Showing posts with label Carolyn Quinn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carolyn Quinn. Show all posts

Friday, 16 September 2016

First refusal



Talking of Diane James...

Carolyn Quinn had a real bee in her bonnet about the new UKIP leader on this evening's edition of PM. And, my goodness, didn't she make a right meal of it, waving her (metaphorical) hands at that poor bee again and again and again (and again)?:
12:23 Well, we'd like to have spoken to Diane James herself this afternoon but she refused our request for an interview - unlike her four rivals for the leadership who'd all agreed to talk to PM if they'd won. 
16.22 Mr Crowther, it's lovely to be able to talk to you, and it would have been nice to have been able to hear from Diane James herself, to introduce her to the PM listeners. She refused to come on to our programme. Why do you think that is?
16.46 Because the other four candidates said that they would come on a do a full interview, just as you have, if they won the competition. Has she got something to be scared of by showing herself a lot on the media, because she didn't do hustings, did she, with the other candidates? She didn't really invite the media to too many of her events.
17.30 Stephen Crowther talking to PM...Unlike Diane James, who refused to.
And that last quote ended with a loud tut from Ms Quinn of the BBC. 

PM is obviously very disappointed with Diane James. 

*******

JO'B smiling, as a UKIP AM sucks up to 'Newsnight' over an earlier edition he (JO'B) had presented

Memories of Carolyn Quinn's huff came back to me just now, having watched UKIP's mild-mannered Mark Reckless getting the full James O'Brien treatment on Newsnight

The thought crossed my mind: "Why bother, Mark, with Newsnight (especially if James O'Brien is presenting)? Just boycott it! No one, except me and Ian Katz's missus, watches it anyway."

JO'B did his usual thing. He even ended the interview by tacking on a snide comment about UKIP splits after Mr Reckless had finished speaking, simply in order to have the last word and be seen to get one over on Mr Reckless. He then moved straight on to the next topic, giving the UKIP man no 'right of reply'.

I find that very rude and unprofessional (though many left-wingers on Twitter can't get enough of JO'B's rudeness). It's behaviour frankly befitting a shock-jock and no BBC interviewee should have to put up with that kind of silly prima donna behaviour from a BBC interviewer. 

Wednesday, 31 August 2016

Double standards


The murder of a Polish man, Arkadiusz Jozwik, in Harlow by a gang of young thugs has provoked a good deal of revulsion, and if he was murdered simply because he was Polish then that makes his murder even more despicable. 

Driving home tonight and hearing the horrific news on PM, I noted that PM focused almost exclusively on the possibility of it being a 'hate crime' and what that might mean. I also noted that Carolyn Quinn didn't hesitate to link the possibility of a 'hate crime' to the Brexit debate in her interview with the pro-Remain Conservative MP Robert Halfon, asking:
Are there any grounds to suspect that attacks on [Polish people living in the UK] or bad treatment of those people has intensified as a result of the Brexit debate?
The contrast with how the BBC reports attacks by people shouting 'Allahu Akbar' before committing similarly atrocious murders is striking. 

There they tend, very heavily, to avoid speculating on any such political/religious/racist motives. Here they tread far less cautiously. 

This isn't the first time, of course. The example of the BBC's swift (and heavy) reporting of the 'Britain First!' cry reporting in the murder of Jo Cox, in contrast to their widely-noted reluctance to quote cries of 'Allahu Akbar' in several recent murders (including mass murders) of the continent, shows a ongoing and alarming double standard in the BBC's reporting. 

Saturday, 18 June 2016

On Jo Cox



It's proving hard to take in the horrific murder of Jo Cox, isn't it? 

I'm still struggling to find something helpful to say two days later.

I'd never heard of her before she was killed but, like many, I've been in shock at her murder ever since.

I just keep thinking of the hideous way she was murdered and about her poor children - her three-year-old daughter and five-year-old son. Plus how everyone in politics, from whatever side, seems to have liked her.

And then everyone else piles in with their suffocating agendas and I find myself getting lost again. (I don't cope well with piles).

But it's time to at least try to say something, probably - for what it's worth...

******

I drove home on Thursday listening to the moving reactions to the murder of Mrs Cox from Labour's Joan Walley and the Conservatives' Andrew Mitchell on Radio 4's PM, sensitively handled by Carolyn Quinn.

Then I watched the BBC One News at Six, which did an excellent job. It (and Nick Robinson, who the programme interviewed) managed to convey the sheer horror of what had happened whilst keeping a cool, cautious manner of reporting. It didn't seek to speculate or score points, and even held back from mentioning the 'Britain first' (or 'Britain First') claims then widely circulating in other parts of the media (and on social media).

I then went online. Some of what I read helped. Quite a lot didn't. There were more touching articles in the online newspapers but also quite a lot of unhelpful speculation. 

One thing is certain though: The agenda-pushing started very early. Almost immediately, in fact.

I felt so annoyed by that agenda-pushing that part of me felt like posting about it at the time, but I thought better of it. It would have felt too much like me agenda-pushing. And it was far too soon anyhow.

Former senior Sky journalist Tim Marshall held back a day or so before registering similar feelings of disgust:
Remainers point to the Leave campaign’s dog whistle politics. Leavers now argue that Remainers are politicising the issue to score cheap points. Some people argued that there was a reluctance to call the attack terrorism. All sides have valid arguments but minutes after the confirmation of the death of Jo Cox was not the time to make them.  
Looking back, Tim certainly had a point. A lot of people just couldn't help themselves. The bees in their own bonnets appear to have trumped everything else, including common decency.

******

And so it's gone on: Remainers are still pointing to the Leave campaign's dog whistle politics and Leavers are still arguing that Remainers are politicising the issue to score cheap points.


******

I garnered - from comments on other 'anti-BBC sites' - that the BBC had behaved much more cautiously that day than Sky (and many of the newspapers) when it came to airing speculation about the political motives of the killer.

(Not that any of those comments directly said as much. It was just that all their fire was, for a while, squarely aimed at Sky, the Telegraph, the Guardian, etc. 'BBC bias' was largely forgotten for a few hours).

That matched my experience of what I'd just heard and seen that evening. 

Elsewhere things were falling apart though. The Guardian, on one side, was starting to smear the pro-Brexit side. And Breitbart London, on the other side (and then some), was desperately seeking to discredit the idea that the killer might have far-right links.

Agendas were seriously, disgracefully and very vigorously being pushed....

....and both of those media outlets have continued down their respective paths ever since, to their great discredit.

******

I won't go into to much detail about Polly Toynbee & Co's contributions at the Guardian, about which they should be ashamed of themselves (and regular readers will know what to expect from them), but Breitbart's coverage (which has spread onto other 'anti-BBC sites') has been at least as shameful.

Breitbart's feverish attempts, while Mrs Cox was still breathing, to promote the 'nothing to see here' line regarding the alleged killer's alleged links to the alleged far-right and promote the counter 'it's all about his mental illness' line have been frankly jaw-dropping and appalling.

And after all their desperate 'debunkings' of the mounting evidence that the alleged killer might actually, allegedly, have a far-right distant past and even a far-right recent past - plus his responses in court, "'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain'" -, they've still kept on grimly trying to assert that 'it's all about his mental illness' and that it's everyone else who's biased and behaving shamefully.

It may well be. Or it may not be. The suspect's alleged motivation is for the law to decide now. Accusing others of pre-judging while furiously pre-judging yourself just isn't good though.

And quite a lot of people on our 'wing' on the blogosphere have been doing it just as much of that as those on the opposite 'wing' of the blogosphere. They should all be ashamed of themselves. (Not that any of them will be).

(And Louise Mensch hasn't exactly done herself proud either, railing against the Left for speculating and pre-judging whilst simultaneously speculating and pre-judging herself).

Plus now a surprising large number of the commenters below the line at Breitbart are indulging and furthering disgracing themselves (and their blog) by group-hugging themselves in a crazy 'false flag' conspiracy theory that the EU/Remain murdered Jo Cox to derail the pro-Brexit campaign.

(I'm not joking, I'm afraid. They really have been saying that in large numbers over there.)

It needs to immediately stop - as this piece by Iain Martin makes clear (please click on the link!)

******

As for the BBC, I also watched Thursday and Friday nights' editions of Newsnight and found both of them, taken together, absolutely exemplary. They were duly cautious about things they ought to have been cautious about, and kept sounding those cautions whilst giving voice to various non-controversial and controversial points-of-view from various angles. Their reports were honest and fair. And if Thursday's edition gave more of a platform to those who wanted to push the 'dog whistle politics' line, Friday's edition gave more of a platform to those (including Danny Finkelstein and Douglas Murray) who eloquently dismissed such charges. I was relieved and heartened by Newsnight's behaviour.

