Emily for leader

Here we have Newsnight’s presentation of the individuals trying to get themselves elected as leader of the Labour Party. First I have to address Emily Thornberry’s defence against the charge of antisemitism.

Newsnight’s presenter Katie Razzall set the tone in a schoolmarmish manner but failed to challenge Thornberry’s preposterous demonstration of abject ignorance. (I suspect Razzall is equally ignorant ) 

Thornberry’s ugly little diatribe did the opposite of what was intended if indeed exonerating herself from the charge of antisemitism was her intention.

I admit it’s tricky, trying to suck up to four million potential voters who very likely conform to their religion’s default hostility to Jews, while at the same time trying not to fall foul of the Labour party’s so-called anti-racist raison d’etre. But she got it so very wrong.

 “I think it was really important as I often said, that it is our duty to speak out against the far-right government of Netanyahu, and what it is that that government is doing to the two-state solution.

And what is it that the Palestinian Authority is doing, prey, never mind the “far-right Netanyahu government”, to the two-state solution?  Oh yes, rioting and calling for endless days of rage.

“Which is different from being antisemitic” interrupts Razzall, eager to remind us that “criticising Israel” is not antisemitic.

“Hang on”  interjects Thornberry  “exactly!”

“And then to explain to people, you do that, and that is not antisemitic, but you do not blame the Jews for that.” 

No, not all of them. Not the Jews who belong to certain left-wing, anti-Zionist groups; save the blame for the right-wing, Netanyahu-supporting Jews who live in or support Israel. 

“And to explain to people, there is a clear disconnect. It is not the fault of some guy who lives in a flat in north London - he is not responsible for the death of Palestinian children. And people really need to understand the difference.”

The difference between the innocent ‘guy’ in London who happens to be a Jew through no fault of his own and the right-wing Israeli Jew who callously murders Palestinian children for sport.

“And time and time again, in my role as shadow foreign secretary, I made that absolutely clear. And i think that it would be right to say, that the record shows, that I have regularly called out antisemitism in my party in a very public way.

Yep. Thornberry stops short of chanting ‘Jews to the gas’ so how could she be antisemitic? She hasn’t got a racist bone in her body. (Nor any bones at all as far as one can tell.)

Because of her ‘pseudo-Sloaney with a hint of mid-Atlantic’ accent and her tic (i.e., keeps saying ‘frankly’) it’s impossible to take her seriously. She is like Corbyn and others in the Party in that they make stuff up as they go along as if trapped within some sort of ‘just-a-minute’ format and will be penalised for hesitation. And suffering from “likes the sound of their own voice' syndrome. And starting sentences with “And’ so they can continue talking nonsense on topics about which they know next to nothing without being interrupted or letting anyone else get a word in. And waving their hands (or trotters) around expressively to show off their red nail-varnish. I hope any of that doesn't put anyone off voting for her.


Update:

If anyone here is interested, here’s a video of the Labour Leader hustings that took place yesterday in front of the Jewish Labour Movement. If you’ve got the will and the stamina to watch it, you’ll see that Lisa Nandy is head and shoulders above the other candidates. (Candidates? Have I turned into Alan Lord Sugar?) (no)

Emily Thornberry seems to believe that her day - or was it days  - of glory as a stand-in for Corbs at PMQs were enough of a triumph to leapfrog her to the front of the process. No, Emily, you are vacuous, cliche-ridden, insincere and hypocritical. And spiteful. You’re fired!

The question remains. Is Nandy’s chairpersonship of Labour Friends of Palestine compatible with her support of Israel and/or the Jewish peoples’ right to self-determination? In fact, one could almost defend this by saying at least she couldn’t be accused of pro-Zionist partisanship. Which is a plus.

However, one niggle still won’t go away. I still worry that Nandy has been seduced by the Palestinian propaganda machine.

“I met a three-year-old child whose house was surrounded by the Separation Wall and was growing up without daylight. I saw a 15-year-old shackled by the ankles, who had been held in administrative detention for months without any contact with his family, access to school or a lawyer. I saw families humiliated at checkpoints on a daily basis and the denial of basic medical care as a result.

This is a movement which continually entices British MPs to visit ‘Palestine’ to view the obligatory theatrical production, a series of orchestrated anti-Israel set-ups wrought from self-pity, pathos and victimhood, specifically designed to hoodwink foreign governments into joining their quest to obliterate Israel.

If Nandy showed a glimmer of cynicism, awareness of - or insight into that specific aspect of her own pro-Palestinian advocacy, I could be won over. She’s the only credible leader.
If you watch the linked video I think you’ll agree with me. Hope so.

