Er...

 

My goodness, has the BBC's Daniel Sandford become the first BBC journalist on Twitter to criticise Joe Biden? 

The President was drinking a cup of coffee outside the White House. Then, either ignoring or forgetting social distancing, he went over and handed his drink to an obviously cold journalist. 

Cue Daniel:

MPs v BBC journalists

 

Note BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford's reply to Labour MP Barry Sheerman:

Barry Sheerman MP: It would be useful information for licence fee payers if the salaries of BBC journalists were flashed on their screen as they appear in the endlessly repeated advertisements before BBC News. 

Frank Bell: Same true for MPs I think, flash up salary, outside interests & their values & expenses.

Daniel Sandford (BBC): All except a very few BBC journalists earn less than Barry Sheerman’s £81,000 MP’s salary.

Daniel in the lions' den

As MB notes on the "Pheeww!" thread, the BBC's Daniel Sandford went rather above-and-beyond on Twitter the other day:

Two thoughts on Labour’s devastating defeat. 1) Labour voters need to join the party in large numbers in order to get the leader and policies they want, otherwise the party will keep on offering only what the current membership advocate. 2) It is not enough to tell voters what they want. You have to listen to them. If they don’t agree with you, you have to win the argument or possible alter your policy. Do not shout at them and call life-long Labour voters Tories.

He then tweeted a like-minded article by Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian.

As MB says:

He then gets into a twitter spat with the online Corbynistas. With some justice they can say this proves reporters at the BBC are actively opposed to Corbynism. 

Surely Sandford is well outside the impartiality guidance with his comments? 

Even if not, his comments give the lie to WATO's claims of BBC impartiality. Sandford is here espousing what I think is the true political position of most BBC staff: a kind of left wing Blairism. Blairism without the pro-Americanism.

Here's a taste of that Twitter spat:

BobSmithWalker 45%: Quick note to BBC. If voters didn’t like social democratic politics why did they vote for the SNPs landslide victory? The notion that left wing parties can’t win is disproved.

Daniel Sandford: Corbyn and SNP are poles apart. And by the way “Hands off Venezuela”’? You really have no idea about the real world.

BobSmithWalker 45%: At least you’ve no pretence at objectivity and impartiality. So far we’ve established you’re an expert on the nuances of SNP and Labour policy without understanding either - and you’re pro regime change in Venezuela. You’ll go far.

BBC Twittering (2)

Daniel the Man

Meanwhile, the BBC's Home Affairs Correspondent Daniel Sandford has been even more busily engaged on Twitter than Jon Sopel. 

A mini-study of his targets for disagreement, criticism and sarcasm over the last three days proves revealing:

Peter Hitchens 

Arron Banks

Mark Francois MP 

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Andrew Neil

Do you spot a trend there? (I do).

Another one for Fran Unsworth to keep her eye on.


Update 7.50 pm: I see (via Stew) that Daniel S continued astride his high horse, and advised us to please think of the children for good measure:

Interesting choice of words

They have history

Fans of Daniel Sandford, Home Affairs Correspondent for BBC News, might enjoy his tweeted reports from one of the two Westminster pro-Brexit protests yesterday:

• The music currently being played from the Tommy Robinson/UKIP stage in Whitehall is Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody sung by Freddie Mercury (born Farrokh Bulsara.) I am not sure what TR's policy is on Zoroastrianism.
• While the Tommy Robinson/UKIP crowd are waiting for their rally to start Tommy Robinson has taken to the stage to play the "Panodrama" online documentary, presented by Tommy Robinson. Yes from his point of view it all appears to be about him today.
• Tommy Robinson has just been introduced at his/UKIP's rally as "our national hero". The man who called Tommy Robinson "our national hero" is UKIP's Alan Craig.
• Tommy Robinson now talking about US politics, journalists and comedians he hates, the Syrian bullying case. We seem to have got off the Brexit topic.
• [Photo of Tommy Robinson]. Red-faced with rage. Losing his voice.
• The leader of UKIP Gerard Batten takes to the stage (sponsored by Tommy Robinson) to the sound of "The Great Escape".
• The UKIP leader Gerard Batten is speaking on a Tommy Robinson-sponsored stage in front of a Democratic Football Lads Alliance flag.
• UKIP's Gerard Batten: "We need now to behead the political class, politically at the ballot box." Interesting choice of words.
• Protestor who has it in for “CPR”.

Three Takes on the Same Story

Daniel Sandford

Comparing last night's 10 o'clock news bulletins, both the BBC and Sky led with the death of Shamima Begum's baby son while ITV led with Brexit. ITV placed the Shamima Begum story third in its running order, giving it only one-and-a-half minutes. 