******


The one BBC reporter who struck me as seriously letting the BBC down was Mark Easton. His blog was barely distinguishable in content from those articles and tweets from those partisan pro-Remain types who have absolutely disgraced themselves in the past couple of days (like Polly Toynbee):
The phrases "political class", "the establishment" and "the metropolitan elite" are almost routinely deployed to undermine respect for our democratic representatives, for Parliament and for public servants.
Anti-politics is now a recognised force, particularly online.
Social media can be the most antisocial place. Good manners and decency are drowned in a sea of bile and hostility.
The EU referendum campaign has seen the normal rules of political engagement suspended, traditional party lines washed away as supposedly honourable members trade insults and foster contempt.
Facts and expertise are dismissed as self-serving fictions, the cry of "liar!" echoing from both camps.
And with immigration the dominant theme of the referendum debate, there have been moments when the "respect for other cultures" the prime minister wishes to promote has been replaced by statements that sound more like inflammatory xenophobia.
There are, of course, very real concerns about the impact of immigration on our country.
But the rhetoric has shifted from concerns about the phenomenon to the threat from "foreigners".
I have heard it repeatedly from voters on the streets in recent weeks.
It is certainly unedifying and, perhaps, dangerously subversive.
Not that Mark Easton's liberal bias on immigration has ever exactly been well concealed, but here he's being blatant in focusing his criticism on the rhetoric of one side of the present EU argument, and in linking "xenophobia" and the word "unedifying" to the views of "voters on the streets". He's taken us right back to exactly the kind of ultra-biased BBC worldview that various 'repentant' BBC types have kept assuring is now a thing of the past.

He even uses a word I doubt he's ever used before in a BBC article - at least without putting it in heavily inverted commas. He calls such views "perhaps, dangerously subversive".

When was the last time you ever heard/read a BBC reporter describing any contemporary strand of British opinion as "subversive"? I'm betting - like me - you've never heard it before. It's not the BBC way, is it? And, if I may be so bold, m'lud, he's talking about us.

I've not watched the BBC One News at Ten or much else on the News Channel so I don't know if it's true, as I've read elsewhere, that Mark Easton was the BBC journalist most eager to report the 'Britain first' claims - i.e. to push the political angle to the murderous attack. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that was the case though.

******

Today's I've watched Dateline London and listened to Any Questions

Dateline focused on the Mark Easton/Polly Toynbee angle. Fortunately leading Brexit campaigner Alex Deane was on and argued robustly - and admirably (to my mind) - against that angle - and against the combined onslaught of Marc Roche and Stephanie Baker and BBC presenter Gavin Esler - and, albeit much less strongly, Brian O'Connell (who tried to strike a middle way between them and, unusually, found himself in the line of fire for so doing).

Alex took it in good spirit though:


It's well worth catching up with, if your blood pressure will stand it. It will make you think.

And talking of threats to your blood pressure...

Any Questions, in reaction to the killing of Mrs Cox, was an audience-free studio discussion. It featured Polly Toynbee and Max Hastings (both Remain), and Claire Fox and Peter Oborne (both Leave). It's also well worth listening to.

Polly, as ever, was the biggest threat to my blood pressure. She railed about the wickedness of one side of the EU referendum debate but I note she didn't answer Claire Fox's point about the demonisation of Nigel Farage, UKIP and UKIP supporters from her side.

I had that in mind especially because of a point from Sarah AB at Harry's Place regarding Alex Massie's original piece at the Spectator all-but-smearing Mr Farage with a charge of culpability for the murder of Jo Cox: How would the likes of Mr Massie (and Polly Toynbee) feel if Nigel Farage was assassinated by a far-left extremist, 'as a result of' all the hatred aimed at him?

Jonathan Dimbleby controlled the discussion fairly, though his own contributions clearly placed him as not being on Claire Fox and Peter Oborne's side (and he embarrassed Max Hastings too). Though he wasn't too biased, I'd put him as clearly 'pro-Establishment' and 'pro-Remain' on this evidence (unsurprisingly).

******

Sorry. I know this isn't a post that gets anywhere close to doing justice to any of the issues at hand, but it's all I can manage. Whether 'something' is better than 'nothing' I'll let you judge. 

Saturday, 19 March 2016

Continuing to keep tabs on 'The World Tonight'


Following on from last week's survey of the EU referendum coverage on Radio 4's The World Tonight, here's a review of this week's editions of the programme - following the same pattern.

******

The Monday 14 March edition featured an interview with former U.S. assistant secretary of state under President Obama, P.J. Crowley. Mr Crowley discussed whether the U.S. president should intervene in the debate and put the administration's position: that they are happy with the current make-up of the European Union, especially given the current challenges arising from the migrant crisis. The status quo would help the EU "work through these issues":
From a U.S. standpoint, having fought two world wars in Europe in the last century it recognises the unique value that the European Union has in terms of collective security, collective leadership, and how that has - at least up until now - damped down the issues of nationalism that have embroiled the world - and the United States - in conflicts in the past.
I think that results in a...

Bias conclusion: Pro-Remain

******

The Wednesday 16 March edition featured a report from Ritula Shah in Germany on the theme of "So how is the referendum being viewed among those Brits who live in other EU countries?" 

As I wrote about the Monday 29 February edition, which did much the same, "The choice of subject was highly favourable to the 'Remain' side, as it's one of their chosen themes - the threat to the ex-pat community of a Brexit".

Ritula talked to four British ex-pats living in Berlin about what's "worrying" them, and the words "worrying" and "worried" kept cropping up, It's "the uncertainty", said one.  They like the quality of life they're experiencing living there. and they fear they could lose it. One has taken out a second passport; another applied for a British passport. One said she feels "European" and likes the idea of not being tied to a single state. Another described an 'Out' vote as "foolhardy". Three of them aren't allowed to vote as they've been away from the UK for over 15 years. They feel "aggrieved" about that, as they can't "have their say" on something that's going to effect them "both personally and professionally". One, who have benefited from 'free movement' as an EU citizen, feels "disenfranchised". 

That adds up to a clear result:

Bias conclusion: Pro-Remain

*****

The Thursday 17 March edition was given over to an EU referendum special. 

Its angle was to compare perspectives on the referendum in Germany and the UK - focusing on the twinned towns of Freiburg and Guildford.

First, came Ritula Shah's report from Freiburg. 

We heard from members of Freiburg's Anglo-German Society: pro-English Germans and British ex-pats (again). As Ritula said, they are "overwhelmingly against the UK leaving the European Union". Three of them gave their "messages" to the British public asking us not to leave the EU.  

The issue next arose during a section on Freiburg's response to the migrant crisis. We heard briefly from a member of the AfD. Ritula introduced him as being from an "anti-immigrant party" with "links to the far-right". He said that every EU country should hold a referendum like the UK's. He was 'balanced' by someone introduced as a "historian" who said that Germany embraced the EU to "escape from their own identity" after the war. ("Europe is a way of acquiring a second identity which is less full of bad memories and the German identity.")

Then it was back to the Anglo-German Society and their calls for the UK to stay in the EU. 

Next came Carolyn Quinn's report from Guildford. 

We heard first from an economist who loves Guildford and described the place for listeners. He made a point about the UK continuing to do well if we left the EU, so I'm guessing he's pro-Leave. The owner of a technical research park said companies like his "universally feel we should remain in the EU". He was openly pro-Remain. A lady from a local civic society said although she's "always believed in Europe and the EU" but is now "sitting on the fence". She can't make up her mind, Another lady said we should "definitely leave", as did her Swedish friend. (They didn't give any reasons). A reporter on the local newspaper then gave his overview on how the debate has been going in the area. 

Next Carolyn discussed the issue with two sets of people who have links to Freiburg and are engaged it activities that show the value of that co-operation (points she kept making).

First she went to a local choral society, which sometimes performs with musicians from the German town. Three members of the choir gave their views on the issue. All were pro-EU and pro-Stay and made clear points in favour of the EU. 

Then she went to the twinning association and discussed the issue with two members who hold opposing views on the matter. The passionately pro-EU man made several extended, specific points in favour of 'Stay'. The anti-EU man didn't really make many points at all. 

Then it was back to Ritula Shah, now in Berlin for an extended joint interview with three Germans to consider "how Germans are viewing the ongoing debate in the UK and the possibility that the British may vote to leave"

The panel consisted of: Ralph Brinkhaus from the CDU, Hans-Olaf Henkel from (the British Conservative-aligned) Alliance for Progress and Renewal (ALFA) and Almut Möller of the European Council on Foreign Relations. 

All three of them want the UK to remain in the EU. 

(Though Mr Henkel was introduced as a "Eurosceptic", he's clearly a Eurosceptic in the same way that many pro-Remain UK Conservatives are Eurosceptics. He's in favour of reforming the EU and wants the UK to stay in the EU to help people like him change it from the inside.)

Because of the angling of the programme and because of its heavy dominance by pro-Remain voices, this edition of The World Tonight must also be judged... 

Bias conclusion: Pro-Remain

******
   
This week's editions of The World Tonight have shown a particularly pronounced bias towards the 'Remain' side.

Since the referendum was declared then, I now make it 8 editions with a pro-Remain bias and 1 edition with a pro-Leave bias. (3 editions were considered 'impossible to call').

Saturday, 9 January 2016

How to Make a Brexit Sound Fiendishly Complicated



There have been two detailed critiques of Carolyn Quinn's 40-minute Radio 4 documentary How to Make a Brexit this week. 

The first comes from Dr Richard North at EU Referendum, but I'll pass over that and move straight onto David Keighley's more engaging take at The Conservative Woman

The first point to draw from David's piece is that in all his time (16 years) of monitoring the BBC's output he's never come across a dedicated programme on the subject of what leaving the EU would involve - which is a remarkable thing when you think about it, unless you think that the BBC has been consistently biased in favour of the EU for so long that it never crossed its mind to seriously consider airing the possibility. 

Having listened to the documentary before reading either critique, I can see the truth of David's argument here, which is that the programme appeared to be projecting a message here: that leaving the EU would be scarily difficult. 

I can see it because I remember myself thinking at the time that the whole thing (leaving the EU) sound very complicated. So it had even worked on me!  

Take a look at the transcription at News-watch. You can see for yourself, again and again, how the idea that leaving the EU would be a matter of unprecedented complexity is planted again and again - and not just from the pro-EU speakers.