"Not a lot of very clear answers"

Emily Thornberry on The Andrew Marr Show was straining her every sinew to smile and laugh and make her eyes sparkle at the start of her interview. It looked very odd. Later she tried 'a reverse Hyacinth Bucket', attempting to show how working class she is. I half expected her to say of her sister (who she mentioned), "She's the one without a Mercedes, swimming pool, or room for a pony".

The great lady, nonetheless, proved herself to be the equal of her comrade Diane Abbott, at least as regards numeracy, saying, "Harry's spent 20 years on the frontline in Afghanistan", which meant he must have served there even before the war began, at the age of 15. (He actually served 30 weeks in total in Afghanistan). Andrew Marr didn't pick her up on it.

As for Brandon Lewis, "Brandon Lewis, not a lot of very clear answers but thank you very for joining us anyway" was Andrew Marr's parting shot at him. 

Mr Lewis kept on saying that he couldn't go into the details of things like what the government is going to do further over the arrest of the UK ambassador to Iran, or about Meghan and Harry's security, or go into detail about the UK's negotiating position with the EU over security. He may have been right, but Andy wasn't buying it.

I also notice that The Andrew Marr Show is still pushing ministers over the 'Russian involvement in British politics' select committee report, as the Corbynistas are continually demanding the BBC does. Pressure sometimes works. Mr Lewis pointed out that there needs to be a committee chairman in place before that happens (too soon after the election yet), something the programme doesn't appear to have realised. 

The Thornberry residence, the lady of the House speaking.

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's snobbery and one-upmanship. People trying to pretend they're superior. Makes it so much harder for those of us who really are.           - Hyacinth Bucket

Labour's Emily Thornberry famously got into a spot of bother over a snobbish tweet after seeing a house in Rochester with three England flags and a white van parked outside. Did she learn her lesson? Of course no. Caroline Flint, the fallen rose of the Labour Party, has been on Sophie Ridge's Sky programme this morning and revealed that Emily Thornberry told a Labour MP in a pro-Leave seat (i.e. her): "I’m glad my constituents aren’t as stupid as yours".

I do hope the BBC asks Ms Thornberry about it the next time they speak to her. 

Andrew the tenacious

Shame Craig’s gone (temporarily) AWOL because the Andrew Marr Show is more his baby than mine. My eyes glaze over at the unwatchable bits, which seem to me to be more and more frequent these days. (Could be just me.) 

However, having settled in front of the TV to watch Andrew Marr’s interview with Emily Thornberry, I spent the first half wondering what the pattern on her dress was meant to represent - some sort of snakeskin, perhaps? Crocodile? - and considering whether the dress was exaggerating her bulk, then noticing the exasperating way she does that rapid blinking or closes her eyes completely when she imagines she’s landed a verbal knockout blow. I was still marvelling at her ability to waffle around the questions with nary a moment’s pause for breath when all of a sudden Marr came up with a topic he usually downplays or avoids altogether.

Yes, it’s antisemitism and that Panorama. 

For once in his TV life, Andy was persistent and tenacious. She still managed to waffle around the questions, straddling precariously between her loyalty to the Magic Grandpa whose real name is Jeremy Corbyn, and her … if I heard this right … ‘asaJew’ credentials (?) which she trotted out in preference to looking as if she was siding with Tom Watson. 

Although Andrew Marr wouldn’t let it lie, I couldn’t help thinking that, at the back of his mind,  any caution he showed must have been because he was aware that at any moment she could just launch herself off her chair and squash him.

Speaking for the Palestinian people

No Pasaran!!

Emily Thornberry being given a standing ovation by people wearing PSC badges after an impassioned speech about defeating racial hatred, and screeching “No Pasaran!” was bizarre. What’s she on about now? Oh, it’s the fascists; like the EDL.

Not sure, but I think she means Islamophobia - she’s bothered about racism at any rate. Palestinian flag, anyone?

"I'm speaking for the Palestinian people." But why? Why is  Harlow delegate Colin Monehen speaking up for the Palestinian people in particular?

I like the injection of poetry though. It would be a nice touch if the Harlow delegate ended his speech by disappearing like a snowflake in the hot sun. Instead, he enjoyed a warm, appreciative handshake from the leader of Her Majesty’s disloyal opposition.

Violating the terms?

Interestingly, on the Today Programme, Justin was rather pleasant to Emily Thornberry, despite some fairly rigorous probing. (It can be done.)

Addressing Boris Johnson’s bid to persuade Donald Trump not to abandon the Iran deal, the Shadow Foreign Secretary said she was sad to see Boris on Fox News instead of ‘face to face’ with the POTUS, like Macron with the dandruff.

“Might that have had anything to do with your party being contemptuous of Trump?” asked Justin amenably.