Several things struck me about the three broadcasters' respective coverage of the Shamima Begum story:

Firstly, as far as balancing non-BBC 'talking heads' goes, ITV didn't feature any, Sky featured a supporter of the UK government's role (Bob Seely MP) and the BBC featured a critic of the UK government's role (Dal Babu), so the BBC's was the most tilted towards the supporters of Shamima Begum in this respect.

Secondly, the BBC was the only one of the three broadcasters to refer to her as "Shamima" (twice), while both ITV and Sky stuck to the more formal "Shamima Begum" throughout. 

Thirdly, the illustrative images from the Syrian camp shown on Sky focused on the fully-veiled Islamic State women of the camp while the images shown on the BBC focused (to a remarkable degree) on images of the children in the camp. Thus, Sky (in the report by John Sparks) illustrated life in the camp with the following footage:

...while the BBC (in the report by Daniel Sandford) illustrated life in the camp with this footage:

A manipulative choice of accompanying images/footage, especially if it involves vulnerable children, is often a telltale sign of bias.

Fourthly, the BBC's main reporter, Daniel Sandford, went much further than his ITV and Sky counterparts in editorialising rather than merely reporting the story:

At first, it seemed politically convenient to make life difficult for Shamima Begum, there were a lot of political downsides to helping her and her baby to come home and a lot of political upside for the Home Secretary to be tough and say we are not going to help these people that went out to join Islamic State. The problem is that now this little boy has died, there are some quite strong political risks. Save the Children are saying these people need to be treated much more humanely. And the Government's position that it is impossible to get people out of these camps because it is too dangerous, is repeatedly shown to be not entirely accurate because British journalists and other foreign journalists are able to get to these camps relatively safely and go and see people, and working with the Red Crescent, it should be possible to get people from the camps if there was the political will. I think tonight, there is some sign the Government knows it is in a little bit of a problem, a government spokesman statement tonight said that the death of any child is tragic and deeply distressing for the family. So some acknowledgement that there has been a tragic event here. 

Of the three broadcasters, the BBC was (by some margin) clearly the most critical of the UK government and sympathetic to Shamima Begum. 

A fleeing British teenager

Watching tonight's BBC One early evening news bulletin, I was struck by how it began:

The family of the British teenager who joined the Islamic State group, say she's given birth in Syria. Shamima Begum says she wants to return to the UK, after fleeing the last IS stronghold. It comes as President Trump calls on Britain and other European nations to put captured Islamic State fighters on trial.

Hmm, a "fleeing...British teenager" whose just given birth and who wants to return to the UK? 

Interesting language there, I think. 

And, of course, I'd have said "captured Islamic State terrorists" rather than "captured Islamic State fighters", but that particular BBC linguistic tic has been with us so long you almost don't clock how obsessively 'neutral' it is anymore. 

And on it went:

Good afternoon. The family of Shamima Begum, one of three British school girls who left Britain to join the Islamic State group, say they've been told that she's given birth to a boy. The 19-year-old is living in a refugee camp in northern Syria, after fleeing the last IS stronghold in the eastern part of the country. Her family has asked the British government to help bring her home. It comes as President Trump has called for the UK and other European countries to take back hundreds of members of IS, captured in Syria and Iraq, and to put them on trial. Daniel Sandford reports.

Wonder what viewers new to the story would have made of that?

Anyhow, here's a transcript of Daniel Sandford's report and his subsequent chat with newsreader Tina Daheley. I was struck by how the two featured speakers - and even President Trump! - reinforced the 'bring her home' argument, as did the following BBC-on-BBC discussion:

Daniel Sandford: This morning came news from Shamima Begum's family she's given birth to a baby son in a refugee camp in northern Syria. It adds another layer of complication to the case of the schoolgirl who joined IS and now wants to come back. Shamima Begum first came to attention after leaving her home in East London with two school friends four years ago aged just 15. She married an IS fighter in Raqqa and had remained with the group until fleeing the fighting two weeks ago. Her family are asking the government to show compassion and help them get her home. The government has said that it won't hesitate to prevent people who went to join a terrorist group returning to Britain but concedes that people like Shamima Begum, who have only one nationality, may ultimately be allowed to come back.

Jeremy Wright MP: If you are dealing with a British citizen who wants to return to this country, and not a dual citizen, so their only citizenship is British citizenship, then we are obliged at some stage at least to take them back. That doesn't mean we can't put in place the necessary security measures to monitor their activities and make sure that they are not misbehaving. 

Today, President Trump called on Britain and other European countries to take back people who'd gone to fight for IS and put them on trial. He said 800 fighters had been captured, and if they were to be released, they might permeate Europe, as he put it. Raffaello Pantucci, who has been studying violent Islamists for years, says the government will probably have to shift its position of refusing to accept responsibility for any IS fighters.

Raffaello Pantucci: The UK needs to establish some sort of a process of what to do with its nationals that are out there. I think frankly they are the UK's responsibility and some sort of resolution does need to be established, a due process they can be put through. 

IS's last toehold in Syria, Baghuz, is slowly being reduced to rubble. There is a fledgling project in the UK for handling any women and children of IS who make it from here back to the UK called the Returning Families Project. So far, it's only dealt with a handful of cases and the funding runs out next month.
Tina Daheley: Well, Daniel's here with me now. How has Shamima Begum's baby changed the situation now?
Daniel Sandford: I think in the immediate term it doesn't change the situation. The British government have been fairly clear that they think it is too risky to try and help anybody who's in a refugee camp in northern Syria at the moment and I don't think they feel there's any rush. I think if the situation deteriorates in those refugee camps, very, very, seriously, or if the women and children in those camps are somehow turfed out into the desert the pressure might build. If on the other hand Shamima Begum was to make into to a place of safety like Turkey, for example, and try to make it to the British consulate, the fact she has a very, very newborn baby might force the British government to act a little bit more quickly than they might otherwise have done.
Tina Daheley: And in the case of EU governments, how concerned will they be about Donald Trump's threats?
Daniel Sandford:  Well, Donald Trump seems to be suggesting that the Kurdish allies of the US government and US troops on the ground might actually set free the Isis fighters in captivity. I think that seems unlikely, but I think this is a sign of the pressure that America is going to start applying on the European governments to take some of the IS fighters that have come originally from their countries and are now being held in captivity because certainly the Kurds there don't want to deal with them, the Americans don't want to deal with them, and someone's going to have to handle them and put those that can be put on trial, and otherwise deal with them in a way that they're not a threat to the public. And I think this is a sign of the pressure the Americans are starting to apply rather than a real threat to set them free next week, as it were.
Tina Daheley: Daniel, thank you very much.

Notes from a small, obscure, far-right, website (this one)

Following Daniel Sandford's bizarre comments on that video, particularly his references to the al-Quds march, I’d like to bring more Hezbollah related material to your attention.

According to Sandford, the al-Quds march was ‘obscure’ therefore did not merit being reported, specifically for fear of inciting people like Darren Osborne. 

What an odd concept, particularly as it seems it was the BBC’s own dramatisation “Three Girls” that was, at least according to this, Osborne’s major inspiration; that and being unhinged. 

I’ve already posted a brief article on the recent Hezbollah debate in the House of Commons. There was an implied thread running through the piece, which is that the desire to proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety was a joint-party matter. My intention was to highlight the fact that the divide was not between Labour and Conservative, but between people who knew what Hezbollah was all about, and ignoramuses and cowards who buried their heads in the sand for fear of triggering the “Islamists” among us, as well as a coalition of deluded and weak Conservative MPs and the current Labour leadership.

There is a worthwhile opinion piece from CUFI (Christians United For Israel) which I urge you to read, as it sets out the arguments for proscribing Hezbollah with clarity. 

The Times has also published some interesting commentary about this topic. One erudite article is by Col. Richard Kemp, who has forgotten more about Hezbollah than Daniel Sandford will ever know about informative reporting, and interestingly, this piece, which sets out the idiotic attitude of both front benches which led to the kibosh being firmly put on common sense. It’s a short piece, and I advise you to have a look. 

If you’re interested in Trump’s misgivings about the Iran deal, and you’re wondering if you have been getting the full story, you haven’t. (without sounding like Michael Fish) You might have seen reports about this on ’obscure” “far-right’ websites,  but now your actual mainstream press in the form of The Times, brings you this. 

I don’t have enough time to blog as fully and as frequently as I’d like, so sometimes I rely on links to flesh out my arguments. I know it can be a bit of a fag to click, but if it weren’t for hyperlinks I’d be stuffed.

How "careful" is Daniel Sandford's own language?

Daniel Sandford

Further to Sue's comment on the previous post, Daniel Sandford's own "careful" choice of language was actually very "careless" on Monday's News at One. He said:

The prosecution say that Darren Osborne had become obsessed also with events in Rochdale, where Muslim men were accused of abusing young women.

As Sue notes, these nine Muslim men were actually convicted of abusing young women.

And actually, the victims weren't "young women" either. They were children, including girls as young as 13. 

Language Tommy!

Here's a fascinating video of a BBC interview with a difference. It shows the informal interview leading up to the actual BBC interview. 

And a very intense informal interview it is too, with the BBC reporter answering as well as asking the questions!

It stars the BBC's Daniel Sandford and Tommy Robinson, and whether you strongly approve or strong disapprove of either or both of them (or neither), it's gripping stuff.

I'll quote a few bits from it but the full 50 minutes is well worth watching...

TR: Do you know, I stood in Manchester after the Manchester attack. I stood there and I found in the point that I was standing there, in the two-mile radius, there were 19 terrorists who had come from that point. That's what you need to be reporting. You're leaving it to me to report it. And that's why...