I was, of course, listening out for the balance of speakers, which sounded OK to me; however, David's analysis of the programme shows that appearance of balance, speaker-wise, to have been a spurious one statistically-speaking: a word count shows that 1,200 words went to the pro-EU side and just 800 to the Eurosceptic side.

David's other argument is that the pro-EU speakers were given the space and edited so as to make them sound "coherent and persuasive" in arguing that leaving the EU is scary and difficult while the Eurosceptic side were "fragmented and edited" in such a way as to serve the programme's purpose. "If they provided Quinn with any clear argument in favour of exist, they were not obvious to the listener", he adds.

This is clearly going to a year when BBC bias watchers are going to have to keep their eyes wide open.

Monday, 27 July 2015

Mish-mash

Friday’s Any Questions was a bit of an embarrassment.  The audience continually applauded Michael Morpurgo, the children’s author who often dresses, head-to-toe, in incompatible shades of red.  It must have been a ‘pre-red’ day when he posed for the photo shown on Richard Millett’s blog in 2012 entitled  “War Horse writer Michael Morpurgo: Israel shoots Palestinian children “like a video game”
His views are pretty child-like and saccharine sweet, so when Dimbleby revealed that the A.Q. had taken place in an Exeter F.E. college, I deduced that the audience might have been disproportionately youthful.  
 The rest of the panel didn’t go down very well with that audience. (Robert Halfon, Frank Field and Claire Fox.) Strange, that. Claire Fox has a grating voice. Perhaps a nice gargle with hot lemon and honey or something. 

************

I heard an announcement on the radio the other day; they’ve developed a bionic eye to treat cyclops. 
I didn’t realise cyclopses were that common - I did know they had one eye, but it was a bit of a surprise that someone thought it worthwhile developing a bionic eye to treat it. 
I knew the actual cyclops is a mythical creature and momentarily wondered if ‘cyclops’ is a politically incorrect term for people with one eye, perhaps in the middle.  
But, err, they wouldn’t use slang like that on the BBC. Then I realised the treatment was for sight-loss, not cyclops. 
See? Not so stupid after all - perhaps a slight hearing loss.

*********

I saw Mark Gatiss on the Andrew Marr show. Not that I’m a fan of Sherlock, but I did think Gatiss was gratifyingly sinister as the vet on League of Gentlemen who accidentally did away with most of his patients. Part of the humour was because as soon as he appeared on the screen you knew what was coming. I liked that even though it’s excruciating.
When Andrew Marr asked him something of a political nature, Mark Gatiss confessed that he saw himself as more of a pub philosopher than an expert on politics. I wish more celebrities had such admirable self-awareness. In fact I wish we all had that quality. To preempt the obvious, that includes me myself and I.

*********

Following Oskar Gröning’s  four year prison sentence, Eva Kor spoke to Carolyn Quinn on R4, PM, 15/07/2015. (Scroll to 37:01.) 
I thought Carolyn Quinn’s tone was quite disrespectful and irritable.
She seemed to think her role was to pit Efraim Zuroff’s desire to prosecute Nazi criminals against Eva Kor’s forgiveness, asking in harsh tones why Eva allowed that hug, and why she disagreed with the prison sentence. 


I understood that Efraim Zuroff believes Nazis like Gröning should still be brought to justice even though he is 94 years old. I took it that he was advocating the principle of a trial and the guilty verdict itself, not the sentence specifically. I may be wrong, but his views did not seem incompatible with Eva Kor’s personal feelings or her allusions to the futility of the prison sentence and the missed educational benefit that a more creative approach to the sentencing might have offered.


Carolyn Quinn seemed to be trying to create a controversy, but  Eva Kor put Ms Quinn firmly in her place with eloquence and clarity.  
BBC presenters are rarely in a position to judge others or talk to them in intimidating tones. Despite Carolyn Quinn’s palpable disapproval, Eva Kor spoke up for herself in a manner few of us would have been able to match.

******* 

Did you hear Liz Kendall talking to Mishal Husain on Today on Saturday morning? (Scroll to 1:49)
Not necessarily talking to’, but talking at the same time as. Kendall refused to give way, so when Husain tried to chip in, they continued speaking in unison. 
Has a mechanical intervention occurred? Maybe Liz Kendall has been possessed by a robotic alter ego, which mistook the Today programme for Just a Minute. (The original Liz Kendall is bound and gagged in a dark, dank cellar.) Call Tuppence and Walliams immediately!
  
The automaton Liz Kendall talked expressionlessly for minutes on end, without hesitation.  Awesome. The whistle was a long time coming, despite much repetition and deviation. Once she got going there was little hesitation; breaths were taken mid sentence and a stream of words poured forth, sometimes over and above Mishal Husain’s attempted interjections (and she was only trying to ask a question, as is the tradition in the ‘interview’ format.)

If you thought the trailing one should stand her ground, and prevent the others from taking advantage of left-over votes to strengthen Yvette or Andy’s battle with the radical left, then you might see that peculiar performance as a sign that you were wrong. I’ve noticed that both the real and the robot versions of Liz Kendall have started to communicate in joined-up cliche. They should let elfin Yvette have a go. She has a bright “i’m more intelligent than you think” appeal.

*********

Isn’t it weird how some people seem to get on the radio or the TV and no-one knows how? They’re people you’re supposed to have heard of, but you haven’t. One of these is Arthur Smith. People say he’s a comedian, but nobody ever says where or when he did the comedy. Another one is Rory McGrath. He appears, but nobody even knows why. He seems to have something wrong with his adenoids.
The other one, JP Devlin, is banned from this household. This is why I never discuss Saturday Live. I don’t know who JP Devlin is, but I know his voice is incompatible with the act of listening to the radio. 
As JP would say, “Who do you not actually know why they’re on the box?” 
  

******

Saturday, 11 April 2015

Complaining about 'PM' - A Cautionary Tale




Please brace yourselves for a very long post, but as we've been quiet for a few days (for various reasons)...


You may recall a post we did recently about an edition of Radio 4's PM (3 April) where UKIP appeared to be on the receiving end of an unusually high number of attacks (well, unusual for a single edition of a BBC current affairs programme during a general election that is.)

You may also recall Rod Liddle's take on the same programme at the Spectator:
I caught Radio 4 PM programme on the way home, on Friday. Its coverage of the debate consisted of taking three statements made during the debate and subjecting them to what they called statistical scrutiny. All three statements came from Nigel Farage and all three statements were deemed inaccurate by some supercilious bint. 
No other leader was subjected to similar scrutiny and even if the supercilious bint’s figures were correct, the points Farage made still pertained. (In other words, for example, while Farage said the vast majority of people obtaining new HIV treatment in the UK were health tourists, the supercilious bint pointed out this was only 54 per cent. And that some of those had every right to treatment etc, and might come from rich countries like the USA. Where of course they would have to pay for treatment, or have the requisite insurance, she failed to add.)
There was another dig at UKIP later in this execrable programme, during a piece of staggeringly unfunny “whimsy” about rail replacement bus services. I think I shall listen to PM each day until the election and monitor its commitment to fairness and impartiality. And then never, ever, listen to it again.
****

So, choosing the 'Bias' category [the one the BBC seems to like least], I put in the following complaint:
I wish to complain about the appalling level of anti-UKIP bias on PM on 3rd April.
Why did Ruth Alexander and Eddie Mair's review of the use of statistics during the leaders' debate begin with Nigel Farage, continue with Nigel Farage and end with Nigel Farage? Why were all of his facts found to be faulty? There were a lot of dodgy statistics used by all the party leaders, so why just pick on Nigel Farage?
Also, why did Carolyn Quinn's report from Hastings and Rye mention that the previous UKIP candidate there has been disgraced and forced to step down?
And why did Chris Mason's run-through of the spin from all the political parties in the debate omit UKIP's response?
And, finally, why was Guardian writer Gareth McLean's piece allowed to contain a negative assertion about the dangers of UKIP entering a coalition government?
This was on onslaught against UKIP and surely completely out-of-order during a general election. Please could this bias be dealt with as soon as possible and some redress given to UKIP.

****

The newly-arrived reply from the BBC Complaints department runs as follows:
Thank you for contacting us about ‘PM’ as broadcast on 3rd April 2015.
I understand you’re unhappy with the programme as you feel it was bias against UKIP on a number of occasions.
I appreciate your frustration with this and have reviewed the segment so as to provide further context with which to address your concerns however it should be noted PM is a very well known programme and it’s expected there will be political analysis and discussion on various aspects of the political arena.
I wish to stress BBC journalists are well aware of our commitment to impartial reporting and they are expected to put their own political views to one side when carrying out their work for the BBC.
That said it is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes and our editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area.
More importantly the BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view and it seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience.
In your correspondence you mention Ruth Alexander and Eddie Mair’s discussion regarding political statistics and you feel it was bias to mention only Nigel Farage however I should note Eddie Mair did support Farage with the statement ‘Well maybe he was not far off the point. Does that mean 54% are health care tourists?’. Furthermore they both come to the conclusion that Nigel’s statistics that one house needs to be built every seven minutes to cope with immigration was relatively correct.
Eddie also points out that anyone in the public can get facts checked, on any party, through BBC More or Less via Twitter.
You have also stated ‘Carolyn Quinn's report from Hastings and Rye mention that the previous UKIP candidate there has been disgraced and forced to step down’ however upon review Carolyn did not use the term ‘disgraced’.
Rather she explained Andrew Michael was chosen after the previous candidate was deselected and he is well known for his appearance on Gogglebox and we feel this is an accurate and fair explanation of the latest addition to the political arena in Hastings and Rye.
It should be noted the report also commented extensively of the Conservative candidate Amber Rudd, who we heard comment from and Sarah Owen of the Labour Party and it is common place when discussing the political climate of a constituency to include comments from a number of political candidates as was done in this case.
In reference to the comments made by Gareth McLean regarding a Conservative-UKIP coalition, you feel they were unfair and unnecessary and I’m sorry if Gareth’s attempts at humour fell short of the mark.
Throughout the segment Gareth mentioned many pop culture references and many socially recognised faux pas or clichés in an attempt to report on rail replacement bus services with somewhat dry and loquacious humour.
I sorry the report did not meet your expectations and rest assured your feedback is very important to us. As such I have placed your concerns on an overnight report which is a document that is made available to senior staff, programme editors and news teams across the BBC. This means your comments can be seen quickly and can be consulted in future broadcasting and policy decisions.
Thanks again for getting in touch.
Kind regards
BBC Complaints
****


The BBC clearly gave a reasonable amount of time and effort to answering my complaint, which is re-assuring, and some of it makes sense to me...

