Only, just, controversial

I was reading some comments on Twitter earlier about last night's BBC One News at Six concerning the BBC's coverage of the Government's decision to cut the UK's overseas budget from the sacred figure of 0.7%.

The thread began:

Tweeter 1: I've just watched the BBC News item on cutting foreign aid. The opening clip shows food being dropped directly to the people. That's the image they want you to take in - not grants to NGOs and Governments. Manipulation.

It continued with such comments as:

Tweeter 2: Said exactly the same thing myself when I saw that last night. They also opened up with the comment ‘widely criticised policy’ as opposed to ‘widely supported’ which it undoubtedly is across the UK. Total bias yet again in the way they portray/report!

The latter was referring to longstanding polling evidence that the public supports cutting the UK's foreign aid budget - a public mood reflected in YouGov's latest polling (from yesterday) showing that 66% of the public support cutting overseas aid while a mere 18% oppose the cut.

Naturally, I thought I ought to see that BBC report for myself. Were they being unfair to it?

Well, no, they weren't. Far from it. This really is classic BBC. 

It begins, as noted above, with the dubious contention that cutting overseas aid is "controversial" - despite all the polling evidence, which goes completely the other way:

BBC Newsreader: One of the more controversial aspects of the spending review is the Chancellor's decision to cut - for the time being - the amount of money the UK gives in aid to poorer countries. Mr Sunak told MPs that to carry on spending abroad when we have a domestic emergency would be difficult to justify to the British people. Here's James Landale.

Of course, it might seem "controversial" within the BBC and its bubble, but that's the point of the comment above: The vast bulk of the public believes it's "controversial" not to cut overseas aid, and the BBC is, yet again, massively out of step with public opinion on this.

As the first commenter said...

Accompanied by footage showing food being dropped directly to the people, a senior BBC reporter then sang what virtually amounted to hymn of praise to British overseas aid: 

James Landale: For years, the sight of a plane delivering British food and medicine has brought hope to millions. The humanitarian assistance and development that can, for some, mean the difference between life and death.

Isn't British aid wonderful!

James Landale: But now the Government has decided it's got to cut back. 

How  awful of the Government! 

After that first op-ed came a brief 'balancing' quote: 

Neil O'Brien MP, Conservative: This is not something anybody wanted to have to do, but the truth is the NHS and helping people who are unemployed has to be the priority next year.  

James Landale then 'contextualised' it. But just look at his language: 

James Landale: Last year, the UK spent £15 billion on foreign aid, about 0.7% of national income. Now the Government wants to cut that legally binding target to just 0.5%. That means spending only £10 billion on aid next year. This will leave the UK spending less in Germany on 0.6%, but more than France on 0.4%. 

The use of "just" and "only" there is loaded language, language that sends a message that 0.5% is both not much and not enough. 

It's not neutral language. 

A nod towards balance then followed, swiftly pursued by the first of James's onslaught of critics:

James Landale: The aid budget has long faced questions about priorities, such as why some goes to India, with its own space programme. But those who work to reduce poverty and disease say today's cuts will bite deep, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Romilly Greenhill, One Campaign: Cutting aid will make it harder to get vaccines to people all over the world, harder to get the treatments people need and ultimately it will extend the lifetime of the pandemic. 

The onslaught continued: 

James Landale: The Archbishop of Canterbury said the aid cut was "shameful and wrong".

The onslaught went on: 

James Landale: The Foreign Office Development Minister Lady Sugg resigned, also saying it was fundamentally wrong. 

And on: 

James Landale: And her old boss, the man who enshrined the targets in law, was equally unhappy:

David Cameron: Well, I think it's a very sad moment. It's not just that we are breaking a promise to the poorest people in the poorest countries in the world - a promise that we made, a promise that we don't have to break - it's that that 0.7% commitment, it really said something about Britain.

And then came another op-ed, hymning UK overseas aid and raising concerns about the cut: 

James Landale: For years, Britain's had a reputation as an aid superpower.  And that's got Britain a hearing on the international stage. It's opened door for ministers and officials here at the Foreign Office. The question is what impacts today's decision will actually have on that reputation just as Britain tries to carve a new role for itself after Brexit. 