DS: I suppose we would argue that we do report this stuff but we try and do it in a measured way so that it doesn't...

TR: A politically-correct way? 

TR: I you were to sit here and say, 'You said this, which was a lie', then I'd hold my hands up. But I've not said one lie. I've reported the truth and the reality of the situation our country's in. 

DS: Well that's an honest answer. I think there'll be lots of people who would say, 'Yeah, but it's all about how you say it, and you have to be careful.

TR: You don't have to be careful. As I said, when 22 children get blow up in Manchester the time for being careful in our words has gone.

TR: So do you think in future then I should just shut my mouth and not tell anyone what's going on? No honestly, I'm just asking you as a journalist, just in case one person out of 200 million people who view it is...
DS: Because that's plainly not right because my profession is exactly that, to tell people what's going on.  

TR: But you don't tell people what's going on.

DS: But we don't tell it in the same way. 

TR: No, no, you just don't tell them. OK, when did you...

DS: You know, the things that I've reported on Islamist extremism. I was the first person to report the existence of Al-Muhajiroun. I reported on Abu Hamza from long before anyone else had heard of him. I reported on international terrorism from 9/11 and through to 2010. The only reason I stopped reporting on it from 2010 to 2014 was because I was reporting out of Russia. And since I've been here the main theme of what we do is reporting into Islamist extremism. I reported...

TR: Forget 'all Muslims'. Islam. What you should be saying is 'Islam'. But what is coming into the frame...

DS: You see I think that's exactly where people would say that you're not careful enough...

TR: I have a frustration...you're probably bearing the brunt of it sitting here as a journalist.

DS: Listen, I completely understand it. I do. I completely understand where you are. I actually think that you ought to be more...personally I do actually believe you ought to be more thoughtful because, you know, stuff that seems like a great idea to say can make some nut do stuff.

TR: Do you think it's my fault he done this?

DS: Er. I don't know whether he would have got as fired up as he did if it wasn't for some stuff he was reading. I've no idea if...

TR: One more question: Do you think it's Islam's fault he did it?
DS: Er. I don't particular think that.

TR: So you're not sure about me but the fact that Islam's encouraged all these terrorist attacks!!

DS: Let's do it. OK? You ready?
TR: Yeah, go on. 

DS: Be careful! Don't make things worse!

TR: 'Don't use dangerous words!'

DS: No, no, no...

TR: Say 'Islamist' rather than 'Islam!'. 'Don't upset anyone!'
      

Another update

John Sweeney

There are times when you absolutely despair of the standards of reporting in this country. 

I certainly felt like that catching up with David Keighley's latest Newswatch posts about the sad death of a Polish man, Arkadiusz Jozwik, in Harlow last year and the BBC's atrocious reporting of it. 

The BBC, despite some brief caveats, strongly pushed the angle that it might be a Brexit-related racist hate crime/murder against a much-liked Polish man. 

A youth was sentenced for Mr Jozwik's manslaughter this week. 

Things, however, weren't as the BBC reported them. The BBC got it wrong.

It wasn't just the BBC of course - and Brendan O'Neill rips into the rest of the media at Spiked over this - but the BBC are a licence-fee-funded public broadcaster and their lapses were particularly egregious, especially John Sweeney's absolutely shocking Newsnight report, which, if you recall, ended like this:

ERIC HIND: (fragment of word, unclear) I don’t know if I can mention names but I mean . . .
JOHN SWEENEY:  Mention names!
ERIC HIND: But I mean, Nigel Farage, I mean, thank you for that, because you are part of this death, and you’ve got blood on your hands, thanks to you, thanks for all your decision, wherever you are, er...yeah, it’s your call.
JOHN SWEENEY: Nigel Farage has always denied this allegation. As the search for clues and answers continues, the fear is that two poisons [violence and racism] have come together to a lethal result. 

The BBC asserted on the News at Six that the death of Arkadiusz Jozwik was the result of an "unprovoked attack". The court found otherwise, deciding that Mr Jozwik and his friend (both heavily drunk) had behaved provocatively, shouting racist abuse at a black man and at the English youths. 

The BBC asserted on Newsnight (through the mouth of Evan Davis) that Mr Jozwik was "beaten to death". The court found otherwise, concluding that Mr Jozwik had died from impact with a pavement following a blow from a single youth that was not intended to kill him. 

The BBC's Daniel Sandford on the News at Six asserted it was a "frenzied" attack. The court found otherwise. (See previous paragraph). 

Radio 4 Today reporter Dominic O'Connell asked the Polish deputy prime minister, "And tragically, we had a Polish man attacked and killed in Harlow in Essex on Saturday. Do you fear actually that some Poles might be motivated to return simply because they fear the Brexit vote has stirred some racist feeling against them?" - a linkage the court failed to find.

The whole tenor of the BBC's reporting was that 'people "fear" this was a racist hate crime provoked by the Brexit vote. (Both John Sweeney and Daniel Sandford used that form of words.) The court found otherwise, failing to find any evidence that it was a racist hate crime related to the Brexit vote - rather the reverse in fact.

*******

Nigel Farage is understandably furious at the BBC's behaviour here - especially John Sweeney's - and no one, whatever you think of Mr Farage, could surely feel otherwise. 

John Sweeney and Newsnight owe him an apology for starters. Whether John Sweeney is big enough a man to give Nigel Farage such an apology is something that remains to be seen. It's to be hoped that he is.

(JS seems, however, to have forgotten the story completely, having tweeted nothing about the sentencing this week).

*******

Hopefully the BBC will be held to account over this and will make a full and widely-broadcast apology. 

Such appallingly inaccurate and loaded reporting is hardly what the BBC is supposed to be about.

Another update

Here's an update on a sad story you may remember from last year... 

In the months following the EU referendum a Polish man in Harlow, Arkadiusz Jozwik, was killed during an altercation with local youths. 

It was a big story at the time and there was frenzied speculation in certain quarters that it was a 'hate crime' provoked by the Brexit vote. 

BBC One's main news bulletins, featuring reporter Daniel Sandford, gave the 'hate crime caused by Brexit' angle a very strong headwind (transcript here), and John Sweeney on Newsnight also vigorously pushed the 'hate crime caused by Brexit' angle (transcript here).

Both DS and JS also vigorously tweeted about it at the time. 

Newsnight's John Sweeney report was framed by Evan Davis saying, "Also tonight: a Polish man beaten to death in Essex, could it be the latest example of hate crime post-Brexit?". 

John Sweeney himself asserted, "This is not an isolated experience. What happened here isn’t only a story of the ugly mood in our country post-Brexit. It’s also a story about antisocial behaviour, of people at night being afraid to walk down a British high street".

So, according to JS, it was a combination of the "ugly mood" post-Brexit and "antisocial behaviour" - a point he ended his point by repeating, saying "the fear is that two poisons have come together to a lethal result".

And those closing comments contained a particularly harsh charge - or, more accurately, a smear - against one particular UK party leader at the time. Here's how the interview ended:

ERIC HIND: (fragment of word, unclear) I don’t know if I can mention names but I mean . . .

JOHN SWEENEY:  Mention names!

ERIC HIND: But I mean, Nigel Farage, I mean, thank you for that, because you are part of this death, and you’ve got blood on your hands, thanks to you, thanks for all your decision, wherever you are, er...yeah, it’s your call.

JOHN SWEENEY: Nigel Farage has always denied this allegation. As the search for clues and answers continues, the fear is that two poisons have come together to a lethal result.

So what happened next? Well, the police, towards the end of last year, charged one youth with manslaughter and decided not to pursue the 'hate crime' charge. 

I spotted at the time that both Daniel Sandford (the BBC reporter who reported for the BBC's main bulletins at the time) and John Sweeney (Newsnight's man) each put out a short, factual tweet about it (minus the 'not a hate crime' bit), neither adding any further comment, and neither in any way repenting of their reporting sins. 

At the end of last month, the trial came to an end and the verdict was given. A boy was convicted of manslaughter and it's now clear that the fracas was a case of people drinking, youths cycling too close, an argument ensuing, a youth getting violent, a tragic death. Nothing to do with Brexit. 

Now, I will admit that I didn't see the BBC online report about it, even though I check the BBC News website closely. But, yes, there was a report about it (albeit a brief one).

I only found it after specifically Googling to find it, after a tip-off from David Keighley at News-watch, and I suspect that the BBC never made it a prominent story last week. 

The BBC online report fails to mention that it was widely - and wrongly - suspected of being a racist, Brexit-provoked hate crime at the time, and there's been no contrition from the BBC. 

Curiously, neither Daniel Sandford nor John Sweeney have tweeted about the outcome of the trial, despite both of them making the initial incident a major story on the BBC.

Nor have they reported the outcome for the BBC.

In fact, they've both been silent on the story. 

In fairness, checking his Twitter feed, Daniel may be on holiday as he's gone completely quiet. 

Not so John Sweeney though. There's no such excuse for him. 

He spent 31 July, the day of the verdict, tweeting away in a total frenzy. His concerns were Trump, Scaramucci, paintings he likes and animal videos, and he banged out scores and scores and scores and scores of tweets about them (as impartially as you'd expect - he says sarcastically) - but nothing, absolutely nothing, about the outcome of the trial for the 'hate crime' incident that he'd gone all sensationalist over for Newsnight last year.

And, as far as I can see, he didn't even notice the verdict. (Some BBC star reporter, eh?)