...however, I don't think their answers were entirely satisfactory. And I shall explain why here.

****

My complaint came in four parts.

****

Part One had an ABA structure. (In other words, I repeated myself somewhat!):
Why did Ruth Alexander and Eddie Mair's review of the use of statistics during the leaders' debate begin with Nigel Farage, continue with Nigel Farage and end with Nigel Farage? Why were all of his facts found to be faulty? There were a lot of dodgy statistics used by all the party leaders, so why just pick on Nigel Farage? 
The BBC's answer, you will note, only tackled the 'B section' ("Why were all of his facts found to be faulty?") and didn't give an answer as to why, specifically, on the post-leaders' debate edition of PM, only UKIP' Nigel was picked on. 

The BBC respondent was right, however, to note that Eddie raised a counter-point over health tourism which appeared to offer Nigel some support...

...though he fails to mention that Ruth Alexander then subsequently poured several further buckets of cold water over it. 

Plus, the BBC respondent was also correct to note that Ruth's detailed and emphatic rubbishing of (around) four 'Farage facts' was then followed by one final stat which she found to be (as the BBC respondent puts it) 'relatively correct'...

...though the BBC respondent is simply wrong to claim that "both [Eddie and Ruth] come to the conclusion" about that being "relatively correct", as Eddie said absolutely nothing to back that statement up. [Please listen for yourselves to confirm that]. 

However, on the question of not answering my 'A section'...

Well, the (cookie-cutter) preliminary comments about the BBC's stance on impartiality...(more dots!)...

...[it's "not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes" & BBC editors are "charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area"]...

...were, probably, taken (by the BBC respondent) to sufficiently answer the "Why just pick on Nigel Farage?" question. 

Having heard a fair few of these More or Less spots on PM I'm aware that other parties are (of course) the targets for regular statistical debunking too, but I've noticed lots of light and shade and frequent features investigating stats from two or three parties at one sitting. This feature simply hammered away at one party, almost entirely to the disadvantage of that party (UKIP). 

My complaint should probably have established that context. 

And I should have made much clearer the point that this edition was somewhat different, context-wise. It was the post-leaders' debate edition. 

Given that event's (apparent) singular importance, it should surely have been incumbent on the BBC to focus on the dodgy stats from a range of party leaders, so, in that context, why only pick on Nigel?



****

Part Two asked a single question: 
Also, why did Carolyn Quinn's report from Hastings and Rye mention that the previous UKIP candidate there has been disgraced and forced to step down? 
The BBC Complaints respondent enlightened me on the need to give different parties a platform during an election [well, blow me down with a feather! Who knew?!] and picked up on my misuse of the word "disgraced", correctly pointing out that it wasn't used by Carolyn Quinn. 

And the report did - as he says - merely use the word "deselected". 

Fair points.

He also told me that Carolyn's mentioning of the fact that the UKIP candidate appeared on Channel 4 reality show Gogglebox was fair because he's well-known for appearing on it. 

Fair point too. 

However, to be equally fair, (a) I didn't complain about Gogglebox - except here at ITBB - so that's completely irrelevant! and (b) it still leaves totally unanswered the point I was trying to make (ineptly, as it turns out): that there was no obvious need to mention that the previous UKIP candidate had been either "disgraced" or "deselected". 

Still, that's a reminder to always quote correctly when complaining to the BBC. Any failure to do so will be picked up on and used in evidence against you (and rightly so). 

****

Part Three also posed a single question: 
And why did Chris Mason's run-through of the spin from all the political parties in the debate omit UKIP's comments? 
I should have spelled out the point that only UKIP and Plaid were not heard from in this package. All the other five parties were featured, all saying how great they'd done. Ergo, UKIP was hard done-by. QED. [Ignoring Plaid!]

You will have noticed though - regardless of the intrinsic quality of my complaint - that this question was completely ignored by the BBC Complaints department. They simply didn't answer it. 

A bit naughty?

****


And, finally, Part Four was no less of a single question: 
And, finally, why was Guardian writer Gareth McLean's piece allowed to contain a negative assertion about the dangers of UKIP entering a coalition government? 
The BBC respondent sympathised with me for not getting Gareth's humour and explained to me what his piece was trying to achieve. I'm grateful. [For any passing non-Brits, that's an example of British irony.]

Unfortunately, he didn't answer the question I actually asked.  

Now, you may think it was an unreasonable question anyhow - and, as Lord Dobbs would say, I couldn't possibly comment - but, still, the point was skirted here by the BBC Complaints department, wasn't it? 

****

Conclusions: This complaint got nowhere.

The BBC really doesn't like dealing with complaints about 'Bias' and, I'd say, selecting 'Bias' from the drop-down list on the Complaints website is a fairly sure-fire way to ensure your complaint will be looked at very unsympathetically by the BBC.

However, if you don't select 'Bias' the BBC's stats will show one less complaint about bias.

I wasn't wholly convinced by my own complaint anyhow - though it, hopefully, raised some important points. Enough people (at the Spectator and Biased BBC), however, were outraged enough by this edition of PM to make it an interesting exercise in testing out the BBC's response.

The BBC Complaints Department guy did the best he could here, I think. He made the general points about balancing things out over time (which I fully accept). He spotted my slip and made use of it against me. He didn't answer the parts that the BBC didn't want to answer.

However, there were some slips on his part too - and a certain slipperiness overall that, from my experience, is all part and parcel of the BBC Complaints process...

...though it shouldn't be.

Friday, 20 March 2015

Islamic State: The liberal-left's take (via the BBC)



Tonight's PM discussed Islamic State and its seemingly relentless advance, with gruesome terrorist IS attacks in recent days in Libya, Tunisia and Yemen. 

I made notes...and, for the sake of not wasting them, here they are...

To my mind Islamic State is now a (terrorist) state, no longer 'so-called', indubitably Islamic, and Iran-like in its exporting of terrorism and Nazi Germany-like in its viciousness, genocidal instincts and sheer evil...(please feel free to disagree)... 

Strongly left-wing but often astute Independent columnist Patrick Cockburn was one of the guests on PM. The other was liberal U.S. academic Jessica Stern from Harvard University. It was a classic BBC left-liberal BBC discussion.

As you do (if you're a blogger about BBC bias), I looked up Jessica. She's even got her own Wikipedia entry, which quotes Dateline London regular (and leftist) Isabel Hilton singing her praises:
According to the review by Isabel Hilton in The New York Times, in Terror in the name of God, Stern interviews "Christian, Jewish and Muslim extremists, violent anti-abortion warriors and admirers of Timothy McVeigh, and discovers how much they have in common. Nothing she finds leads the reader to suppose that any of the religious faiths is inherently more prone to violence than the other.
Oh yeah? The perfect BBC expert it seems! (For more, confirming that fact, from the Huff Post (where she writes), please see here).

So much for the set-up...

BBC presenter Carolyn Quinn began by quoting from Patrick Cockburn's latest piece where he said that U.S. airstrikes have failed to diminish Islamic State.

PC said, in response, that ISIS controls an area the size of Great Britain, that it's conscripting from the six million people it rules, and that it's become "a magnet for jihadis from all over the region" [yeah, and from the United Kingdom too]. He thinks it will go on until it's defeated, "and there's very little sign of that at the moment".


Carolyn asked Jessica Stern if Islamic State was going to spread to southern Europe. Jessica said they are trying to bring that about and that (a) they aim to "goad the West into fighting them in Syria" and (b) they aim to inspire people [of an unspecified but guessable nature] "to carry out attacks at home on their behalf, in their name".

"Should the West intervene in place like Libya?", asked Carolyn. Jessica said that the Libyan government is requesting arms to stop ISIS making their way to Europe, but then deferred to Patrick for his view. 

Patrick said he doesn't think there's a solution at the moment and that there are seven wars going on between the Pakistan border and northern Nigeria. He thinks it's difficult to contain Islamic State and that the "attention-grabbing atrocities" we've seen in recent days "aren't that difficult to carry out if you have somebody who's completely fanatical and willing to get killed. It doesn't require great expertise to murder a lot of people praying, or a lot of people in a museum".

Carolyn suggested this meant "impotence" in the face of "this ungoverned space across the Mediterranean". 

Patrick said the West and its allies could have done more, that the opposition to IS is "disunited", that there's "no focus", and that there's "very little sign of it being defeated". Even IS defectors say it's well organised, he said. 