“No”, said the Shadow Foreign Secretary. She was more concerned with the Iranian nuclear programme, which she pronounced “NucULAR”, and giggled at her inability to articulate ‘I A E A’.

“What’s the alternatuv?” she asked. (Has Dead Ringers got an Emily Thornberry?) “I mean the worry is is that if we don’t continue…… […] I’m not here to defend Iran but I’m here to defend the deal.” 

These trivial observations may not add up to much, but the question is is the Shadow F.S. up to the job? The only purpose of mentioning such trifling things is to highlight the difference between this amiable chat with Justin and Mishal Husain’s flagship, post-eight o’clock interview with Israel’s Ambassador, Mark Regev.

Mishal Husain has two personas; a charming, syrupy, empathetic one and the contemptuous one reserved for Israelis.

Husain’s use of the Paxman technique, most notably in that interview with Gil Hoffman, commonly known as the “How many Israelis?” interview, where she corners her victim by repeating the question “how many Israelis have died?” to force from him an admission that none had. No Israelis had been killed by Hamas’s “home-made contraptions”, ergo no retaliation was justified. 

The technique is designed to ridicule the victim and to make their argument look weak. Paxman famously employed it to humiliate Michael Howard, and the interview became legendary simply because of the number of times the question was put, and the inevitable binary answer avoided. 

Of course, it was disingenuous and unfair, as the engineered question could never be fully answered with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

After hastily and selectively (not verbatim) transcribing the following, I listened to Matthew Amroliwala put a similar line of questioning to another interviewee, so I can only assume it wasn’t Mishal Husain’s own idea to focus on the matter of Iran’s violation or non-violation of the terms of the deal.  It must be official BBC strategy to approach it that way. (Impartiality? What impartiality?) However, Husain’s inability to listen to Mark Regev’s answers and adapt her questioning accordingly is all her own work.

Husain

“Would you like to see this deal collapse?”[…] “Has Iran violated its terms?”

(She wants Regev to admit that Iran hasn’t violated the terms and cannot justify pulling out of the deal)

Regev

“the deal is “good for Iran” therefore it has no interest violating it, furthermore Iran lied to the IAEA from the start." (By originally denying they were pursuing a military nuclear programme.)

Husain

“But that assumption is what led to the deal being reached,” says Husain, dismissing Iran’s lying as irrelevant. 

Husain persists.

“I’m going to ask you again, has Iran violated the terms of the deal?”

Regev

“The deal itself had an element that called upon Iran to come clean regarding its prior nuclear activity. The deal is based on Iran coming clean, which it did not.”

Husain

“In terms of what they have done since 2013, have they violated the deal? she asked, again.”In the terms of the deal, in terms of their activities”

Regev

"Well first of all, not coming clean was a violation, but it’s in their interest to stick within the narrow confines of the deal because it allows them in a few short years to create unlimited amounts of uranium…”

Husain

"I think its clear from what you’re saying that your issue is about Iran’s truthfulness about its past activities and some may raise the question about Israel’s openness about its nuclear activities, given that you’re widely regarded to have a nuclear programme which you have never been open about, but international nuclear inspectors have said, again and again, eleven times in total, that the commitments in Iran, that it has signed up to, have all been fulfilled. Now, do you have evidence that that is not the case?" 

(Has Husain ignored everything Regev has been saying? It looks so. She insists that as long as Iran hasn’t violated the terms of the deal there’s no justification for pulling out.)

Regev

“The inspections at the moment are very limited. You have to notify the Iranians ahead of time and no inspector can go to any site that is declared by the Iranian regime as a military site. Now if you were the Ayatollah, and you were the Iranian government, and if you wanted to conceal your programme, where would you put it? […] You have just confirmed what I said, that you have to notify the Iranians in advance and get permission, secondly, any military site is off limits to the inspectors…"

Husain

"And do you have suspicions that things are going on right now that shouldn’t be and if so have you put these to the international nuclear agency?"

Regev

“We believe we have conclusive proof that the Iranian nuclear ambition is not benign and that they continue to want their nuclear weapons."

Husain

“You say it’s a very limited inspection regime. The IAEA say they have 2,000 tamper-proof seals in place on nuclear material and equipment, that there are hundreds of thousands of images captured daily by their surveillance cameras in Iran, that is about half the total number of images that they collect in the world. In what way is that a limited inspection?"

Regev

"They are only there at agreed sites. The Iranians have never come clean before, never voluntarily said where they’ve got equipment. [..] Iran is a huge country and every military site - that Iran declares is a military site, is off limits."

Husain

"You suspect, do you, that things are happening right now at those sites that shouldn’t be. is that what you’re saying?"

