Something's not quite right

There’s nothing currently on the Beeb about the latest Ghislaine Maxwell revelations. The last time we heard about it was on the BBC website this time last year when they reported that “Prince Andrew has settled a civil sexual assault case brought against him in the US by Virginia Giuffre.” 

And there’s no trace on the Beeb of one of this blog’s former staples, our ex-Panorama friend, ’roaring’ John Sweeney, either.

I hadn’t been aware that Sweeney has made the Maxwell /Epstein affair into a major project. A number of people have rushed to be seen to condemn the Maxwells - well, they would, wouldn’t they   - but there’s many a slip-twixt cup and Virginia Giuffre.

The Guardian:

Hunting Ghislaine, which reaches its conclusion this Thursday, has been a huge hit, so far notching up 6 million listeners. Its success clearly feels like a redemption. “I’d like to thank Tony Hall,” says Sweeney, “for ruining my life.” He blames the BBC’s former director general for his departure from the corporation after 17 years. “I had a very bad 2019,” Sweeney admits. His investigation of the English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson was shelved by the BBC after it was revealed that Lucy Brown, one of Robinson’s followers, had pulled off a sting on Sweeney. “I fell for it. I was fool. I drank too much with a source who was scheming against me.”

Now for Jeremy Kyle.

After a spell of cancellation and subsequent semi-rehabilitation, Jeremy Kyle is back - complete with characteristic obnoxiousness. He attacked lawyer Alan Dershowitz with such venom and rudeness that even the below-the-line commenters on one of its Youtube iterations appeared flabbergasted at the venomous tone of the attack, given that Kyle’s de-cancellation was allegedly based on a promise ‘to be good.’ 

Pity that Dersh was unwise enough to appear on the programme - maybe he wasn’t familiar with Kyle. Oh well. Too late now.

"How do you sleep at night when you earned money defending such a vile human being?"

Jeremy Kyle asks the question of Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer Alan Dershowitz.pic.twitter.com/85SRrC1FT5

— TalkTV (@TalkTV) January 24, 2023

 But guess who was also featured by Kyle!

Our old friend Sweeney!

"Ghislaine Maxwell was messed up as a human being long before Jeffrey Epstein."

Journalist John Sweeney compares Ghislaine Maxwell to her "psychological bully" father Robert Maxwell and says she is a "chip off the old block".@JKyleOfficial | @johnsweeneyroar | #JKLive pic.twitter.com/5MHvrV2SaZ

— Jeremy Kyle Live (@JeremyKyleLive) January 24, 2023

I have to say that there’s something not quite right about That Photo. It’s Andrew’s position. I feel that if the hand that appears around the young lady’s waist really belongs to his left arm, then his left shoulder would be turned towards the camera much more than it is. Not exactly forensic, I do concede.

I haven’t got a particular axe to grind here - I do admire Dershowitz (because of his other writings) but I don’t have much sympathy for Ghislaine, apart from the fact her punishment seems harsher than absolutely necessary. Perhaps she’s ‘taking the flack for Jeffery’ and I suppose if someone has to do it, it may as well be her.

P.S. 

Forgot to mention :

Accidents will happen

I accidentally listened to Nick Robinson grilling James Cleverly on the Today Programme one morning last week.  

As others have mentioned a few trillion times, surely opposing the government is the role of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition and not the role of the Beeb.

Maybe someone could remind Nick Robinson that the BBC is not yet officially amalgamated with the Labour Party? Or am I missing something?

ll

I was surprised to see this programme at lunchtime the other day, while the TV was accidentally tuned in to the BBC.

I hadn’t come across Jiyar Gol before. He’s a Kurd, I find.   I know it’s a bit of a stretch but this documentary reminded me of Fauda - but real-life!  (I looked at Rachel Shabi’s review of Fauda - in the Guardian, of course. Predictably, Shabi found a way of complaining that (the fictional ) Israeli series (made by Israeli TV) wasn’t anti-Israel enough.) 

I dread to think what the bulk of BBC-educated viewers made of this interesting documentary about the Iranian nuclear programme and Mossad’s efforts to disrupt it. BBC educated viewers will probably see things from a Guardianist point of view, but I found this film surprisingly impartial. Facts. Facts and derring-do. 

On the other hand, it’s possible that viewers more knowledgeable than I will have spotted flaws and biases that went over this viewer’s head. It was well worth watching.

Update:

And lo and behold, Camera has supplied more info. I hadn’t seen the BBC web article accompanying the film when I wrote the above. The flaws and biases may or may not have been more egregious in the written piece, but I’m linking to it. You be the judge.

lll

I meant to say something about this several weeks ago. It’s growing more belated with every day that passes.

Straight after the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict, the BBC accidentally aired an interview with eminent lawyer Alan Dershowitz - and, shock horror - without highlighting the fact that he ‘had a dog in the fight’.

We know the BBC believes this was ‘an accident’ because the BBC apologised for doing so. 