Carolyn asked about the spread of its appeal. Jessica Stern talked of the "grievances" of Sunnis, which is (she said) "what's making for ready recruits and failed states"...
...and also, unfortunately, this is just has just become a really faddish way to express dissatisfaction with the status quo. People who want to re-invent themselves, not even necessarily Muslims [er, yes, Muslims...100% Muslim], converts [yes, that's better, Jessica. Did you 'misspeak'?], are susceptible to the lure of this sort of canned ideology. It's a way to express unhappiness, a way to...a desire for change, either in one's personal life or political life. We need to address the ideology as well as its military presence.
Carolyn then asked Patrick Cockburn, "it's not a passing fad, that's the problem?" 

PC said, 
It's much more than a fad. It certainly does attract discontented people all over the region - a region that's full of people who have very little to lose, who are very poor, who have no jobs, who feel they have been failed by their governments. So it's going to attract all these people. I think that the hope that it's all going to go in the way that it's going to go in a way...that it's going to implode is very much wishful thinking. It's just, they haven't really organised a systematic assault on the Islamic State that they ought to do.
I'm not at all sure what this means in terms of 'BBC bias', despite the left-liberal nature of PM's invitation list. I'd be grateful for any assistance here.

Friday, 13 March 2015

Dog Whistles, UKIP, and the BBC



It's hard to keep a clear head sometimes when trying to write about party politics. After all, few people are disinterested observers.

(Declaration: I'm very sympathetic to UKIP but will almost certainly be voting Conservative to keep out an Israel-hating, Charlie Hebdo-disrespecting (Muslim) Labour candidate imposed from afar. The bookies are tipping her to win in Morecambe.)

BBC presenters/reporters, however, are meant to pull off the conjuring trick of appearing disinterested. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't.

I don't think Carolyn Quinn and Norman Smith pulled it off on last night's The World Tonight on Radio 4. (However, as I'm not a disinterested party, you'll probably have to listen for yourselves and form your own judgements.) They were discussing the Nigel Farage/Equality Legislation furore. 

I'd say that the sneering tone of Carolyn's introduction (at Nigel's expense) was undeniable. Plus, I'd say that Carolyn's commentary and use of clips clearly set Nigel up for a fall (in her listeners' ears). And that Carolyn and Norman jointly and vigorously pushed the theme of UKIP "back-pedalling" and that Carolyn raised the "dog-whistle" point and Norman (reacting to Carolyn's own dog-whistle) leaped and said (in paraphrase) that Nigel Farage would deny it's "dog whistle politics", "BUT"....oh, it's only appealing to the core UKIP vote...and we all know that "dog whistle politics" implies, don't we?

Was this biased reporting or accurate reporting? Or a mixture of both? (I suspect the latter).

However, this discussion was then followed by a couple of further features which made the overall bias seem much stronger: (a) a sequence of vox pops from Brixton (courtesy of ITBB favourite Beth McLeod) who strongly rejected Nigel's point that Britain is now largely colour-blind and (b) an academic, Rob Ford (whose Twitter feed tells you where he's coming from), who was no less in disagreement with Mr Farage.

Impartial? I don't think so. 

Sunday, 30 June 2013

'PM' With a Vengeance


Time for another trawl through a week's worth of Radio 4's PM.

Maybe the apocalyptic imagery used in last week's post was nearer the mark than might have been expected given that Eddie Mair seems to have vanished off the face of the earth, Rapture-like, and that we poor sinners were 'left behind' with Carolyn Quinn and Jane Garvey (the 'two beasts'?) Or maybe Eddie was just on holiday. Occam's Razor suggests that the Rapture is the likelier explanation. Anyhow, the programme seemed duller without him.

Oh, and Ritula Shah turned up on Saturday. You can always tell it's her by the way she says 'Afghanistan', 'Taleban' or 'Pakistan'. She suddenly turns from posh English to ethnic South Asian, then reverts straight back to posh English again.

Is there lots of match-winning evidence of BBC bias here? You'll have to read all the way through to find out (yeah, like you're going to do that!!) - and even then you'll have to make your own mind up.



Saturday 30/6


1. Armed Forces Day: David Cameron says we should talk to the Taleban


The BBC's Caroline Wyatt was the PM (for PM) in Camp Bastion for Armed Forces Day. She spoke to two soldiers serving there first, both of whom have just become fathers. She asked them what Armed Forces Day means for them? They appreciate it.

Then we heard a clip from an interview between the BBC's Carole Walker and David Cameron. Carole asked the PM what British people would make of us talking to the very people who have been responsible for the deaths of so many British soldiers and whether the withdrawal of Western troops would be seen by the Taleban as an opportunity to re-seize power one way or another. Both reasonable questions, I would say.

Then the programme discussed the comments of  Lieutenant General Nick Carter, deputy commander of the Nato-led coalition, who told The Guardian that it would have been more successful to have negotiated with the Taleban in 2002. Ritula Shah discussed it with Sir William Patey, former ambassador to Afghanistan, asking him if he agreed with Lt Gen Carter. He didn't really. He said he's not so sure it was a missed opportunity. It was a victor's peace at the time and the Taleban would have been unlikely to have been there to talk to even if we'd wanted to talk to them. He said that hindsight's a great thing but there's no use dwelling on the past and we are where we are. [Quite!] A political settlement now, however, is urgent but all those criticising the Western and Afghan governments for tardiness are forgetting the Taleban's extreme reluctance to negotiate and the divisions within the Taleban that are exacerbating that. This was in response to a question from Ritula suggesting that the Taleban's reluctance to negotiate is a stumbling block. [A BBC interviewer laying the blame on the Taleban - whatever next!] Sir William thinks the Taleban are awaiting the outcome of the 2014 Afghan presidential election to see who they will be dealing with, rather than dealing with someone who won't be around much longer. He then agreed with Ritula's point that part of the problem in Afghanistan is that we took our eye off the ball during the Iraq War.


2. President Obama pays tribute to Nelson Mandela on a visit to S. Africa

...or as President Zuma put it, the first black presidents of their respective countries. Mike Wooldridge of the BBC reported on the tribute and on the latest news of the ailing former leader.  Over the backdrop of a choir singing an uplifting and beautifully-harmonised song, the BBC man said "Choirs pass by to offer a haunting, spine-tingling backdrop to the many ways people come here [the hospital] to show their support for Mr Mandela...." No discordant notes were heard from either the choir or Mike Wooldridge.

Then Ritula talked to Richard Dowden of the Royal Africa Society about U.S.-South African relations. He described the uneasiness that resulted when the Soviet-allied communists largely took over the ANC in the 1960s and '70s. The West said they didn't like apartheid but were "very unwilling" to impose sanctions or help the ANC, with America passing a law to prevent ANC members from coming to the U.S., regarding them as terrorists. American trade with Africa is around a $120 billion a year whilst China's trade with Africa is £166 billion this year. China's advantage is that it doesn't criticise African leaders over human rights, he said. President Obama is concentrating on trade and smoothing over the past history, but the ANC leadership still speaks in those old revolutionary terms. [That doesn't bode well for the future, does it?]


3. Floods in India

The effects of the deadly floods in northern India continue, with many thousands still stranded and some 3,000 people missing. The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder reported on the devastation there. A rescued British tourist describes how local villagers came to his aid and praises their resilience and kindness.


4. Heart problems and pain-killers

The medicines regulator the MRHA had told people with heart problems to stop using diclofenac, an anti-inflammatory drug. Dr Sarah Branch of the MRHA was interviewed to explain why. She says it's not a new risk and that they've been advising this for some time, but a new review has confirmed the risk.


5. Wimbledon


Laura Robson goes through. The BBC's Alison Mitchell tells Ritula all about it.



Friday 28/6


1. Ian Brady loses his tribunal bid to be transferred back to prison

The BBC's Judith Moritz reported. Jane Garvey then said, "Well some have questioned the cost of Brady's hospital treatment. One Tory MP said this week, 'He should rot in jail'." Instead of having that debate though, she asked a clinical psychologist at Ashworth, Mike Berry, whether the right decision has been made (i.e. to keep him at Ashworth). Unsurprisingly, he said 'yes'. They then discussed whether it's possible to fake mental illness, and whether Brady was doing so. The tribunal procedure was then explained. It's extremely rare for it to be public, he said. There's only been one other example of a public tribunal. So why has Brady's been public? Because he wanted it to be. He's enjoying the massive publicity he's getting, said Dr Berry. [Well, yes, and PM might have been making him even happier by making him their lead story. Still, could they really have done anything else?] 


2. Arrests have been made at the Vatican bank

The BBC's Rome correspondent David Willey gave us the background and updated us on the news. Pope Francis is getting tough, apparently. David likes Pope Francis. So much more his cup of Catholic tea than Pope Benedict.

[Away from PM, I see that Damian Thompson of the Telegraph, who adopted a 'Don't panic!' position when Pope Francis was elected, chiding his fellow Catholic traditionalists for their worries about the new pope, seems to be panicking now. I had a feeling this moment would come. Damian has been quiet about the new pope for a while now, after his first burst of self-willed enthusiasm].


3. Performance data for individual surgeons published

So far it's only vascular surgeons in England, but there's much more to come. "But as ever with statistics they might not be quite a simple as they seem", said Jane. She spoke to More or less creator Michael Blastland about them.