Regev

"None of us know, and we haven’t even mentioned the ballistic missile programme, which is going on as we speak. The Iranians have a very, very aggressive ballistic missile process. Over the last few years, they’ve already doubled the range of their rockets. They want a nuclear weapon and we have to stop them from getting it."

Husain

"And the ballistic missiles are outside the terms of the deal."

Regev

"Correct. that’s a problem."

Husain

"Alright. if this deal collapses, what is the alternative? Benjamin Netanyahu said we don’t want confrontation. If there needs to be one  it’s better now than later, does that mean a military confrontation."

Regev

"I think there are alternatives. I’d like to see a deal that actually does what this deal says it does. That does stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon., and the way to do that is to deal with the ballistic missile programme, to deal seriously with the issue of inspections and to deal seriously with he issue of the ‘sunset clause’ that automatically in the next few years the restriction on uranium enrichment will be lifted."

Husian

"But let’s just think about the most sensible ways to get to what you call those other alternatives. You want a more stringent deal. Now is the most effective way to get to that, to tear up what you have at present and to supposedly start to negotiate again on that basis, or to try and strengthen what is already there?"

Regev

"For us whether there’s a deal or not it’s a minor consideration. The only important point is do we have a mechanism that prevents Iran from achieving a capability to build nuclear weapons. the current deal does not do that."

Husain

"In your view."

Regev

"Not just in our view."

Husain

"Wh.. w… well, y…but okay, again, if you were to start from scratch, what makes you, what makes you think that tearing this up would lead to a more u…u..a more stringent mechanism of some kind?"

Regev

"There’s no point in keeping a deal just for the sake of keeping a deal. There was a deal with North Korea in 1994 that was heralded as a great breakthrough for nuclear non-proliferation and we know that North Koreans developed nuclear weapons so a deal for the sake of a deal gets no-one anything. It’s crucial that if we are going to talk about a deal we deal with the serious issues, Once

again, the sunset clause, the ballistic missiles, and the inspections."

Husain

"And have you put the serious issues that you believe are in place, if you do believe that there are  er activities in violation of the deal happening now, have you put those to the IAEA?"

Regev

"We have close relations with the IAEA, we have with Americans with the EU3 my PM is going to raise these issues with the Russians. Obviously, we’re making our case and we believe that evidence that we can bring to the table shows a consistent pattern of Iranian duplicity. They have lied and continue to lie to the international community about the true nature of their nuclear programme. And let’s be clear this is not Israel speaking alone, the Arab states endorse, support our position. we are as one with the Arab countries on seeing the dangerous nature of the Iranian nuclear programme."

Husain

"Well, we’ll hear from President Trump on this topic later on today. Let’s talk about Gaza and what’s been happening along its border with Israel. Since protests began on the 30th March Israeli soldiers have killed forty Palestinians including five children on the Gaza side of the border fence, more than 3,000 Palestinians have been hospitalised with injuries from live ammunition. Why are your soldiers using live ammunition to shoot people on the other side of the fence?"

Regev

"We don’t want to see anyone get hurt, We don’t want to see any violence. Unfortunately, the Hamas regime in Gaza has orchestrated continuous attempts to storm the border fence to damage the face to penetrate into Israel and to hurt out people."

Husain

"Yes, five people have been killed crossing the fence, I’m talking about those who were shot with live ammunition by Israeli soldiers inside Gaza. Why are you using live ammunition to shoot those who were inside Gaza?"

Regev

"We are only using live ammunition as a last resort after we’ve used other non-lethal mechanisms. We can’y allow people to storm the fence, break the fence and come into Israel to try to kill our people."

Husain

"Why do you need a last resort for those who haven’t crossed the fence?"

Regev

"You used the word protests before. Demonstrations. We have no problem with demonstrations.If people in Gaza want to demonstrate against PM Netanyahu or the Israeli government they are free to do so. Of course, they are not free to demonstrate against Hamas. That would never be allowed. But if you storm the fence with wire-cutters, with petrol bombs, with explosives when the goal is to damage the fence so you can infiltrate into Israel and hurt our people we will act to protect our civilian population."

Husain

"I am asking you about this who’ve been shot with live ammunition on the Gaza side of the fence, the Israeli rights group Adalah which is part of the legal challenge against the use of live ammunition says the great majority of those shot were at a distance from the fence, that there has bee a systematic use of live fire with no justification."

Regev

"If I’m not mistaken some 80% of those fatally shot in the violent confrontations were signed up members of Hamas and Islamic jihad, they were activists, not innocent civilians."

Husain

"Finally, after allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn has said in recent weeks, in fac,t he told Jewish news in march that he intends to visit Israel and to meet Benjamin Netanyahu at some point, will the PM meet him?"

