Britain's influence and standing and its weight in the world with Brexit approaching, that was always a challenge, and there will be many more challenges as time draws by. But I think the Windrush scandal may just have made that mission that much harder.

Just read the language of that! I don't think Lord Adonis would mind it one bit.

Indeed, Lord Adonis has nothing to complain about as far as any of this is concerned.

That said, there's certainly been plenty of bias on display here, and it's all gone the other (anti-Brexit) way.

Seriously, can anyone read the evidence I've detailed here and still content that the BBC isn't biased in a negative way about Brexit?

I know the dangers of confirmation bias, but this is a list covering every mention of Brexit on BBC One over five days and the evidence couldn't be clearer, could it?

******

Despite what we heard on Feedback, the BBC still has a case to answer. 'Complaints from both sides' won't wash.

The Adonis/Campbell side has nothing substantial to go off.

This side has.