Michael Blastland thinks it's good that the NHS is publishing this information. We can see, for example, that some surgeons are performing hundreds of these operations and they have "an extraordinarily low" mortality rate....BUT "the problem with them is, in a word, chance." He cites one surgeon who appeared on the front page of The Daily Mail whose run of fatalities was purely down to a chance grouping within a long line of otherwise successful operations. As this surgeon did a lot of operations it's statistically quite probable that such a short runs will arise by chance - a run that can look "incriminating" to a casual observer (or to casual reporters at The Daily Mail). So these figures need to take into account the number of operations a surgeon is carrying out: Some only carry out a few; some carry out hundreds.

Then there's the complexity of the operations or the initial state of the patient. Risk adjustment is needed, as the severity of the patient's condition isn't factored into today's figures. So some surgeons will deal regularly with patients in a bad condition while others will deal with easier cases. Part of that might again be down to chance. At the other end, some surgeons who do very few operations and have no mortalities might look great but aren't necessarily the people you'd want to go to. A superficial, "spurious league table" use of these statistics would be a bad thing, said Michael Blastland - damaging to individuals and misleading for patients. An interesting piece. 


4. A play about Patrice Lumumba

The BBC's Rebecca Jones reported on the first stating in Britain of a play about the Congolese independence leader who was assassinated in 1961 - A Season in the Congo by négritude pioneer Aimé Césaire (from 1966). 


5. Wimbledon


The latest from Wimbledot.


6. Imams giving a sermon in various mosques around the country about sex and grooming

DJ Nihal was in an Oxford and told Jane about his phone-in show, live from the city today. He said they'd had to move venue three times because the previous venues said they wouldn't talk to them. They'd found it "very, very difficult" to get [Muslim] people to talk about the issue on the radio. One venue pulled out when "a group of men" turned up and told the venue "in no uncertain terms" not to take part. "So clearly there's some way to go to lifting the lid on this, and a lot of secrecy around", he said. The audience who did come were keen to get it across that this culture of secrecy "is endemic". They talked to Councillor Altaf Khan (googling shows him to be a Lib Dem) and Julie Siddiqui of the Islamic Society of Britain. The Lib Dem said religion and race are "irrelevant", while Julie Siddiqui said, no, there's actually a pattern of this type of on-street gang grooming being done by men from a similar background. Audience members supported the view that the [Muslim] men of Cowley Road have dodgy attitudes towards women and sex.

Interestingly, Nihal said it was mostly women speaking. Few men wanted to speak. He said they "seem to be in denial in many ways". He described the Lib Dem councillor as being from the school of "see no, hear no, speak no evil" and said that Julie "gave him a roasting, absolutely annihilated him". You can listen to the whole programme here. There's no doubting whose side Nihal's on! [The right side].


7. The Scottish government is introducing a 5p levy on plastic carrier bags

750 million carrier bags are handed out in Scotland each year - 150 for every man, woman and child. The BBC's David Henderson described the SNP's plans and its reasoning, then outlined the mixed response of shoppers and retailers. The objections of small businesses were described too. The vox pops from a supermarket split 2-1 against.

David said that the number of bags handed out in Wales has dropped by 96% since charging began, and that in the past decade the Republic of Ireland has seen a 90% drop. So "there's some evidence" that it has an effect, he said. [I should say there is, with those percentages!] Jane asked him if he was a bag-for-life man. He sounded a little lost for words at that, then said he took his own bags. [I'm not convinced about that!]


8.  Country v city

A new study comparing rural Wiltshire with S.E. London has found that Newham, London is a more friendly place to live than Devizes. Simon Fisher, deputy chief clerk of Devizes, and Sir Robin Wales, the major of Newham, discussed the matter. Mr Fisher didn't recognise the picture of Devizes being painted. Sir Robin said Newham is "dynamic, young, diverse", and he "likes that sort of thing". "It's the most diverse place in the world for its size and yet 87% of people say we get on well together." Jane asked Simon Fisher if there was much diversity in Devizes. He "had to say" that the town is "predominantly white and predominantly middle-class." (He sounded a little sheepish about that). The diversity in Devizes concerns the range of activities that go on there, he said. Jane says she finds London people "incredibly friendly" "but perhaps because most of us are not from London". Sir Robin praised street parties and free musical tuition, which Newham provides - despite it being "the second most deprived place in the country". [Ahhhhhhh, diversity!!]

It took a fair bit of googling to find the actual report this was based on - it's called Charm Offensive: Cultivating Civility in the 21st Century and it's by the Young Foundation, an organisation that is - in its own words - "determined to make positive social change happen". Its four authors are Phoebe Griffith, Will Norman, Carmel O’Sullivan...and Rushanara Ali, Labour MP for Bethnal and Bow. A London Labour MP helping write a report which finds that people in diverse yet solidly Labour Newham are so much nicer than people in Conservative-voting Devizes, Salisbury, Trowbridge and Cambourne? Hmmm. It always pays to look into such things.

Update: I should also have also checked up on Sir Robin Wales and pointed out that he is, of course, a Labour Party politician.


9. Previously on PM....


'Great to hear Jane Garvey'...a commenter complains about 'geographical ignorance' as it's "perishingly cold" in winter in Spain, so gimme me winter fuel allowance...another says in goes down to -9 in Avignon for days on end, so "why the hell shouldn't I be entitled to my winter fuel allowance?"...a commenter wants "to stick up for the World Service" - "I'm delighted if my licence fee pays for it"..."as a pensioner I strongly object to the World Service being paid for out of my licence fee"...a commenter wants Ian Brady to be allowed to remove himself from this world instead of being kept alive at the taxpayers' expense...Brady's explanations are repulsive, we provide him with an audience, "the do-gooder liberals" are to blame, he should have been hanged...a commenter recalls the 'voices of the departed' series last week...another "really enjoyed it" too...another wondered about the power of smells...a commenter hates a particular 'rogue fork' that stains his shirt...a commenter objects to hearing Pippa Middleton described as "a dignitary"....another calls Pippa "a nobody" (charming!)...bats..."do do enormous damage..."..."I heard the words 'do do'". Snigger...the best way to get bats out of a church is to confirm them!...EU regulations aren't responsible. They're our regulations...Robert Peston: "I used to believe he was the most annoying man on the Beeb. I now believe he should officially be declared a national treasure"..."totally silly but most enjoyable"...another commentator wants to teach him dowsing...another wants his 'I do want to be beside the seaside' released as a mobile phone ring-tone.



Thursday 27/6


1. Five members of Oxford grooming gang sentenced to life in prison

For those who keep an eye on this sort of thing, the news bulletin mentioned that the abusers were "mainly of Pakistani heritage and their victims were white", though nothing in the subsequent reporting that made further reference to this, nor to any possible religious aspects to the case. The BBC's Mike Sergeant reported on the sentencing and the subsequent police and CPS statements. 


2. Danny Alexander announces new infrastructure projects of £100 billion

Jane Garvey discussed this with the BBC's Ross Hawkins, who reported on Danny Alexander's "long plans and big boasts", as he put it, and Labour's response. We also heard a response from a local businessman warmly welcoming one of the announcements. He was "delighted". Jane then interviewed Dr Adam Marshall of the British Chambers of Commerce, who continued to give the business response, saying that businesses "appreciate" the government's middle-term vision but want to see outcomes. "Successive governments" have "a patchy record" he said, saying that civil servants haven't got enough expertise in the area. Plus there's local opposition, etc. Other countries do it faster. Business and the public get frustrated. Speed, urgency and delivery are needed, he said. The A14 and A19 and M20 are his key priorities. 


3. The UK didn't go into a double dip recession last year after all

Stephanie Flanders explained. So, we didn't have three consecutive quarters in a row where the economy shrank over 2011-12 after all. She said that she herself was saying at the time that the economy was "broadly flat" and that the tiny percentages involved always meant that revision was liable to revise away the double dip. The economy wasn't broadly flat; it was "actually flat" - ie 0% growth over consecutive quarters. She said that's what economists like herself always thought anyhow, so it's not important economically. But it is important politically, she said (without spelling out why). "Well, I guess if we made news of the non-event originally we do have to now to make it clear about the non-event really having been a non-event", she joked. The economy, however, due to the initial depth of the recession, has still lost around 4% since the one-and-only recession began in 2008 [under whose premiership?] and the recovery may have been even weaker than we thought - though the recent optimistic signs aren't negated by that. She said the puzzle about why one million extra jobs have been created in the private sector in spite of the weakness of the recovery is only deepened by these revised stats.  

Stephanie gave herself a clean bill of health here regarding her own economic judgements. I await Paul Mason's self-assessment with interest. He was actively predicting a double dip in 2012, even before it didn't happen. 


3. George Osborne and Burgergate


George Osborne tweeted a picture of himself, man-of-the-people-like, eating a burger while writing the spending review. A social media storm broke when it transpired that he was eating a posh person's burger. Jane compared the story to a The Thick Of It plot-line (not unjustly). She then discussed tales of politicians getting it so wrong by pretending to be ordinary with the pleasingly-named Benedict Pringle, "an expert on political advertising". Benedict said the problem here came because no one really believed George Osborne would be enjoying a cheese burger spontaneously. It "reeked of inauthenticity". "Yeah," Jane said, seemingly agreeing. He suggested Boris getting stuck on a zip-line worked because it showed him to be "normal, fallible and jolly all at the same time". He recalls another cringe-worthy incident though - John Redwood mouthing the Welsh national anthem, badly. 


4. Wimbledon

The latest from Wimbledot.


