John Cleese falls into a trap

Seasoned BBC bias watchers know to tread cautiously when it comes to claiming that the BBC hasn't reported something. John Cleese, alas, fell right into that trap. 

Obviously I looked at the BBC's Cricket page and there it was, published apparently 7 hours before JC's rather Basil-like, and most certainly Fawlty, tweet.

Of course, lots of helpful people replied to John Cleese informing him of this, but the great man's on 'transmit' rather than 'receive' mode it seems.

Back to the 1640s at the Beeb

Who are the Roundheads and who are the Cavaliers in the latest BBC civil war over former England cricket captain Michael Vaughan, after he was invited back to commentate for the BBC on the third Test against New Zealand at Headingley?

Last year, if you recall, Michael Vaughan was accused of racism over an alleged comment in 2009 and immediately dropped by the BBC. The Muslim man accusing him had made antisemitic comments but was quickly forgiven by all.

But Michael's now back at the Beeb and what The Guardian calls “an in-house diversity group at the BBC” aren't happy.

To put it mildly.

This diversity group of impartial BBC types have a name, namely The BBC Sport BAME Advisory Group & 5 Live Diversity Group [I kid ye not], and they've impartially written to their BBC colleagues talking of “Azeem Rafiq’s gut wrenching and triggering testimony”...

[...and I kid ye not again, these BBC people really did use the ultimate woke word 'triggering' seriously there!...]

...and they've demanded that Michael Vaughan be removed because, although they “appreciate that there are elements of detail that can’t be shared about his reinstatement and that he is innocent until proven guilty”, it's “damaging, embarrassing and unsettling...to many colleagues across BBC Sport, BBC Radio 5 Live, and the wider BBC as a whole”.

Time, perhaps, to call to the witness stand the famous former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie with a tweet in response to this:

The BBC's diversity group sent an email to ALL staff complaining at the "excruciating and unbearable" decision to continue using Michael Vaughan on TMS. Vaughan denies a racism charge by Azeem Rafiq. Who gave permission to the BAME group to send out the email? Just bullying.

Nevertheless, The Times says that MV's position at the BBC is “under review” as a result.

The top comments below the Times piece aren't in the BBC diversity agitators' favour though:

• Seems they believe in the guilty until proven innocent cancel culture?
• The BBC "in-house diversity group" - All diversity is welcome, apart from diversity of thinking.
• He has been found guilty on two counts, of being a) white and b) a man.

Not Cricket.

Ever since their post-holocaust interest in self-preservation, the Jews (Israelis) have been accused of “bringing it on themselves” (that is, by their so-called  “treatment of” or “behaviour towards” the “Palestinians”)  How easy it is to disregard their zealous commitment to the destruction of Israel.

This may seem slightly off-topic, but I felt I had to say it because today’s parliamentary inquiry over racism made me think about the parallels between that and my ambivalent response to Azeem Rafiq’s testimony about institutional racism in cricket.

Well, never mind cricket!! There’s institutional racism in the whole wide world. (Duh!)

When I hear gratuitous or defamatory insinuations about the Jewish 'character' - their greed, avarice, supremacist attitude, and so on - I can truly sympathise/empathise with Rafiq’s hurty feelings about being called the peeword. 

However, my instinct tells me that feelings of fear and loathing concerning Islam and the geographical codeword for it that begins with P, does indeed comprise a (justifiable)  element of ‘they brought it on themselves'.

The inquiry that’s going on as I speak has a whiff of sanctimony and woke hypocrisy about it coming from people who just don’t get it. 

 

Update.

I probably should update this post.