Regev

"I can’t pre judge. I’m not even sure a visit has been finalise at this stage."

Husain

"But if it happened, that Jeremy Corbyn hopes it happens at some point, with PM Netanyahu meet him?"


Regev

"I am very happy to meet with Jeremy Corbyn and discuss a possible programme for him to visit Israel. Anything else at this stage would be premature."

Husain

"Mark Regev, Israeli Ambassador to the UK thank you very much, listening to that is Jeremy Bowen our Middle East editor, there’s no doubt Jeremy, that the Israelis feel extremely angry about what has been agreed in terms of this deal do you think they have evidence of violations happening now?"

Bowen’s pedestrian wisdoms ensue. (Why didn’t they bring in an expert to evaluate Emily Thornberry’s observations?)

I don’t know how interviews are allocated between the presenters of the day, but it often seems to fall upon Mishal Husain to do the Israel-related ones.

On second listening I didn’t feel that the disdainful tone of voice she used for Regev was as obvious as it seemed on first hearing, this morning, but that was before President Trump made his speech explaining why he has decided to do what he’s decided to do. That was then and this is now.

I see the BBC has substituted Sarah Montague’s image for Martha Kearney’s on the website. (It looks a bit big) Also, I find it pretty exasperating that they’ve dumped the ‘running order’ so one has to trawl through the whole thing to locate the bits you’re interested in. Just think, when I first started blogging, they even supplied us with hyperlinks to individual sections of the programme. It’s almost as if they’ve done it deliberately to frustrate bloggers who criticise the BBC.

Oops

Mahmoud Abbas, Israel’s so-called partner for peace has made a grossly offensive speech at the opening the 23rd session of the Palestinian National Council. It must have been pretty bad because even the BBC has reported it, and so has the Independent, though they don’t seem quite so sure whether to be offended or not. 

"Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas accused of antisemitism over Holocaust comments" 

They did report, however, that Emily Thornberry was in attendance, and that she condemned his comments, adding:

"I hope President Abbas will immediately apologise for them," 

They didn’t report, however, that the UK's shadow Foreign Secretary was somewhat late in the day with those remarks, as according to Guido, her first response was:

“While we of course want to see the resumption of meaningful peace talks, I said President Abbas had been quite right to argue that the Trump administration cannot act as a mediator for peace when they themselves are sowing the seeds of discord, and making a negotiated peace ever harder to achieve…”

and only later put out the following statement:

“It is deeply regrettable that, during a lengthy speech whose main and successful purpose was to urge the Palestinian National Council to remain committed to the Middle East peace process and the objective of a two-state solution, President Abbas made these anti-Semitic remarks about the history of the Jewish community in Europe which were not just grossly offensive, but utterly ignorant. His comments were out of keeping with the tone of the Council as a whole, and of my discussions with other delegates, and I hope President Abbas will immediately apologise for them, so that the message to come out of this important Council meeting can remain positive and progressive, and focused on re-establishing peaceful and constructive dialogue.”

The BBC did not mention Emily Thornberry at all in the report linked to above. 

Sunday Morning TV.

Good grief, the Beeb’s Sunday Morning viewing provides a pot pourri of bad sights and peculiar people and peculiar sights and bad people.

Let’s take Emily Thornberry. It is said that Emily, or Lady Nugee, as they prefer to call her on Guido’s website, is positioning for Corby’s job. No, surely not! But worse things happen at sea. 

Admittedly she is thought to have eclipsed old Steptoe when she stood in for him at PMQs, but how hard is that?

Isn’t she a bit of a square peg in a shitround hole? I mean her demeanour is not that of your bog standard Labour M P. Unlike your standard, labourite, glottal-stop estuary English (gettin’ on down wiv the workin’ class) favoured by all Labour MPs during the Blair - Miliband era, Emily talks a bit posh, with her slightly Sloaney vowels and a hint of mid-Atlantic drawl; the sort of accent Beatrice and Eugene from W1A might pick up at the Golden Globes. She begins all her sentences with “I think”, confident that we care. At her most irritating she will blink and half-close her eyes, a look often given by the very smug after successfully making A Very Important Point.

On the Marr show she said:

“He is an asteroid of awfulness that has fallen on this world. I think that he is a danger an’ I think that he is a raycust.” “That shays that he doesn’t have a real grasp of what a trade agreement actually uhs.” 

Hmm. And I thought Trump was a businessman. Oh well. 

Watching the insufferable Meryl Streep was not pleasant. Nicola Sturgeon may not be my favourite politician, but she’s smart and articulate in a way that knocks poor Lady Nugee’s performance into the proverbial cocked hat.