5. Nelson Mandela vigil

Gabriel Gatehouse reported from Pretoria on the almost festive mood, as crowds celebrate his life and legacy. He reports on one of his daughter's attacking the foreign press's intrusion into the family's privacy, especially the way they are making getting in and out of the hospital so difficult (said Gabriel, whilst standing outside the hospital). She compared them to "vultures". Gabriel passed on to report the "respect and love even" from the people of Pretoria for "the man who's come to living embody [sic] the better side of human nature" - a generous tribute of his own from the BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse.


6. Libyan militias have become the country's biggest security threat

Andrew Hosken of the BBC reported from Benghazi on the murderous behaviour of the militias who led the revolution but have now aroused huge resentment for their constant interference in people's lives, their bombings and shootings, their criminality. Most people in Benghazi "are in despair about the security situation". What an absolute mess it all sounds! With the civil war in Syria, the ongoing protests in Egypt and all the Palestinian pop idol coverage, Libya has been rather forgotten about in recent months. [Well done us for going in there and helping make all this possible! Roll on Syria!!]


7. Divorce rates among over 60s have shot up

Baby boomers are much more likely to separate and, in a tribute perhaps to Jane Garvey, PM did a  Woman's Hour-like feature on the issue. Jane phrased the question interestingly enough: "Is this a sign of renewed passion for life, as people live longer of course, or a ticking time-bomb that could ultimately leave many people leading a lonely old age?" A new report from the charity Relate wants  [surprise, surprise!] the government to intervene to support older people in maintaining their relationships. We heard from its director Ruth Sutherland and from Sue Plumtree "who left her husband when she was 60 and says she's never looked back". Ruth Sutherland attacked government policy for being "based on 1950s relationships, which just don't exist any more." [Yep, sounds just like Woman's Hour.]


8. A rare bird killed by a wind turbine

The story of the poor White-throated Needletail - a very rare visitor to our shores and the world's fastest flying bird - being killed by a wind turbine whilst being watched by eager bird-watchers on the Orkneys has been a much-discussed topic this week. The bird has only ever been seen ten times before in the UK. We heard from David, one of the bird-watchers, who described the bird and then described what had happened.

I was left wondering how many birds get killed by wind turbines each year. If so aerially-gifted a bird as the White-throated Needletail can be killed in this way, how many less-nimble birds (swans, birds of prey, sea birds) get killed each year? What do environmentalists have to say about this? How many birds die by flying into nuclear power stations in comparison, eh? 


9. Michael Fabricant, MP


A report from the BBC's Becky Milligan, starring the lusciously blond Conservative MP Michael Fabricant - and, yes, she did ask him if it's a wig! The jokey tone of the piece, despite  a little talk of UKIP and Andy Coulson, made it hard to judge whether it was sending Mr Fabricant up or celebrating his eccentricity - and, boy, did he ever come across as eccentric! Was it biased against him or in favour of him (and, therefore, his party)? Or neither? Who knows! Apparently it forms part of an ongoing series of 'lunches' with Becky. It wasn't lunch though. He took her to dinner instead, with wine. His suggestive remarks to the waitress were left in: "I'm not sleeping with anyone tonight, unless I'm sleeping with you!" 





1. UK Spending Review

Of all the angles that PM could have chosen to headline about the government's Spending Review, it was the "no public pay rises for the public sector" one they went with. I read quite a few other news sites that day and this one was very much the BBC's choice of focus. After the BBC's Gary O'Donoghue outlined the measures announced by George Osborne, Carolyn interviewed an expert - Andrew Lilico, "managing director of Europe Economics" - who gave us his "assessment". Andrew  Lilico largely criticised the spending review from the Right, criticising high public spending, ring-fencing and increased money for the NHS and saying that having 6 million people on out of work benefits is an enormous failure of policy. I've long criticised the BBC for not giving us any up-front information about the party political background of their independent experts, usually Labour Party members. Were I to do so here I'd say that Andrew Lilico is a well-known Conservative Party supporter. Not being officially affiliated to the Conservative Party, however, you can probably see why they didn't need to mention that here. 

And talking of Conservatives....after the BBC's Nick Robinson (no, I didn't mean him!), came an interview with Conservative minister David Gauke. My old interruption coefficient malarkey (the number of interruptions divided by the length of the interview - in principle, the higher the number the tougher the interview) would mark this as a 1.1 (6 interruptions in just over five and a half minutes), i.e a rather tough interview.  


2. Julia Gillard ousted by Kevin Rudd in Australia


The BBC's Nick Bryant described it as "an ongoing soap opera" which looks as if it's been directed by Quentin Tarantino. The role of gender and misogyny was only one of Nick's themes. He suspects conservative leader Tony Abbott could be the ultimate winner of today's events. 


3. Wimbledon

The latest from Wimbledot.


4. UK Spending Review

Carolyn talked to Joe Twyman of YouGov who says that 59% recognise that spending cuts are necessary but 58% say they're happening unfairly while 46% say they're bad for the economy. As to whose to blame for the current cuts, 37% blame the Labour Party while 27% blame both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and only 24% blame the Conservative Party. Not brilliant news for Labour then.

And talking of Labour, Yvette Cooper was up next for interview, thus balancing the interview with David Gauke. Getting an almost identical amount of time but one extra interruption, the interruption coefficient here was 1.3 - so an even tougher than that with Mr. Gauke (which feels about right giving Carolyn's pressing of her). 


5. Funding of Community Sports 

The Olympics legacy, the need for more investment, etc...This saw an interview with Mike Corden of the City of Sheffield Athletics Club. He's not happy. Carolyn Quinn's opening question told us that the programme was well aware of that in advance: "You heard there the optimism about the money, the legacy, but what about the people you feel are missing out?" He expressed his criticism about that and about the closure of several facilities in the area, away from London. Carolyn interviewed him supportively and said the programme would follow up his story.


6. US Supreme Court clears the way for same-sex marriage in California

Paul Adams reports from Washington on the day's events. We hear from several happy supporters of the move, but we also heard at some length from Rev. Rob Schenck of the Evangelical Church Alliance, who opposed the move from a traditionalist point of view but now counsels understanding in the wake of the decision. 


7. Does the cutlery you use influence the taste of the food you are eating? 


New research suggest the size, weight, shape and colour of cutlery does indeed have an effect on flavour. Charles Spence of Oxford University, one of the report's authors, was on hand to explain...except that he wasn't on the end of the line. So Carolyn and the BBC's Becky Milligan tried the experiment out for themselves, without getting very far. Thankfully their munching sounds were interrupted by the arrival of Professor Spence, who said the people experience cheese as being 6% saltier when tasted from the knife rather than from a fork. When eating yoghurt with a silver spoon rather than a plastic spoon, people tend to experience it as creamier and more expensive-tasting, and they like it more too. Implications for dieticians include that giving people a smaller spoon tends to make people eat less. [The spoon in that picture above, incidentally, makes me want to eat some ice cream]. 


Tuesday 25/6


1. Further "revelations" about the police's behaviour after the murder of Stephen Lawrence

BBC correspondent Danny Shaw updated Carolyn on what she called the latest "revelations" - and the discussion between them proceeded as if they were revelations rather than mere allegations. I would have preferred a much stronger signalling of the 'allegations' or 'claims' part of the story, until we can be sure that  they really are 'revelations'. Danny said that the Met appears to have twice bugged/illicitly recorded meetings between Stephen Lawrence's friend Duwayne Brooks, his legal representatives and senior police officers at his solicitors' offices in London around 1999-2000, without the consent of either Mr Brooks or his legal representatives, apparently with authorisation from a senior officer at the Met. Danny paraphrased the response from the Met which said the the matter is being looked into before. He then speculated on the purpose behind the bugging, recalling Mr Brooks's unfortunate history with the Met, but ultimately couldn't see what purpose could be served by such a course of police action. The illicit nature of the recording, however, "suggests something underhand". This all sounded pretty damning of the police. If it's true.

Carolyn then interviewed one of Duwayne Brooks's lawyers, Jane Deighton, who said she had no idea they were being recorded, then quickly added "In fact we don't yet know if it was being recorded" - something which took my a little by surprise given that Danny's account had made it all sound much more concrete than that. Like Danny Shaw, she couldn't fathom any possible reason either, saying that that makes it "quite sinister" and even more "worrying". Is it part of "something much bigger"? She said the irony here was that the police, who requested the meeting, asked them to keep the contents their discussion confidential. Carolyn recalled that the whistle-blower undercover officer Peter Francis has alleged that attempts were being made to smear Duwayne. "This looks like it could be another strand of that, do you think? In your view?" asked Carolyn, rather in the manner of a leading question. Yes, Jane said, there does seem to have been a sustained attempt to undermine Duwayne Brooks's reputation. She's now seeking to find out if it's true that such illicit recorded were made ("Were there covert recordings?") and, if it is, how many and who authorised them. "If it's true, it's scandal and, if it's true, he wants and needs to know now that it's true," she said. All that "if it's true" talk from Jane Deighton finally prompted Carolyn Quinn to round off the discussion with the words, "And, as you say, if it's true, these claims, allegations, still to be investigated". There should have been more of that in her initial discussion with Danny Shaw.

If the allegations are true then that's further proof that the police were behaving illegally, and it is indeed a scandal. 


2. Ian Brady heard in public for  the first time since 1966

The BBC's Dominic Casciani describes Brady's [publicity-seeking] appearance at the tribunal. Duncan Staff, author on The Lost Boy and expert on the Moors Murders, then gave his opinion. 


3. Wimbledon

The latest from Wimbledot.