[Update: I hope she won't mind but I must share Sue's brilliant summation of John Sweeney's behaviour here: "Sweeney's indifference to the outcome of a story he had been so keen to Brexify".]

As for BBC TV - those BBC One news bulletins and Newsnight - which made so much of the story as a possible Brexit-related hate crime at the time - well, I've done thorough search after thorough search on TV Eyes (which picks up pretty much everything) and found nothing. Literally nothing. No follow-up reports on the BBC's News at Six and News at Ten. No follow-up segment on Newsnight. Nothing.

That raises serious questions: Why isn't the BBC setting the record straight here? And: Is it because it doesn't fit their narrative?

Well, I don't know but this is obviously either one of two things: It's either extremely shabby reporting or its extremely biased reporting. (Or both).

It's yet another sign that there's something deeply rotten in the state of the BBC.

News-watch pursued this energetically through the Cretan, Minotaur-filled BBC Complaints system and got lost in the BBC Complaints maze - a maze whose every dead-end features a large sign saying 'Not upheld'. I suspect they'll try again after this latest development.

More news management (update)

Returning to a post from yesterday...

There have been claims that the BBC's news 'management' has actually gone a lot further this time. 

I'm unable to load the video onto the blog but you can view it here. It's 'gone viral', because it contains a clumsy edit 17 seconds in. 

Many people (from Katie Hopkins to Paul Joseph Watson) believe that the BBC was editing out - i.e. censoring - something that the nursery owner was saying.

They presume that the thing 'being edited out' was the thing she'd being telling other media outlets and which other media outlets had been reporting (and the BBC hadn't): that the alleged attackers made references to "Allah" while carrying out their attack on the nursery worker.

I tried to find the original interview using TV Eyes but the BBC appears to have only ever broadcast this edited interview, having never interviewed the lady live and 'uncensored'. 

Given how often she mentioned 'the Koran' and 'Allah' in her other media interviews it would be very surprising if she didn't mention them in her interview with the BBC. Whether the bit 17 seconds in was where she mentioned them or whether she mentioned them either before or after the part of the interview captured in that clip, we'll probably never know. But, using Occam's Razor, I would say it is much more likely than not that the BBC was engaged in some kind of 'news managing' by 'editing' some of what she said here - and that it was the very things Katie H and Paul Joseph Watson suspected (the Allah bits).  

This, however, is where the plot thickens even more because a senior BBC reporter, Daniel Sandford, has made two forays onto Twitter (yesterday and today) in response to the Westmonster blog's criticisms of the BBC.

Here are his not-entirely-gracious tweets (in chronological order):

• Nursery worker stabbed in Wanstead by three women.
• Not being treated as terrorism.
• Of course we are.. What makes you think the Allah/Koran stuff is accurate? Were you there? Did you take a statement? I think the police have.
• 1) How we work: See story. Check it. Assess it. Report it, if accurate. 2) How Westmonster work: See story. Does it fit narrative? Print it.
• You know why. Because no concrete evidence that we are aware of that anything was shouted about the Koran or Allah.
• It is also a fact that when we checked this with police - who have interviewed actual witnesses - they cautioned against that version.
• As I explained yesterday we actually check stories before we publish. Sorry the facts as we can establish them don't fit your narrative.
• Was the nursery boss a witness to the attack? Let's wait for the full facts.
• I was reporting on London Bridge attack yesterday so didn't interview nursery boss myself, but checked the Allah story and it was dubious.
• You'll have to ask the people who wrote the story. I can only tell you what I did which was check it. Now, back to my day off.
• By the way the local paper has amended its version [He's correct about that] as interviewee has retracted her original (2nd hand) account. [That would be quite a development, if true].
• Everything else she said WAS corroborated.
• I have got an idea for a Westmonster story. Go and interview the woman who was attacked, instead of arguing with real journalists.

Curiously, I can't see him ever having directly answered any of the questions about why that video was edited and what was edited out, but nor does he deny it was edited; indeed, from everything he tweets it seems pretty clear to me that approves of the story being 'managed' in such a way so as to keep the 'dubious' claims out of the story until they'd been fully checked and verified. Interestingly, he also says that the police "cautioned against that version" of the story (the one containing the references to Allah and the Koran - a police caution that the BBC appears to have been faithfully heeded. 

Here, incidentally, is where things gets even odder. Daniel Sandford makes the point that the local paper (the Ilford Recorder) has amended its version "as [the] interviewee has related her original (2nd hand) account". The BBC website, however, has gone in the other direction. Later yesterday evening the BBC finally followed all those other media outlets and added the bit about the Koran and Allah to its online report:

So if Daniel Sandford is correct and Ms Stevens has retracted her statement, then why hasn't the BBC followed the Ilford Recorder's example and updated its article to remove those references?