Yippidee dooda, The Big Questions is back!! When you get your first glimpse of the ‘front row’, your immediate  challenge is to see how quickly you can spot the regulars. Today there were only two. Angela Epstein and Abdullah al-Andalusi. 

The debates were a little lacklustre, but when they turned their attention to the troubling question of the persecution of Christians I was relieved to see that no-one even mentioned Israel.  Thank goodness I didn’t have to write an infuriated blogpost about that, for once. Here’s a list of the offending top 50.

Put that in your pipe, Lucy Winkett, the Rev Stephen Sizer and Sarah Montague.

The Sunday Politics has lost its sparkle since Sarah Smith took over from Andrew Neil. I wonder if she gets equal pay? My attention wandered till Barry Gardiner came on. Garry Bardiner. Barry Gardiner painstakingly explained, as if to a class of severely mentally disadvantaged infants, the Labour Party’s policy on the single market and the Customs Union. I think he’s saying we want the best possible deal. We will be leaving the EU by the way. Let me be clear. What we want, what people voted for, what we’re trying to do, each “what” enunciated with a kindly but slightly patronising Barry Gardiner whoosh. When challenged about Jared O”Mara’s and John McDonnell’s obnoxiously misogynistic remarks  a steely look came into his eyes that sent a chill down my spine. Gentle Barry has a nasty side. 

Ukip! Poor old Henry Bolton. His girlfriend made him look enough of an idiot even before she said all that stupid stuff.  I don’t think even Nige could salvage what’s left of the party. But you never know what’s around the corner. Now I’m off to watch the Queen.

Questions for 'Panorama' from Emily Thornberry

The famous Emily Thornberry

This morning's Andrew Marr show also featured Emily Thornberry, newly sensible-sounding and boring. (Has she been coached?)

You might not be aware though of a letter which Ms Thornberry has recently sent to the BBC  on behalf of a constituent concerning a 2013 edition of Panorama. It was addressed to Panorama editor Rachel Jupp: 

Torn between Question Time and Newsnight

Imagine being torn between watching Question Time BBC 1 and Newsnight BBC 2! 

Oh the anguish.

As if the morbid fascination of Katie Razzall’s ‘half-the-story’ film about a Syrian refugee family’s suffering in Newcastle wasn’t compelling enough, the equally morbid, almost rubber-necked compulsion to watch Emily Thornberry crash and burn on Q.T. proved irresistible. 

I tore myself away from the tearful Syrians whose son Omar had just been found not guilty of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in a park, and turned instead to the excitement of Damian Green, Isabel Oakshott, Amol Rajan, Alex Salmond and Emily Thornberry performing before the audience in the RAF Museum in London.

Most of the programme was devoted to Brexit and whether Theresa May should be compelled to publicly reveal her negotiating hand so that various ‘remoaniacs’ could have their say, and possibly their vote,  and Jeremy Corbyn could reflect on it, have a conversation about it, possibly demand another referendum and generally hold the Tories to account. 

Emily Thornberry addressed the Leave voters in the audience:  “How many of you voted for your neighbours to lose their jobs?”  That didn’t go down too well. The assumption was that Leave voters ‘didn’t know what they were voting for’ (redundancy for the neighbours course) because that was what will happen when we leave the EU. 

This struck me as an example of what Emily Thornberry might call ‘people saying different contradictory things’  since Leave voters (supposedly) objected to unrestricted immigration which drives down wages and steals (our) jobs. 

All along, Emily Thornberry emitted a stream of words in her specially adapted version of ‘Just a Minute’, the sole objective being to speak “without hesitation”. (Repetition and deviation were abundant.) Maybe  Q.T. should introduce buzzers.

Isabel Oakshott was good, her hair resting upon her heaving bosom. This infantilising fashion for long hair on adult women is getting irritating. 

Emily Thornberry’s media appearances have been so awful since she was anointed Shadow Home Secretary that having her on this particular panel must have been an act of pure mischief on the part of the producers. I expect they were hoping for another Dermot Murnaghan moment.  In the event it was just one long, drawn out exhibition of unintentional self parody.

The audience has become more unpredictable of late. There were a few surprising contributions, not least of which came from a young man with a giant afro, which doubled the impact of his pro Trump sentiment.

When the programme ended I had the urge to finish watching Katie Razzall’s rose-tinted film. “Did you ever think that this was worse than what you’d left behind?” suggested Katie, in the most one-sided anti-British bit of film I’ve seen for …at least half an hour.

Syria is currently hell on earth and I have sympathy for families like this, but Katie Razzall has managed to portray these particular reality TV stars as such paragons of virtue that this film will have raised the hackles of many more viewers than the filmmakers set out to seduce.. 

It appears this family had been tortured by the Assad regime before they fled to Jordan, where they’d been living for two years before arriving in the UK. 

The suggestion that Omar’s experiences in the UK were far worse than anything they’d experienced in Syria (being tortured) was pushing it. For ‘conservative’ Muslims, whose reputation was one of “high moral standing”, this unfortunate prosecution must indeed have been galling, but let’s not forget - he was acquitted. Found not guilty. British justice and that. 

We heard that Omar couldn’t have committed a sexual assault on a schoolgirl because “our religion” doesn’t permit things like that, and although the local council had laid on classes to educate immigrants on how we treat sluts women in the UK,  the classes were for adults only and the father, amusingly named Marwan Badreddin,  (!) said they couldn’t talk about it to youths such as Omar because “We don’t talk about such things in Syria”.

18 year old Omar says he’s never had a sexual relationship. “Here, we see boys and girls kissing all the time and we just have to try and get used to it; in Syria we wait to get married.” 

The film included a clip of rampaging skinheads wearing ‘rapefugees’ T-shirts.  Throughout the film certain “complexities” within the tale were alluded to, and introduced, bit by bit. 

The family had another son, Abdel Malek, whom they’d left behind in Syria and hadn’t seen for three years. Now it seems they’d just heard he’d been killed while fighting Assad, with “an Islamist group,”  though his father denied that that made him an extremist.

Understandably the family yearned for Syria, but they appeared to have little intention of acquiring any real affinity with the country that had shown them a considerable amount of generosity. 

This wilful blindness to the problems created by the cultural and religious differences between Muslim refugees and ordinary British citizens does more harm than good. Katie Razzall’s conspicuously rose-tinted bias added greatly to the confusion.

Typical Syrian refugees

Later, against my better judgment I saw Katie Hopkins chatting about Donald Trump with a rather irritable Andrew Neil.  Andrew Neil took a disappointingly BBC approach to the subject, while Michael Portillo almost took Katie Hopkins by surprise by unexpectedly siding with her. 

Sorry!

One example of what some people think the BBC should not be doing is showcasing half-baked political stunts by celebrities. Lily Allen was featured on the Victoria Derbyshire programmme  this morning. She was filmed in Calais speaking to a 13 year old Afghan boy who is stuck in the jungle and can’t get to the UK.  In Catrin Nye’s message-laden report Lily tells the boy:

 “At three points in your life [the UK] has put you in danger. We bombed your country, put you in the hands of the Taliban, and now put you in danger of risking your life to get into our country.”

 She continued: 

“I apologise on behalf of my country. I’m sorry. For what we put you through.” 

and disolved into to sobs.

Later, Lily Allen and a humanitarian activist were back in the UK, sitting in on the V.D. couch. Victoria read out some emails from the public, querying, a) the need for refugees to come to the UK when they had already reached safety in Europe, and b) why she thinks we should prioritise refugees above our own needy children. Lily rubbed her nose.

Throughout the interview Lily seemed to have a persistent itch in her nose. 

****** 

Another symptom of a world gawn mad is shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry. She appeared on the Today Programme, then on Sky with Adam Boulton, then on the Parliament Channel during the debate on Brexit. 

Ms Thornberry appears to be desperately improvising, her sole aim being to keep saying words. If she thinks she’s in danger of drying up, she pads out the flow with copious ‘franklies’ and near tautologies like ‘the Tories are saying “a lot of different contradictory things” and using the sophisticated expression “La-la land’. She's like a permanent contestant on ‘Just a Minute’.

The level of the Parliamentary debate seemed way over the head of Jeremy Corbyn’s Shadow Foreign Secretary, but she sat through it with a self-satisfied and ‘entitled’ look. Kier Sturmer got down to the serious business of ‘holding the government to account’ while she gurned and whispered to her neighbour like an overgrown schoolgirl, giving the impression that it’s all a game, which, to her, I suspect it is. 

Today’s final symptom of the world gawn mad is of course the World of Sport’s tragic reaction to Louis Smith’s eminently sensible lampooning of Islam.  

What is going on? Have blasphemy laws  been brought in from Pakistan when no-one was looking? 

Reflections on this Sunday

I forgot the Andrew Marr show was starting half an hour early today so I went out for a walk.  I don’t know what I missed, but it couldn’t have been better than fresh air, big sky and sparkling sea on a beautiful, breezy, autumn day. 

Millions of surfers were out already. I spotted one wearing a huge oversized towelling maxi-poncho with a hood, roomy enough to get changed in/under. Never mind the burkini, this is what I call modesty. No more towel, hitched precariously below the belly. Must recommend it to David Cameron.

Anyway I did catch Andrew talking to Amber Rudd, who looked as though she’d been dragged through a hedge backwards - bit like me -  and I did notice that she was wearing a necklace in the form of a giant silver chain just like Theresa May’s. (Is that symbolic - of being chained to one’s office?)

The interview was virtually pointless because neither Theresa nor Amber are presently willing to divulge anything whatsoever. They say it’s premature “You don’t expect a running commentary on our Brexit negotiations, do you Andrew?”  Theresa May said something similar last week. No-one is sure whether the secrecy is a cover for downright uncertainty and indecision.  “Now what are we going to do?” Just lie back, repeat “we’re doing what’s best for the UK” and think of England.

********

All the best stuff occurred outside the usual Sunday morning political fare. Emily Thornberry gave a car-crash interview on Sky, (the BBC reported it rather generously here) in which Dermot Murnaghan exposed the mind-boggling extent of shadow foreign secretary’s ignorance. Vast swathes of it. He kept saying, with incredulity, “But you’re the shadow foreign secretary.” 

The funny thing is, it was Thornberry herself who brought up the ‘pub quiz’ analogy, which drew attention to the fact that she’s probably less well informed than your average pub philosopher. 

She must have learned that when you’re in a corner, the best defence is attack. Rats are well known for doing that. She alighted on sexism, but that strategy didn’t fool anyone, except perhaps the person who wrote the aforementioned BBC report. The Sun has some fun with it here.

**********

Where did you get that hat

I thought this story was interesting. Michael Foster was the Labour candidate for my very own neck of the woods at the last GE. Labour doesn’t stand much of a chance in this constituency, but I must say I felt a pang of admiration for Foster last year when he shouted out “Say the word Israel” at Corbyn’s  Israel-free speech at the Labour friends of Israel reception. (He wouldn’t say it.) 

The Mail has a much more colourful version of this story than the BBC’s subdued account of it. 

It seems that after he lost his court case (he fought against Corbyn standing for re-election without having to establish the requisite number of nominations) Foster published an article in the Mail on Sunday savagely attacking Corbyn’s leadership. Now the Labour Party has barred Mr. Foster from even voting in the leadership election, despite the fact that he had donated huge sums of dosh to the party before Corbyn’s reign. He’s also been banned from the Labour Party conference. I don’t suppose they want him shouting out any more awkward requests.

From Mail on Sunday August 2016

This is a big row that has been going on for some time, and reignited on 14th August, 2016 when he wrote the infamous ‘stormtroopers’ article for the Mail on Sunday. I haven’t read it, but it obviously caused quite a stir, especially as the MoS had taken it upon themselves to put the word “Nazi’ in the headline. 

The Huffington Post hit back with a piece by Corbynista Richard Burgon MP., which included several Tweets by well-known hat-wearer George Galloway and assorted members of the hard-left.

Another closely related scandal has flared up surrounding Corbyn, which according to the Telegraph has “reignited” all those allegations of antisemitism.  

The Guardian and the Telegraph have printed almost identical reports, but you get the sense (or is it just me, looking for trouble) that the Guardian is slightly more hostile to Israel than the Telegraph.   I would say that, wouldn’t I.

The story, in case I completely forget to explain it, is that  Corbyn first ignored, and has now turned down, the invitation from Isaac Herzog, leader of the Israeli Labour party, to visit Yad Vashem in Jerusalem “to witness that the last time the Jews were forcibly transported it was not to Israel but to their deaths”. (This alludes to Ken Livingstone’s theories about  Hitler and Zionism)

 Corbyn is sending a flunky in his place. His diary is full, he says. Probably full of urgent Stop the War Coalition fundraisers and the like.

Here’s another version of the story, with added gossip about Seumas Milne, which he denies. 

“In the latest of a series of allegations of anti-Semitism plaguing Britain's Labour Party, media reports on Sunday said that one of party leader Jeremy Corbyn's closest aides had tried unsuccessfully to get Hebrew expunged from a Jewish holiday greeting. 

The New York Times and London's Jewish Chronicle say the adviser, Seumas Milne, wanted to remove the words "Chag Kasher Ve-Sameach," which means "A Happy and Kosher Holiday," from Corbyn's Passover greeting to the Jewish community.Dave Rich writes in The Times that Milne thought the Hebrew phrase "implied support for Zionism."

I’m not saying the BBC has been more biased than all the other news organs over these matters. It might have omitted some parts of these stories, and the parts it did report were handled in a subdued manner. It’s treading carefully. Heaven forbid it accidentally makes a value judgment. I’m aware that those stultifying ‘complaints from both sides’ are an ever-present threat, but less isn’t always more.