4. Edward Snowden: Where is he?


The BBC's Gordon Corera updated Carolyn on the whistle-blower's latest apparent whereabouts then Max Seddon of the Associated Press recounted how he and other journalists had flown to Cuba in the hope of a scoop - the arrival there of Mr Snowden - but found no Mr Snowden. Such larks!


5. Why should British people pay (for the BBC World Service) through their licence fee for services designed for overseas services?

That was the question Carolyn posed, though the interview that followed quickly moved away from any hint of scepticism on that front. From next year, the BBC World Service is to be funded from the TV licence fee instead of by the Foreign Office. Funds of £245 million are necessary, Carolyn said, informing us that (according to the latest figures) 192 million people tune into the World Service - its highest figure ever - and the audience for the BBC's global services (radio, TV and online) is 256 million people. Carolyn put her question to Peter Horrocks, head of the BBC's global news division. You will be gob-smacked to hear that he's a big fan of the World Service and that the thinks the British public are generally supportive of the World Service too, adding that most Brits already assumed (wrongly)  that the World Service was funded through the licence fee.

After one short question on the 'Why should British people pay...?' issue, Carolyn's line of question changed to cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, with her posing questions from the 'these austerity cuts are so hard for the BBC' line and Peter Horrocks replying from the 'yes, 'these austerity cuts are so hard for the BBC but we're handling them well' line. In in all, her interview with Mr Horrocks cannot be said to have reflected the concerns of those who might take a dim view of the World Service, the licence fee or the BBC's global ambitions - and there are quite a few people out there with concerns about such things. In fact, I'd say Carolyn's questions largely reflected the concerns of BBC employees. 


6. Broadband internet in the countryside

The government is spending over half a billion pounds on getting broadband internet into rural areas and intends to have it done by 2015 "but a survey which has been shared with this programme suggests that the cash has yet to start flowing". The BBC's Ross Hawkins reported. FOI requests by the Countryside Alliance sent to every council in England (with all but six replying) resulted in only two saying these received any money at all and that a mere £3 million about of that £530 million has been so far been spent. We heard from Sarah Lee of the Countryside Alliance who welcomed the scheme but regretted the lack of action so far. No minister was available, but a government spokesman's statement was read out saying that "the delivery stage" is only just beginning, councils don't get paid up front and that this is only to be expected. He said the "vast majority" of  projects will be completed by the time of the election. 

However, Ross's next 'talking head', telecoms analyst Eddie Murphy of Priory Consulting, doesn't share the government's confidence that the infrastructure will be lined up by that time. "He's not alone" in that uncertainty, said Ross. Councils share his concerns too, pointing to the time it took to get authorisation from Europe on this and that only one firm - BT - has put in a bid to carry out the work. Another concern is that the responsible civil servants may not have the "commercial nous" to deliver the project. "One pressure group survey does not a disaster make but there are plenty of being inside government asking now whether the high-speed internet project is moving nearly fast enough", Ross concluded. [Nice of him to label the Countryside Alliance so clearly as a "pressure group". If only the BBC did that more consistently.] 


7. Are bat droppings doing damage to our churches?

Yes they are, says Tory MP Tony Baldry, and he's blaming European Union rules. But is he right that some places of worship are becoming "unsustainable" because of the corrosive effects of bat faeces and urine? Carolyn talked to Julia Hanmer of the Bat Conservation Trust, who (even before she opened her mouth) I suspected to be pro-bat. She says many churches get on very well with their bats. She wants local experts and bat volunteers to advise and help effected churches. She suggested that churches with a problem cover up their susceptible parts whenever the church isn't in use and get local bad volunteers to do a yearly deep clean. She didn't think the legislation needs to be changed. I suspected she wouldn't. 


8. Robert Peston fills another gaping hole in his knowledge by learning how to be a Punch and Judy man 


After learning landscape painting Robert now learned how to swazzle - i.e. to use the device which makes that distinctive rasping sound associated with the voice of Mr. Punch. That's been a "dream" of his for some time, apparently. So, what's the way to do it? Well, 'Prof' Glyn Edwards, a swazzling veteran, was on hand. Robert sounded positively delighted as the prof told him the way to do it, advising him not to swallow his swazzle for starters. "That's the best thing I've ever done", said Robert, collapsing into fits of laughter afterwards. They then sang "I do like to be beside the seaside"  together - which was quite something to hear and which the BBC should immediately release as a single. Prof Glyn Edwards said that this was probably about the quickest he'd ever heard anyone pick up the way to do it before, so well done Robert Punchon! "A professor is born!", said Glyn. There's a related video here. Robert Peston's famously individual style of delivery could become even more distinctive should he decide to stick with the swazzle. I doubt I'm to the only one who would appreciate hearing the sound of him using his slapstick on James Naughtie. This feature made me laugh. 



Monday 24/6


1. Did police attempt to smear the family of Stephen Lawrence?

After Carolyn provided the background, summarised the allegations and presented clips of various interested parties, before the BBC's Danny Shaw provided some background on the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), the undercover unit alleged to be involved by The Guardian and Channel 4. It was set up by the Met in 1968 after the Grosvenor Square demonstrations in London against the Vietnam War. "A very shadowy organisation", Danny called it, saying its focus was on anti-war protest groups, anti-nuclear protest groups and Irish terrorists. The group was disbanded in 2008. A "small number" of its members went over to  the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), set up in 1999 and having a remit across England and Wales and with links to Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is now being subsumed into a new unit called the National Domestic Extremism Unit. The NPOIU looked at extreme animal rights groups and far-right groups like Combat 18 [Danny didn't mention Muslim extremists, though - according to Wikipedia - that was part of its remit too], but whether it also looked at the sort of things the SDS looked at is "hard to tell". He said there are "bound to be" undercover officers in "anti-capitalist groups" too. [It all sounds good to me!] Oversight measures have been strengthened in recent years, he said.

Carolyn then talked to Lord Ken Macdonald, former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Mr Macdonald, whilst repeated saying "if it's true", said if it's true then "it's sick policing", coming on top of the allegations about the theft of the identities of dead babies by police officers and of undercover officers having sex with their targets. He simply doesn't know whether it's still going on or not and wants a single judge-led inquiry. [Yeh, another massively expensive public inquiry!!!] The police aren't the best people to be investigating the police, he said.


2. Brother of the victim held over French Alps murders

The BBC's Jane Peel reported on the latest developments in the story of the Surrey Iraqi family.


3. How released extremist Islamist UK prisoners are dealt with


Carolyn's introduction: "Although numbers are hard to come by, experts estimate that over the last five years between 50 and 100 individuals with extremist Islamic views have been released from prison. And in the wake of the Woolwich attack renewed attention's been placed on how we deal with radicalised individuals." The BBC's Chris Vallance reported on the work of The Unity Initiative, a charity founded by Sheikh Ali Abdul Qadir al-Tahiri that has the blessing of Michael Clarke of RUSI - and of the BBC's Chris Vallance, it has to be said - and which aims to "turn Islamic extremists towards peace". "Islam is peace, Islam means peace", says one of its members, previously convicted of Islamist violence. Their members still express their unhappiness with Western foreign policy though. Hmm.


4. Wimbledon

The latest from Wimbledot, Dot Davies.


5. Silvio Berlusconi given a jail sentence for sex with an underaged prostitute

The BBC's Alan Johnson reported. He doesn't think this trial has necessarily written off Silvio Berlusconi's political career. He still has plenty of supporters and is now ahead in the opinion polls. (Ol' Silvio that is, not Alan.) Then Carolyn interviewed Bill Emmott of La Stampa, an Italian centre-left newspaper. Bill Emmott, a former Economist editor, has long been a critic of former PM Berlusconi but he didn't give an especially jaundiced commentary here.


6. A lesser know opera by Gershwin staged at the Cotton Club in Harlem

Who knew about Blue Monday by George Gershwin? I only knew about Porgy and Bess, and thought that was his only opera. That ain't necessarily so though. Blue Monday is an early short one-act 'jazz opera' (from 1922) in Italian verismo style, originally written to be performed by blacked-up white performers though now, like Porgy and Bess, only sung by black singers. The BBC's Damian Fowler reported from New York about its new staging at that famous Prohibition era nightclub. Having just listened to it, it's not at all bad. (There's a tune in there that anyone who knows Gershwin's even earlier Lullaby will recognise).


7. The Domestic Violence Disclosures scheme, Clare's Law

Carolyn talked to Superintendent Phil Owen of Greater Manchester Police about the scheme which allows people (men as well as women) to check out their partners to see if they've got a violent past. It was named after Clare Wood, murdered by her former boyfriend - a man with three convictions for violence against women. Superintendent Owen said that 52 women had been informed of such violent since the scheme began there last year. We then heard the experiences of a lady from Wiltshire who used the scheme, found it a life-sayer and was happy to help raise awareness of it. Clare's Law sounds like a very good thing and Superintendent Owen's wish to promote the scheme got a very good boost from PM here.


8. The Art Everywhere Project

Talking about promoting schemes, this was a plug for a project that aims to put 50 British art works on posters around the country. Richard Cork, art critic of The Times, is all for the idea, though he wasn't entirely on board with the all-Britishness of the scheme. He's a big fan of Constable's Salisbury Cathedral from the Meadows, which he says looks like "a modern Expressionist masterpiece" (in terms of its brush work).


He also likes Turner's The Fighting Temeraire (who doesn't?).



*****

So there you go again. Another week of PM. Did you spot masses of BBC bias? Can't say I found much, but if you did, here's the site for you: BBC Complaints.