The problem with trying to 'manage the news' in this was is that you end up looking as if you're manipulating your audience - as the BBC evidently were trying to do here. By lagging behind most other media outlets for hours and not including the Islam-related bits until later in the day it only makes the BBC look like an over-protective nanny that doesn't trust its audience. And now, having reported such things at last, if Daniel Sandford is correct, the BBC now appears to be guilty of failing to update its story again after its main interviewee (apparently) changed her story.

It's all a bit messed-up, isn't it?

Here's Laura!

For anyone not watching the Theresa May-Donald Trump press conference, here's a flavour of what you've been missing...

Theresa May: Laura? 

Laura Kuenssberg: Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Laura Kuenssberg, BBC News. Prime Minister, you have talked about where you agree, but you have also said you would be frank where you disagree with the President. Can you tell us where in our talks you did disagree, and do you think the President listened to what you have to say? And Mr President, you have said before that torture works. You have praised Russia. You have said you want to ban some Muslims from coming to America. You have suggested there should be punishment for abortion. For many people in Britain, those sound like alarming beliefs. What do you say to our viewers at home who are worried about some of your views and worried about you becoming the leader of the free world? 

Donald Trump (turning to Theresa May): This was your choice of a question? (Audience laughs). There goes that relationship!

******

This provoked a short Twitter exchange between a Breitbart journalist and a BBC journalist:

Raheem Kassam, Breitbart London: Horrible question by BBC claiming to speak for the British public. You speak for no one but the liberal elite!

Daniel Sandford, BBC Home Affairs correspondent: Breitbart, the future of journalism? 

Raheem Kassam, Breitbart London: Hey "Home Affairs" editor... how about reporting some actual news, like how Rotherham style gangs still persist?

******

Update: It's turning into a tag-wrestling match over on Twitter:

Raheem Kassam, Breitbart London: Horrible question by BBC claiming to speak for the British public. You speak for no one but the liberal elite! 

Mark Lowen, BBC Turkey correspondent: The response by @BreitbartNews to @bbclaurak's utterly legitimate and probing question to @POTUS 

Raheem Kassam, Breitbart London: Your "news" outlet flubbed the biggest chance of the year to get more trade deal details. R u gonna ask Erdogan his fave dessert? 

Mark Lowen, BBC Turkey correspondent: Solidarity among journalists is a great thing. (Independent journalists). 

Raheem Kassam, Breitbart London: I agree. Which is why we as a private company have more legitimacy than you as an arm of the British establishment funded by threats. 

Mark Lowen, BBC Turkey correspondent: The standard-bearers of legitimate journalism. 

Keeping tabs on BBC One's News at Six - Update

If you were wondering what's happened to ITBB's survey of BBC One's main evening news bulletin (News at Six on weekdays, the early evening news bulletins at weekends) and its EU referendum coverage (since the referendum's official launch in mid-April), well, here's a month-end update.

If you remember, three things are being counted.

******

The first measure is a simple comparison of the amount of time given to direct quotes from each side [actually clips of people speaking]. This has worked out as follows (with 'n/a' signalling no EU referendum-related feature or no direct speech):

30/4 = n/a

29/4 = 0s Remain, 28s Leave

28/4 = 81s Remain, 12s Leave

27/4 = n/a

26/4 = n/a

25/4 = 35s Remain, 24s Leave

24/4 = n/a

23/4 = 51s Remain, 0s Leave

22/4 = 99s Remain, 21s Leave

21/4 = n/a

21/4 = n/a

19/4 = 23s Remain, 67s Leave

18/4 = 96s Remain, 70s Leave

17/4 = 21s Remain, 39s Leave

16/4 = 23s Remain, 21s Leave

15/4 - 58s Remain, 31s Leave

That works out at:

Remain: 8 minutes 7 seconds

Leave: 5 minutes 13 seconds

i.e. nearly 3 minutes more for the Remain side - a startling imbalance.

Caveats are, however, needed. This (intentionally) ignores the content on what was being said. So if, say, Nigel Farage was slagging off other Leave campaigners rather than making a point in favour of Brexit or Barack Obama was telling the youth of Britain to remain outward-looking as regards the rest of the world without being completely explicit that he was meaning 'vote Remain', or if Mrs May was sending out mixed signals in a speech on security, well, it still all goes into those figures.

******

The second measure is whether the opening headlines favour one side or the other, That's been trickier to keep an eye on because quite a lot of the above (a) have featured in the headlines and (b) some of the headlines have done the 'someone says....but critics have reacted by saying' kind thing. So this have been refined to which side's angle comes first in either the headlines or the whole bulletin. Here's what's happened so far:

15/4 Remain [George Osborne warns that mortgage rates could go up if the UK votes to leave]

16/4 Leave [Boris tells Barack Obama to keep his nose out]

17/4 Remain [A French government minister saying Britain would have a much weaker hand when negotiating trade deals if it voted to leave the EU]

18/4 Remain [The United Kingdom will be permanently poorer, says George Osborne, if voters decide to leave the EU]

19/4 Leave [Michael Gove accuses the Remain side of scaremongering and using patronising arguments]

20/4 Remain [20/4 Eight former U.S. Treasury Secretaries have signed an article in the Times warning of the risk of Britain leaving the European Union]

22/4 Remain [Barack Obama's big 'back of the queue' warning]

23/4 Remain [Barack Obama implores the young not to pull back from the rest of the world]

25/4 Remain [Theresa May says we should vote to stay in EU for security but leave the ECHR]

28/4 Remain [David Cameron campaigning alongside former TUC boss Brendan Barber and calling for Jeremy Corbyn to join him]

29/4 Leave  [Nigel Farage criticises other Leave campaigners saying they aren't the right people to talk about the EU and immigration]

That works out as:

Remain - 8

Leave - 3

...another striking imbalance.

Two further things need adding to this though. 

Firstly, the above list didn't feature another item which perhaps ought to have been included. The 30/4 bulletin featured a report from Joe Lynam on the sharp cut to mobile phone roaming charges in the EU. The move was shown as being (understandably) very popular with all the report's vox pops.The European Commission was credited as being responsible for this popular move. (Interestingly, this report was a toned-down version of one that had been running on the BBC's lunchtime bulletin where Joe Lynam had said "These price caps will only apply for a year. After that roaming charges will be scrapped entirely. But that applies to EU member states only. So it Britain votes to leave UK mobile phone companies could reimpose higher fees, unless, of course, the government put in place its own ceilings".) And that followed the 29/4 bulletin's focus on how the EU's deal with Turkey seems to be working with 0 migrants arriving on Lesbos that day.

Secondly, the above list shows that the BBC has been focusing on substantial points and warnings from the Remain side about what a Brexit might mean while, in contrast, focusing pretty much exclusively on the Leave side's personal criticisms of others (of Obama, the Remain campaign and their own side!). 

******

Daniel Sandford

The final measure we've been looking at involves counting up the number of debunkings (eg. from Reality Check) included in each bulletin. This has proved surprisingly easy as only two bulletins have included such a feature! The first was the 15/4 bulletin which debunked the Leave claim that we'd have an extra £350 million a week to spend on the NHS if we left the EU. The second was the 25/4 bulletin which looked at EU migration figures. This was less clear-cut as to who it favoured, though (to my mind) it was very much tilted against the Leave side as well. 

Here's a transcript of it for you to make up your own minds (with a little colour-coding from me to 'help you mind your decision'!):

George Aligiah: So Britain's ability to control immigration is one of the big themes being talked about today. Our Home Affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford is here with me. Let's get this right. First, what's the position now. What are the numbers?

Daniel Sandford: Well, George, there's no doubt that the European Union freedom of movement rules have made a significant contribution to the numbers of foreign citizens choosing to come and live in the UK. They're not quite as big a proportion as you might expect. If you take British citizens out of the equation, then net migration into the UK was 363,000 in the year to September - that's the number arriving minus the number leaving. Both the Remain and the Leave camps agree that we can do nothing at the moment to control the number of EU citizens coming to live here, though we still do have border controls. We can still check on people arriving and also under EU rules we do have the power to expel people on security grounds, for example.

George Aligiah: All right, let's just look at the EU migration. What's the difference likely to be between a vote to Remain and a vote to Leave?

Daniel Sandford: Well, if the UK left the EU then in theory migration from the European Union could be completely stopped. However, presumably at the moment of leaving we'd want to do a trade deal with EU and when Switzerland, for example, did a trade deal with the EU they had to accept some of the EU freedom of movement rules. Now they have a much higher proportion of EU citizens living in Switzerland than we do, for example, of non-British EU citizens living the UK. They're trying to get out of that agreement at the moment but to do that they might have to abandon their trade deal. Also, would we actually say that no EU citizens - no German doctors, no Hungarian economists, no Lithuanian farm workers - could come at all to the UK? Presumably not. If the economy stayed strong then even if we left the EU presumably there would be some EU citizens still coming to the UK. On the other hand, if we remain in the UK then the freedom of movement rules will certainly stay, and with other countries like Turkey and Albania potentially joining the EU further down the line the pool of people who might want to come here could actually go up - unless we change the rules of course about new countries joining.

Very arguably then, the Debunkings tally is now:

Of Leave claims: 2

Of Remain claims: 0 

******

All three measures then have suggested the same bias: Pro-Remain voices have been heard significantly more than pro-Leave voices and pro-Remain angles have led most of the coverage (and been more helpful to them); and the 'debunkings' have also tilted in the same direction.

All in all then, this does add up to quite a dramatic picture of BBC pro-Remain bias in action, doesn't it?