The fact that Dershowitz himself drew attention to his own involvement in the Epstein/Maxwell affair - he is one of Virginia Giuffre’s alleged abusers - didn’t seem to materially affect the BBC’s unique display of contrition. The regret was solely that they’d inadvertently given a platform to an undesirable speaker. After the broadcast, the corporation admitted that the US lawyer had not been "a suitable person to interview as an impartial analyst" at that time.

“4.3.12 We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities and think-tanks) are unbiased. Appropriate information about their affiliations, funding and particular viewpoints should be made available to the audience, when relevant to the context.” [emphasis added]

I hope that apology sets a precedent for all forthcoming interviews with agenda-driven and partisan spokespersons and that the BBC is obliged to state the interests and biases therein and provide relevant apologies where appropriate. 

Suggest all interviews with agenda-driven spokespersons be automatically accompanied by a sign-language interpreter signing ‘he (or she) would say that wouldn’t he’ 

It ain't over till the fat lady sings

However cerebral and dispassionate we think we are, I contend that at heart we are all influenced by tribalist instincts. ‘Speak for yourself!' I hear you say -  that is what I am doing.

In the case of good old Alan M. Dershowitz, I take issue with the Times quote  (which I initially mistook for Craig’s own opinion) for reasons that might very well (in the circs quite reasonably) be dismissed as tribal. I contend that the quoted article is susceptible to being unduly weaponised by those of us who are apt to take the reflexively anti-BBC stance that can easily run away with us all.

The Times:

“Despite being personally involved in the case himself and previously being involved with Jeffrey Epstein, Professor Dershowitz was merely introduced as a “constitutional lawyer”, and someone who had been brought on to give “more analysis”. Moreover, his BBC interviewer, Ben Boulos, failed to challenge him in any way when he used the platform granted to him by the BBC to try to discredit Virginia Giuffre, the woman accusing both him and Prince Andrew.

Alan Dershowitz

“Let me be clear: I never met Virginia Giuffre, who is now 36 years old. There is documented evidence that until she met her lawyers in 2014, Giuffre never accused me.... In one email, a well-known journalist urged her to include my name because of my fame, writing that although there is "no proof " that Dershowitz had sex with you, he is a "good name for your pitch." Giuffre then included me, but as someone who she met and did not have sex with.

Full disclosure. I am tribally predisposed to align with Dersh. His book The case For Israel  (You can now get it online for only £3.99!) influenced and substantiated my own (some might say pathetic) attempts to defend Israel against the BBC’s tribal loyalty to the Palestinian cause. 

Using partisan witnesses without ‘full disclosure” is one of our principal and ongoing accusations re BBC bias, but it is hardly fair to imply that the BBC failed to fully disclose Derchowitz’s partiality as he was “merely introduced as a constitutional lawyer.” 

Well, indeed he was “personally involved in the case himself“ ...... as a constitutional (Jeffrey Epstein’s) lawyer!  

He didn’t pretend otherwise; see Craig’s detailed transcription.

Alan Dershowitz: Well, I think the most important thing, particularly for British viewers, is that the government was very careful who it used as witnesses. It did not use as a witness the woman who accused, for example, Prince Andrew, accused me, accused many other people, because the government didn't believe she was telling the truth. In fact, she, Virginia Giuffre, was mentioned in the trial as somebody who brought young people to Epstein for him to abuse.

I do get it. I get what they are saying here. However, for readers of this blog, don’t let’s fall into the trap of criticising the BBC for any and everything it does and every move it makes. Perhaps, granting ‘the enemy’ a platform is ‘merely’ Tim Davies’s way of redressing the imbalance. (I don’t actually believe that by the way. It’s my flippancy talking)

Ah!  A timely update from the BBC News Press Team in the form of an apology for giving a platform to the guilty-until-proven-innocent Alan Dershowitz -  well, back to square one.

Let us never forget Carl Beech. Could Virginia Giuffre be a fantasist? Could she be a bit on the ‘flakey’ side? Hmm. Carl Beech’s unsubstantiated allegations hung over Leon Brittan’s grave and the Maxwell story isn’t over yet. Plenty of fat ladies still waiting to sing.

“Let's get more analysis of that verdict now”...

               

The BBC certainly knows how to put its foot in it.

Within minutes of news breaking of Ghislaine Maxwell being found guilty on five charges, the BBC News Channel interviewed Professor Alan Dershowitz.

This has provoked a backlash against the BBC, both here and abroad. 

To summarise the case against the BBC: 

Despite being personally involved in the case himself and previously being involved with Jeffrey Epstein, Professor Dershowitz was merely introduced as a “constitutional lawyer”, and someone who had been brought on to give “more analysis”. Moreover, his BBC interviewer, Ben Boulos, failed to challenge him in any way when he used the platform granted to him by the BBC to try to discredit Virginia Giuffre, the woman accusing both him and Prince Andrew.

Here's a flavour of the reaction: 

Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC: Sorry, what?! BBC News now have Alan Dershowitz on to analyse Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction, without any reference to his background;he’s simply introduced as “constitutional lawyer” as if he’s a neutral expert. Shocked. Utterly bizarre decision & does the audience a disservice. 