And then, finally, came this more factual-sounding bit of reporting: 

James Landale: To spend less on aid, the Government will also have to change the law. That means a long Parliamentary battle ahead. James Landale, BBC News.

Does this feel like impartial reporting to you? 

It doesn't to me.

Coda to the post above

An update to the post above: Wednesday's News at Ten ramped up the language yet further. It changed from this at Six:

One of the more controversial aspects of the spending review is the Chancellor's decision to cut - for the time being - the amount of money the UK gives in aid to poorer countries. Mr Sunak told MPs that to carry on spending abroad when we have a domestic emergency would be difficult to justify to the British people. Here's James Landale.

...to this at Ten:

One of the more controversial elements of the spending review, was the Chancellor's decision to cut the amount of money the UK gives in foreign aid. The decision has been widely criticised, and a minister at the Foreign Office has resigned in protest. Mr Sunak told MPs that to carry on spending abroad when there was a domestic emergency was difficult to justify. Our diplomatic correspondent James Landale has more details.

The remainder of the report then ran as follows, relegating the one defence nearer the end and bringing the criticisms forward:

James Landale: For years, the sight of a plane delivering British food and medicine has brought hope to millions. The humanitarian assistance that can, for some, mean the difference between life and death. But now the Government's cutting back, to the fury of the man who championed aid in office.

David Cameron: Well, I think it's a very sad moment. It not just that we've... We're breaking a promise to the poorest people and the poorest countries in the world, a promise that we made and a promise that we don't have to break, it's that that 0.7% commitment, it really said something about Britain.

Last year, the UK spent £15 billion on foreign aid, about 0.7% of national income. The Government is now cutting that legally binding target to just 0.5%. That means spending only £10 billion next year. This would be less than Germany on 0.6%, but more than France on 0.4%. Those who work to reduce poverty and disease say these cuts will bite deep, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Romilly Greenhill, One Campaign: This is the last time we should be cutting aid. Cutting aid will make it harder to get vaccines to people all over the world, harder to get the treatments that people need and, ultimately, it will extend the lifetime of the pandemic. This is a little bit like cutting funding to the RAF right in the middle of the Battle of Britain. 

The Foreign Office Development Minister Lady Sugg was so unhappy she resigned, saying the cut was fundamentally wrong. But the aid budget has long faced questions about priorities, such as why some goes to India, with its own space programme. Questions that are harder to answer when the country's facing such an economic emergency.

Neil O'Brien MP, Conservative: This is not something that anybody wanted to have to do, but the truth is that the NHS and helping people who are unemployed has to be the priority next year. 

For years, Britain's had a reputation as an aid superpower. And that's got the UK a hearing on the international stage. It's opened door for ministers and officials here at the Foreign Office. The question is what impact today's decision will have on that reputation just as Britain tries to carve a new role for itself after Brexit. To spend less on aid, the Government will also have to change the law - and that means a long Parliamentary battle ahead. James Landale, BBC News.

Rant of the day

What do we think about ring-fencing foreign aid? Is it only UKIP supporters that think we should revise our generous contribution down from 0.7% to 0.2%, whatever that means in actual terms?

Only, I can understand that there are various reasons, other than the purely altruistic, why it’s best practice to forge good relations with various developing nations and that ultimately, helping them helps us. 

But hearing tales of corruption and misappropriation of £millions of Dfid dosh makes you think again. 

There is one aspect of the current scenario that could arguably justify a sizeable sum of our foreign aid budget being redirected back from whence it came. The fact that terrorism is a global problem, ignited abroad, carried out by idiots recruited from abroad and aided and abetted by home-grown and foreign sympathisers of our enemies overseas. Foreign stuff.

So why shouldn’t we should divert a large chunk of our foreign aid budget back home to defend ourselves against foreign-propagated violence and use it to fund extra police, additional counter-terrorism manpower and generally expand whatever services are deemed necessary to keep us safe?

My Conservative woes

Ever since the election was announced I have been avoiding bias-watching and blogging about political programmes. It’s not that I’m not interested, I certainly am. It’s just that I’m incapable of separating my subjective political views from the business of critically objective bias-watching. 

I find it hard to leave my views at the door, so to speak, and as you’ll have noticed, the stop-watch department is in the hands of my co-blogger.

However, there are certain things that I might as well get off my chest. The only credible party at the moment is of course the Conservative Party. That goes without saying. But there are certain things that Theresa May has said that have me deeply worried. Policy issues.

One is her bizarre insistence that it’s only when violence is incited or is being plotted, or after it has taken place that we need to be concerned about Islamic extremism, let alone take action against the perpetrator. It’s plain stupid. As politicians are wont to say - “What kind of country do we want to live in?” 

The  other matter is the ring-fencing of international aid. I don’t even think it’s a vote-winner.

I watched Charlie Webster talking about her near-death experience from a malaria-related complication, and her heartfelt appeal for aid towards malaria prevention, worldwide. She said eradicating malaria is not only do-able, but in the long-term, completely cost-effective. I understand she spoke about this on Capitol Hill recently.

I’m sure there are other worthy causes we might support, and I have no problem with the government aiding genuinely humanitarian causes.

However, the waste associated with present arrangements concerning the distribution of our foreign is shameful. On The Conservative Woman Karen Harradine has written a powerful two-part study of how the DFID money is really spent, which you must read. That topic would make a terrific BBC investigation. You’d think they’d snap it up before Channel 4 gets its hands on it.

Not only the £800 that is being paid (from your money) by the PA as a monthly salary to the murderer of British student Hannah Bladon who happened to be travelling on the Jerusalem light railway when she was stabbed to death by a disgraced and certifiably insane Palestinian man who believed  the act would give him “a way out of his problems”. Which it did - so, not quite so insane after all. That’s Mahmoud Abbas’s peacemaking strategy for you; his preparation for Statehood.

 That particular abuse of foreign aid is absolutely appalling, but it’s not the only abuse Ms. Harradine exposes. The widespread corruption and misuse of British taxpayers’ cash is truly shocking. Do read both articles, part one here and part two here. 

Belated catching-up

Progressive Class system.

Have YOU read anything by David Goodhart?

His forthcoming book “The Road to Somewhere: The populist revolt and the future of politics”  was plugged on Start the Week yesterday morning. 

Goodhart looks down from heaven at all mankind. Much as he tries to hide it, his approach to the “Somewheres’ sounds patronising. The peasants are revolting, and they wreaked their revenge by by voting Brexit.

My impression was of a simplified analysis that conveniently put us into two groups, by implication ‘good’ and ‘bad’, which came across as heavy-handed and insulting. Too neat and tidy, and smug. Then someone - possibly by Andrew Marr - boosted that impression by casually remarking that “Leave” voters tend to approve of Capital punishment.

I freely admit that I may have misunderstood the whole thing. Correct me if I’ve got it wrong, but I thought David Goodhart sees the “Somewheres” as parochial, narrow-minded and bigoted, part of ‘the hang-em-and-flog-em brigade’, whose brains are addled by ignorance and fear of the unfamiliar.  

Mind you, he did concede that extremism in the  “Somewheres” only represents a small minority of the Somewheres. (In other words extremist ‘Somewheres’ are Nothing To Do With common ‘Somewheres’)

The “Anywhere” lot, on the other hand, are the open-minded liberal elite, the ‘anywhere I hang my hat, that’s my home’ brigade. They the are right-minded globalists who love adventure and are open to new ideas and dismissive of the old; they are the moral-equivalence-mongers.

‘Anywheres’ and ‘Somewheres’ sound like progressive euphemistic terms for old fashioned class snobbishness.

********

Not newsworthy. Part 1.

Much of the most recent bias is that of omission. The OMG Daily Mail featured a couple of tales about you-know-what and you-know-who which the BBC hasn’t covered. A story about foreign aid funding incitement against Jewish Israelis appeared in that newspaper two days running. 

The readers’ comments were divided, perhaps between the anywheres and the somewheres, but one couldn’t be sure which was which. 

 

role-play

The other Daily Mail story was more upbeat, and the same story was also featured in the Times. It was a ‘picture’ story about orthodox ‘Stamford Hill’ Jews celebrating Purim and was quite jolly. Ultra conservative parents were snapped with their children who were dressed up in elaborate fancy dress. Quite a sight. 

The BBC wasn’t interested. However, elsewhere it’s almost as if a lightbulb has suddenly been switched on. Oh look, here’s something we hadn’t noticed till now.

We await,  with anticipation, the media’s celebrations for the Balfour centenary. Hopefully not influenced by this. Warning; contains traces of Robert Fisk.

********

In fact there’s a rather embarrassing bandwagon emerging. The antisemitism bandwagon. People who were the most vocal “critics of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians” and the most ardent defenders of Islamic immigration and apologists for Hamas and so on, like, say Owen Jones, have started making statements about antisemitism, and how they’re against all forms of racism. 

Jeremy Corbyn is on board, as are a sizeable portion of the Labour Party. It’s rife in the US too. Think Linda Sarsour whose recent concerns about antisemitism can only have been adopted to mask the antisemitism within her anti-Israel activism. 

There has also been a mini explosion of genuinely non-political Israel-themed reporting. We’re talking foodie programmes and articles, although the Times piece featured a book based on Israeli research rather than the research itself. 

Taking the ultra cynical view, as is my wont, it could be that a certain section of the media has belatedly woken up to the fact that the disproportionate focus on all things Islam (Eid, Ramalamadingdam, the Hajj, the hijab, etc) was beginning to look conspicuously propagandistic. They’ve realised that if they must equate antisemitism with Islamophobia and vice versa every time one or the other comes up, then they have no excuse for ignoring Purim or, for that matter failing to interest themselves in the wide ranging achievements of the Israelis. 

**********

Not newsworthy Part 2.

This is pretty shocking by any scale of bias-by-omission. It’s yet another occasion when glorification of a murderer is played down. 

Compare the (neutral) BBC’s report with (anti-Israel) Al Jazeera’s . The two reports appear to have got mixed up.

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

Still catching up.

Recently I’ve been reading reports by Jonathan Hoffman on Harry’s Place and David Collier on his blog ‘Beyond The Great Divide’ about the appalling events in “Israel Apartheid week”  (I think it’s a fortnight now) an annual event hosted by various universities.

These talks take the form of one speaker or a panel and include a Q & A session. They do not appreciate criticism or any sort of critical questioning. If some of the speeches are fact-free and fanciful it doesn’t matter because we’re in a post-factual era. Only feelings count, and the sort of feelings at Israel Apartheid events should be evident from the title.

**********

Talking of antisemitism, there were a couple of threads on Guido’s blog last week, one about Jenny Tonge and Jackie Walker having tea together.

and the other  about more of Jackie Walker's insights (“Jewish media pattern’)

******

They say no-one reads the comments on Guido Fawkes’s blog. But surely that can’t be 100% true! Last week I read the comments on the thread entitled “Budget Bloodbath”. https://order-order.com/2017/03/08/budget-bloodbath/ 

For some reason this comment struck me:

Tom Collins 

“We have over 3 million muslims. 50% of the men and 75% of the women, are signed on at the Job Seekers Centres. Cost of their Benefits = £14 Billion a year.There are probably 600,000 Somalis living in the UK.80% live in Social Housing compared to 17% of the indigenous population. Over 21% of muslims have never worked.. These facts, and others, could drive one to drink. The future cost of this massive, uncontrolled immigration is virtually unimaginable.”

I don’t know if Mr. Collins’s figures are correct, but I did follow a link from Not a Sheep’s blog which appeared around the same time. It led to a covert video from 2009 filmed surreptitiously at the Darul Uloom school, which I hoped to paste into this blog for your edification. But it’s been taken down and I don’t really blame them. I wonder if the ofsted inspectors are mad or blind.

“A person who’s got less than a fistful of beard, then you should stay away from him” 

said the teenage Imam, randomly kicking pupils as he wandered past the children sitting in rows on the floor

Thanks, I certainly will. And a person who’s got more than a fistful of beard and a dress, for sure.

Again, at the same time as the above - possibly on the same day - I came across a piece via a link on our sidebar to an item on the ITV website.

“A new report says measures to tackle terrorism and extremism are jeopardising efforts to promote integration in Britain.
Government initiatives such as Prevent and Channel risk "fomenting fear and resentment" among people from national and ethnic minorities, a European watchdog claims.”

 I was going to paste the whole item into this, but you’ll get the drift from a few excerpts.

“The report highlights Prevent duty as a problem, the policy was brought in during 2015 and requires state bodies such as schools and councils to report people they suspect of being at risk of early radicalisation.
The Advisory Committee "observes that under these programmes liability has been shifted to local authorities and in particular to teachers, to detect early radicalisation," the paper says. 

The report criticises the fact teachers and lecturers were not given the "necessary competence" and putting them at risk of "over-reacting for fear of breaking the law.
Prevent has repeatedly attracted controversy, with critics labelling it "toxic" and calling for it to be scrapped.”
[…]
The study said: "Overall, persons belonging to ethnic minorities are in a better place in reducing educational gaps, but challenges remain in relation to higher levels of unemployment, low wages, underemployment, worse health status and access to care, high levels of poverty, low levels of English language knowledge and inadequate political representation.”

(emphasis added.)

Tom Collin’s assertions look quite credible now. Surely it’s those European watchdogs that need watching.

A European watchdog that can’t even watch an ethnic minority that’s busily fomenting hate and resentment against ‘the unbelievers’ since well before the Prevent strategy was a gleam in the eye of its creator must be as useless as one of those chocolate teapots that people keep referring to.

If we’re afraid to provoke enclaves of hostile citizens by interfering with their hostility to us, we’re stymied. We’ll just have to stand back and wait till enough “fear and resentment” are fomented to ignite  civil war. 

Meanwhile the BBC and much of the MSM are flooding the air waves with Good Muslim stuff while waiting for ‘integration’ to happen, which they hope to bring about by turning a blind eye to schools like Darul Uloom, ignoring the antisemitic teaching in aid-funded UNRWA and PA  schools and downplaying the glorification of Palestinian terrorists. 

*********

Unlike my co-blogger I live in a self-employed micro bubble. Everyone round here is self-employed apart from, say, schoolteachers and the G.P. And I’m not too sure if he isn’t, come to think. 

Meddling with NICs didn’t sound like good news but the devil’s in the detail and they say some will be better off. Maybe Phillip Hammond will be forced to make a u-turn when possible on the long and winding road towards our fiscal destination.

**********

The other day I read an essay about how to construct essays. I thought it might help. 

(The introduction should contain a clear indication of the proposed conclusion. The argument plus a counter-argument should be sandwiched between the introduction and the conclusion.)  Show your workings-out. Or make ‘em up and stick ‘em in afterwards. 

What if you reach the end without a conclusion?  I’ll never be able to write properly constructed essays.

“Not giving money to so-called terrorists”

“Not giving money to so-called terrorists”

So said so-called Diane Abbott towards the end of Monday’s parliamentary debate about foreign aid, which took place at Westminster Hall.  

This was the debate that ‘we’ instigated by signing a petition organised by OMG-The-Mail-on-Sunday. 

It was brought about the Mail’s revelation that money donated by the UK through our aid programme has been finding its way into the hands of Palestinian terrorists. It funds the salaries and stipends of convicted terrorists or the families of deceased martyrs.

The petition quickly received enough signatures to warrant a parliamentary debate, but people signed because they objected far more to funding terrorism than to the principle of funding foreign aid itself. 

In other words, even though 0.7% of our gross national income might well be a big boost to our own underfunded services, the Mail’s indignation was directed against the lack of scrutiny of how the money is being spent and not against foreign aid per se.

However, as these things tend to do, the debate was diluted, a bit like the inquiry into antisemitism in the Labour Party (more of which later) which was expanded to embrace “All racism” or the Holocaust memorial commemorations which certain people insisted had to include “All” holocausts. In the spirit of inclusivity, this debate had to include “All” foreign aid.

You can read the transcript here, but I’ve just selected the bits that I deem relevant to the original petition. You can watch the whole thing here:

The debate was  opened by Steve Double MP for St Austell and Newquay. 

“Mr Double, a devout Christian and lay preacher, employs his wife as a senior caseworker alongside assistant Sarah, who is currently on compassionate leave.”

Far be it for me to cast aspersions on a devout Christian lay preacher who prides himself on  standing for”the traditional fabric of family and community life”  who happens to have been caught with his pants down so to speak, but I have to say the holier than thou stuff emanating from Mr Double Standards is a bit rich.

The debate got off to a good start with Mr. Double refusing to believe that any of DFID’s  funding goes to terrorists. 

Steve Double 

“ There are many myths out there relating to foreign aid spending. One example is that aid money from British and European taxpayers has gone to Palestinian prisoners, including terrorists. That is simply not true. Another is that UK aid to the Palestinian Authority funded an £8 million presidential palace. Again, that is simply not true. The myths go on and on, and they are based on out-of-date information or inaccurate reporting. The Government have been very clear on that.”

The debate might as well have ended there and then. The whole point of the petition was that it did and does go to Palestinian terrorists and other corrupt items , so why not pack up and go home? But no, there’s copious virtue signalling to get through first, which I'll ignore for the purpose of this post.

Ian Austin (Labour Dudley North) piped up: 

“The hon. Gentleman is right about the good work that DFID does, but he is completely wrong to say it is a myth that the Palestinian Authority fund terrorists. The fact is that nearly all of DFID’s funding in the region goes directly to the Palestinian Authority. That is a matter of concern because of the allegation that the Palestinian Authority continue to fund payments to convicted terrorists and their families, which is in direct contradiction to the demands of the international community.”

Alan Duncan was soon off the mark, stating:

 “it would be a tragedy—indeed, it would be repulsive—if it was hijacked by those who want to use it to demonise Palestine and Palestinians? The debate should concentrate on the 0.7% and only that.”

Sir Alan’s dislike of Jews trumps the unpalatable thought that he wouldn’t last long (as a gay man) under the PA or Hamas. 

Over the page, more of the best bits.

Mahmoud’s £8 million Palace and other deserving causes

Did you know you were contributing to Mahmoud Abbas’s £8million palace? No, neither did I. Nor did I know that I was contributing to the wages of murderers, including Amjad and Hakim Awad, the Palestinian cousins who killed Ehud and Ruth Fogel and three of their children in an unimaginably bloodthirsty manner. 

I know OMG the Daily Mail is not the most reliable source, and I understand that it puts a sensationalist spin on any gossip, rumour or scandal it lays its hands on, but this isn’t the first time I’ve heard murmurings about this, and I’m glad at least someone has managed to set it out in no uncertain terms, so that it reaches a wider audience. Even if only to make people think, and ask a few questions.

On Broadcasting House yesterday morning, the papers were reviewed by Digby, Lord Jones, amongst others. He mentioned the MailonSunday’s article about foreign aid and he did say it features a petition one can sign, but he failed to tell us, specifically, that Palestinian criminals were amongst the beneficiaries of our cash. He said things like:

“We’re a generous country; I think every Brit would be proud of that.” [...]”The underlying message is that we’ve ring-fenced 0.7% of our GDP” [...]  “I’m sure lots of it is going to good things, but when we gave £5.9million to the Americans? We paid £13,00 for a rich Texan businessman to fly to London for a summit?” ...[...] “It doesn’t mean don’t give money to the developing world. What it does mean is just look  more carefully at where it’s going”  

Oh well, maybe he thinks the Palestinians are a more deserving cause than the recipients he cited, which do disturb him. Maybe he didn’t want to offend any pro-Palestinian listeners. Maybe he didn’t notice. Who knows.

Update: There are currently 136,887 signatures on this petition (11am; 29th March 2016)