Sarah Churchwell, writer: So BBC News has decided that the expert witness they need on the Maxwell trial is Alan Dershowitz. Who has taken the opportunity to say that it shows how accusations against him and Prince Andrew are wrong. I’d really like to understand how BBC News treats as an expert witness someone who literally admits without being asked that he is among the people implicated in the case. “The question is when will Giuffre be charged rather than her charging people like Prince Andrew and me.” I am not a lawyer, so I can’t comment on the legality. But journalistically, he should not have been presented as an impartial expert witness only to say the verdict vindicates him, personally. People have taken this thread as an opp to bash the BBC, so let me be clear I’m a fan and a beneficiary of brilliant people at BBC News. But this- Dershowitz as “constitutional lawyer” without explaining his screaming conflicts of interest - is not ok.

Rob Burley, ex-BBC: I don’t work there, but suspect bids being thrown out for relevant guests with little time to consider the implications. Very bad choice of first guest. In mitigation, probably small number of staff and possibly not enough editorial leadership. The cuts have gutted the newsroom.

When someone wondered what Jess Brammar, head of the BBC's news channels, Rob stuck up for her, saying, “I’d blame the Government for cuts to the licence fee for years if worried about this, not an individual and blameless (in Jess’ case) manager.”

And here are some headlines about it:

Rolling Stone: Alan Dershowitz, Accused of Involvement in Epstein Sex Ring, Analyzes Ghislaine Maxwell Guilty Verdict. BBC inexplicably brought on the Harvard professor, who has been accused of (and denied) sexually assaulting Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre.

The Times: Ghislaine Maxwell verdict: BBC criticised for interviewing lawyer implicated in Ghislaine Maxwell case.

Newsweek: Alan Dershowitz Interview on Ghislaine Maxwell Leaves Viewers Outraged: 'Inexcusable'. The BBC is facing criticism for hosting constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz.

If anyone needs it, here's a transcript:

Ben Boulos, BBC: Let's get more analysis of that verdict now. We can now speak to constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who joins us now. This was a much-watched trial and after a long set of deliberations, spanning Christmas with a break, suddenly the jury reached a verdict.

Alan Dershowitz: Well, I think the most important thing, particularly for British viewers, is that the government was very careful who it used as witnesses. It did not use as a witness the woman who accused, for example, Prince Andrew, accused me, accused many other people, because the government didn't believe she was telling the truth. In fact, she, Virginia Giuffre, was mentioned in the trial as somebody who brought young people to Epstein for him to abuse. And so this case does nothing at all to strengthen in any way the case against Prince Andrew; indeed it weakens the case of Prince Andrew considerably because the government was very selective in who it used. It used only witnesses who they believed were credible, credible, and they deliberately didn't use the main witness, the woman who started the whole investigation, Virginia Giuffre, because, ultimately, they didn't believe she was telling the truth. They didn't believe that a jury would believe her. And they were right in doing so. So it was very smart on the part of the government.

Ben Boulos, BBC: And yet, the version, the image, that was portrayed of Ghislaine Maxwell as a sophisticated predator is the one that the jury have agreed with.

Alan Dershowitz: Well, the jury agreed that she helped Jeffrey Epstein and his activities, and the question is then whether or not she will be sentenced as if she were Jeffrey Epstein or sentenced as if she were simply somebody who facilitated and helped. And the other question is who else will be charged? Because the testimony introduced evidence that other people where guilty and involved. Again, Virginia Giuffre. She was alleged by the same women who the jury believed to have brought them to Jeffrey Epstein knowing that they were under age, of getting undressed, having sex with Jeffrey Epstein in front of them when they were under age in order to encourage them also to have sex with Epstein. So I think the next question is when will Virginia Giuffre be indicted and charged rather than her accusing people like Prince Andrew and myself and Ehud Barak and George Mitchell and dozens of other people who she has accused. So the next question is who else will be charged for facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's misconduct?

Ben Boulos, BBC: Just returning to the issue of the guilty verdicts again Ghislaine Maxwell, as a lawyer where you expect the sentencing to fall on the spectrum of prison terms that are available to the judge?

Alan Dershowitz: Well, I think she will get a substantial prison term because she was convicted on five counts, and the guidelines provide for fairly high sentencing. So it will certainly be in the double figures. It won't be five years or six years or seven years. It will more likely be in the teens. She will get credit, of course, for the time she has already served. I don't think she is going to get 30 or 40 years - that would be utterly inconsistent with what prior sentences have been in comparable cases - but I think she probably can expect a significant sentence. She will also appeal, obviously. She will not get bail pending appeal, but she will appeal, and within, say, eight months or so, three judges will decide whether the trial was fair. The fact that the jury stayed out so long and did distinguish counts - five yes, one no - will make it a little bit more appealing for her to successfully appeal. But there will be an appeal.

Ben Boulos, BBC: OK, we will leave it there, but thank you very much indeed for speaking to us.

On a lighter note, Ben Boulos kept calling 'Ghislaine Maxwell'  “Glenn Maxwell” through his stint as presenter. At least he didn't have to try saying “Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC”. 

UPDATE [11.30am] - Given that many of the people complaining are precisely the kind of people the BBC takes notice of, this was inevitable: