The BBC’s avoidance of the ‘value-judgement’ is so painfully obvious that it has the opposite effect to the one intended, i.e., it ends up looking like unadulterated bias.
The BBC does mention that Sinwar represents the most radical and extreme line of Hamas, and does not believe in any sort of cooperation with Israel, but much of the BBC’s report is couched in obfuscating language, for example, rather than explain that Sinwar was jailed for murdering Palestinians who collaborated with Israel, they say:
“Yehiya Sinwar was jailed for four life terms by Israel in 1989 for a series of offences, including murder and kidnapping.”
“Jailed by Israel” almost casts doubt on the validity of the charge, and let’s face it, if you’re not even going to mention his attitude to Isis it almost looks like a cover-up.
“The terrorist is still alive, the dog” warns a Hebrew voice on a video. Two minutes later an IDF solder shoots Abdel-fattah al-Sharif in the head, according to Gregg Carlstrom’s report in yesterday’s Times, as well as assorted pro-Palestinian sources.
“An Israeli soldier has been arrested for fatally shooting a Palestinian man in the head when he was already incapacitated after carrying out a stabbing.”
The video has been widely disseminated. From this armchair it looks as though everyone present on the scene is behaving oddly and callously.
“That terrorist is still alive, the dog! Don’t let him attack us!” one medic is heard saying after apparently seeing the Palestinian moving.
“It looks like he has a bomb on him,” shouts another voice. “Until a sapper comes, nobody touches him!”
There is an interesting below the line debate on Harry’s Place, following Marc Goldberg’s article about the incident in which he is highly critical of the soldier and cites Israel’s declining moral values.
Obviously Marc Goldberg and many other idealists would prefer it if Israel could permanently occupy the moral high ground, no ifs, no buts. Who wouldn’t?
However, the demand is that Israel must never do anything morally questionable under any circumstances. Were it possible to satisfy such uncompromising standards, it would simply be ‘bye-bye Israel’.
As it is, we’ll have to settle for the fact that the soldier has been arrested, and that Israeli spokespersons have issued statements “including from Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it a violation of the army’s ethical code.”
Awkward, isn’t it? It could turn out like previous occasions, where the Israeli government’s initial expressions of regret are viewed as admissions of guilt. This enfeebles any extenuating circumstances that might come to light thereafter. But if the Israeli authorities don’t immediately condemn this kind of incident, it looks even worse.
We mustn’t completely lose sight of the fact that these Palestinian young men had just stabbed a soldier.
Strangely enough, the Palestinians don’t even bother to pretend of any kind of regret about their citizens murdering unarmed Israeli civilians. In fact they’re out and proud, and no-one in the Times, the Guardian, the BBC is in the slightest bit interested.
This report on the BBC website is almost unforthcoming in its robotic, staccato presentation. Uninformative is better than overtly hostile I suppose. Maybe the BBC is afraid to open its mouth. (only joking)
It’s odd that this incident echoes the new series of “Line of Duty”, in which an armed policeman shoots and kills a disarmed criminal. We’re given to believe that as the story unfolds, this is not the cold-blooded execution it appears to be. We’ll have to wait and see how it pans out, no?
I don’t know how many Jeremy Corbyn lookie-likies I’ve seen recently, but it’s more than a few. One was disguised as a postman, one was a highways workman in a hi-viz gilet, one was an estate agent; goodness only knows how many more there are out there. Corby’d have no problem finding a body-double if things got nasty. Saddam used to have several, didn’t he?
As Adam Levick says, avalanches of post-terror, blame-Israel/ blame Europe rhetoric can spew out all over the place and go unreported and unchallenged by the media. As soon as an Israeli says anything that looks rude or insensitive the press has a field day.
Gregg Carlstrom has to castigate Israel for saying “we told you so” about terrorism, which he calls ‘an ugly ritual from the right’.
Oh well, if Carlstrom thinks telling the truth is an ugly ritual, that might explain his ritualistic attempts to prettify Israel’s enemies.
*********
At the risk of mirror-mimicking people who divide Jews into Good and Bad (Good, being anti-Israel and bad being ‘Zio’) I admire "Good" Palestinian Bassem Eid.
“We know that journalists today, either they became pro-Palestinian or they became pro-Israeli, and I don’t think that the media right now is benefiting the Israeli Palestinian conflictin any way or another. In my opinion, the media, unfortunately, right now, became as a part of the conflict, rather than to be a part of the solution of the problem.”
Gosh. It almost looks as if the BBC impartiality monitors desperately needed something to redress the balance after promoting the ‘rise in antisemitic attacks’ yesterday
Of course I don’t really mean that.
Or do I? One could try batting some pros and cons back and forth. Ping-pong in search of an answer. Are there grounds for cynicism?
This is about the arson attack, a horrible act of violence that caused the death of 18 month old Palestinian Ali Saad Dawabsha. It looks as though it’s another so-called ‘price-tag‘ incident carried out by teenage, Jewish, extremist, illegal settlers. There’s no doubt about the vileness of that act.
Of course, when the BBC chose to feature that incident in their morning headlines, they weren’t being gratuitous or anything like that. Plenty of other news outlets reported it too. Not just the BBC.
Most took a similar stance, quoting both the Palestinian leadership’s characteristically melodramatic condemnation of the attack (and the occupation, war crimes and settlements) and the Israeli PM’s robust, unequivocal condemnation of it.
On the other hand, there was an almost imperceptible relish in the way the BBC announced the fact that the victim was an 18 month old baby. In fact the death of the baby seemed to have been annunciated with a flourish.
Or was it? Did I imagine that? Did I also really detect a certain stridency of tone when Mishal Husain asked the initial interviewee, Gregg Carlstrom of the Times (no particular friend of Israel) if the perpetrators of these ‘price-tag’ attacks were ever held to account or if they were allowed to do whatever they liked ‘with impunity’.
On the other hand, the Today programme did allow the bane of every Israel-basher’s existence, Mark Regev to have his say. Not that Mishal was particularly civil to Regev. He’s every complainant’s one-man catalyst whose merest appearance on the BBC is enough to incite a barrage of apoplectic protests. I have a sneaking suspicion Husain wasn’t convinced by his condemnation of the attacks.
She insisted on asking what percentage of price-tag attacks were prosecuted or brought to justice, (Regev didn’t have those figures) which, now I come to think of it, he might have countered by asking: What percentage of terror attacks against Israelis was reported by the BBC? (less than 1% in the first quarter of 2015)
It’s a sensitive subject. If you mention anything that starts looking as if you’re going anywhere near defending the killing of a baby you’re in big trouble. Even if you unintentionally do so by association, intimation or implication. Anything other than unadulterated, unequivocal condemnation will not do. You will appear to be nothing but a cruel and heartless cynic.
And yet, there are things that one could say. Things that haven’t been made known - the BBC’s deficiency, I'd have thought.
They’re mostly things that come close to ‘whataboutery’. Well, they are whataboutery.
What about the terror attacks perpetrated by Palestinians on Israelis that don’t make the headlines, and don’t even make the news.
Mahmoud Abbas said he holds Israel as a whole responsible for this. An online comment surmised: ‘by the same token, the PA is accountable for all the rocket attacks and acts of terror against Israel’.
The BBC tells an unfair tale. It is quite content to present such incidents as having the tacit approval of the Israeli government and the enthusiastic backing of Israelis as a whole. It implies that Israel turns a blind eye to the violence and lets the perpetrators off with a wink and a nod.
The BBC’s presentation of Hamas’s ‘strategy of warfare’ has done nothing to disabuse the public of their unjust perception of Israelis whom they see as baby killers. They are ready to accept that the average Israeli would likely encourage the murder of Palestinian babies.
However, as far as I can tell, militant settlers are regarded by most Israelis as a fifth column. They’ve had some of their homes demolished by the Israeli government because they were constructed without planning permission.
“Those behind the attack are believed to belong to the anti-Arab Price Tag organization, which operates in West Bank Israeli settlements. The group had previously vowed to attack Palestinian targets every time the army takes action against Israeli settlers and settlements.
It was the aforementioned Gregg Carlstrom who reported in today’s Times (£) a piece headed: “Demolition of settler homes opens rift in Israel government” It says Benjamin Netanyahu has approved a considerable number of new homes to compensate for the demolition of apartments built without permits.
The ‘revenge’ that was tagged by the Jewish vandals is directed at the Israeli government. You might say they’re using Palestinian ‘hostages‘ to punish their own government. “Shoot me - and the kid gets it” It’s the perfect ransom because it draws opprobrium upon the Israeli government from the entire the world, and not particularly onto them.
Look at the statements from PM Netanyahu, Peter Lerner, (he calls it an act of barbaric terrorism) and other Israelis. Outright condemnation from all of them, but greeted by us with skepticism.
Compare it with the praise that is heaped upon the Palestinian perpetrators of acts of violence and terror by Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian leadership. The Palestinian Authority and Hamas are agreed on that, if nothing else. The Palestinian killer who attacks a Jew is a hero. What is our response to that? What is the BBC’s response? None at all.
The BBC is doing exactly what the settlers want. I think we do ourselves and everyone else a disservice by going along with the settlers and doing their bidding. We’re doing what they want us to. The Israeli government calls them terrorists and describes the act as ‘reprehensible’, yet we ignore that and blame Israel all the same. Who benefits from that? The bleeding teenage militant Jewish extremists, that’s who.
None of this mitigates the crime; but the jury’s still out on the BBC’s reporting of it.
“This isn’t our Homeland say envoys angered by TV thriller” says a headline in the Times. (£) So Pakistani diplomats don’t like the portrayal of Islamabad in channel 4’s drama Homeland.
“A grimy hell-hole and war zone where shoot-outs and bombs go off with dead bodies scattered around.”
Okay. That is pretty much how I think of Islamabad, (though I’ve never been there) I thought. Always willing to test an argument by turning it on its head, I asked myself whether there was a parallel between this and the way Israel and/or Jews are relentlessly maligned in TV dramas. ‘We don’t like it up us’ I thought, so why should we tolerate it in the opposite direction? Hmm. The Times editorial - yes, they’ve editorialised it - says the maligning has been done before (It’s a Wonderful life; The third Man) but concludes that although a bit of artistic license is a fine thing, it should be accompanied by a disclaimer.
“Film noir is all very well, but the literal minded have rights and reasonable expectations not to be misled. Creative artists should heed them.”
Echoes of “Views not my own” and where have we heard that before.
I’m still not convinced. I enjoyed that series of Homeland and I agree with critics who said it was a return to form.
One observation though. That ubiquitous malady ‘bipolar’ is being exploited and, yes, maligned, for ‘artistic purposes’ all too often. It’s getting almost as much of a writer’s get-out clause as ‘and then I woke up’.
And isn’t our perception of Islamabad and Pakistan in general down to a combination of the actual news and the way the media delivers it?
So that brings me to Eric Pickles and his announcement about some new money going towards combatting antisemitism. Jews are being issued with bullet proof vests and hard hats. Not really. But there is talk of extra protection for Jewish schools. I mean, that’s a bit of a sticking plaster on a tumour kind of principle. So in the Express, where this is being reported (it was on a news bulletin but isn't on the BBC website so far) they’re calling it a ‘crackdown’
The most interesting thing to me (as it often is on this topic) is the gist of the 'below the line' comments. To date there are 121. Most of them attribute the rise in antisemitism to mass Muslim immigration. Apart from a few ‘the Jews control the media’ and “Look what’s happening in Gaza”, something has sparked off a collective inclination to speak openly and negatively about the changes that mass immigration has brought about.
Antisemitism isn’t solely and simply emanating from the Muslims though, is it?
It’s the ‘metropolitan intelligentsia’ the 'Guardianista', the left-leaning liberal or whatever you want to call it. It’s the BBC. Look what’s happening in Gaza? Yes. We do seem to have to look at it quite a lot. Almost exclusively through the eyes of people who have - if not antisemitic views of their own - then sympathy with those that do. The BBC is one of the main propagators of this obsession with the Palestinians. We see it on our screens to a degree that can only be described as disproportionate. Why no comparable obsession with the women and children killed hurt and maimed in Syria? Iraq? Suicide and terrorist bombings in Africa? and dare I say it - Pakistan?
What was it that the Egyptians are accusing the three Al Jazeera journos of ? “spreading false news and aiding a terrorist organisation.” Neat charge.
While I’m at it (blogging) I must just mention an article I took the trouble to copy out in full for the benefit of anybody who can’t access the online Times, then saw that the author, Gregg Carlstrom, had also filed it here. Damn. Anyway.
Gregg Carlstrom is a free lancer who often puts a negative spin on stories about Israel so I was surprise to read this piece, which doesn’t shy away from making a connection between Isis, which the majority will openly condemn, and Hamas, which some of us will not. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
**********
I might not have wasted my time after all. I can't access the online article in the Australian paper today (you've reached your limit, you non-subscriber you!) so in case that's happened to anyone else here goes.
Threats to artists raise fears of Isis coming to Gaza
“A campaign of threats to kill artists and writers for “insulting Islam” has heightened fears that affiliates of Islamic State have arrived in the Gaza strip.
“The fears of jihadist infiltration have been underlined by two bomb attacks in the courtyard of the French cultural centre. Both took place when the building was empty. A group calling itself Islamic State in Gaza claimed to have carried out the first attack; no-one has claimed responsibility for the second. Dunya Ismail, a feminist activist was the first intellectual threatened with death, in a statement on December 3rd.
“In the beginning it was scary because it’s the first time I’ve been threatened by an Islamist movement that was unknown [here]” she said. “We do have this sort of ideology in Gaza”
She asked Hamas, the territory’s rulers, for security but they refused. Hamas then tried to disperse a protest she organised with other intellectuals listed in the statement.
Israel has repeatedly tried to link Hamas, which promotes a radical Islamist ideology, with Isis, although no concrete links within the movements have been found. Hamas says that the claims are part of an Israeli plot to discredit the Palestinian organisation, against which it fought a war in Gaza during the summer.
Asked about the apparent Islamic State threats and its lack of response, Hamas officials said that the perpetrators were likely to be lone-wolf troublemakers.
“The people who wrote this letter are troublemakers. They’re trying to put rumours into Palestinian society.” said Eyad al Bazm a spokesman for the interior ministry in Gaza. “There is no Islamic State in Gaza.”
Ms Ismail claims that members of Hamas might be making the threats, using the language rhetoric of Isis, to scare people. “I wondered could it be Hamas using the name of Isis? “ she asked. “It’s a way for them to put pressure on the world.”
Tensions between Hamas and Israel surfaced again on Christmas Eve when Israeli forces struck targets in Gaza after its troops came under attack by Palestinian snipers on the border.
Tayseir Smeiri, the head of Hamas’s border reconnaissance unit, was killed in the Israeli strike, and one Israeli soldier, of the minority Bedouin Arab unit, was seriously injured in the sniper attack.
The radicalisation of Islamist operatives in the lawless Sinai desert, next to Gaza, has also led to fears of a jihadist presence in the territory, which has been left even more impoverished since the summer war. Ansar Bait al-Magdis, a militant group based on the neighbouring Sinai peninsula, pledged allegiance to islamic State in the autumn.
The past 18 months have driven Hamas almost to the point of insolvency. Egypt destroyed hundreds of the smuggling tunnels on which Hamas relied for tax revenue.
Government employees in Gaza have not been paid since the spring and the slow pace of postwar reconstruction is turning a growing number of Palestinians against Hamas.
Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for the organisation said that it would be difficult to keep Gaza calm while security forces were going unpaid. Ms Ismail said: “This [series of threats against intellectuals] is to threaten the people of Gaza, and the world, that there is something called Isis. Hamas wants to say ‘Isis will replace us so don’t put pressure on us’ (and warn that) Gaza could become like Syria or Iraq.”
I’m not the only one who’s keeping an eye on Gregg Carlstrom, the freelancer who writes articles about Israel for the Times.
I see CiF Watch’s Adam Levick also noticed yesterday’s article in with the alarming headline “Israel set to make Arabs second-class citizens.” (Page 32 under the section called “World” ) (£) It wasn’t just the font size that made the piece look alarmist and sensational.
Some time ago this writer’s household had to cancel a subscription to the Telegraph after one too many obnoxious pieces from Peter Oborne. I wrote to the paper to register our dismay. Not long afterwards the marketing department rang, as they do, to try and lure us back. Why, they wanted to know, had we left?
“Peter Oborne,” said I.
“We’ve made some editorial changes,” they said, temptingly. “New editor and that. We’re more left-wing these days.”
Hmm. I wonder if Gregg Carlstrom is going to prove to be the Oborne that broke the camel’s back. As Oborne is to the Telegraph, so Carlstrom is to the Times? I hope not.
I don’t expect Carlstrom was responsible for the headline, and I must admit that it did make me read the article more attentively than I otherwise would. I have to say the actual headline bore little relation to the content (muddled) Neither did the somewhat gratuitous picture of Palestinian farmer Fadel Halawa, deceased, apparently shot by the IDF.
Does the name Carlstrom have the whiff of the jackboot about it or is it just me and the paranoia? Anyway, the piece begins:
“After an angry debate, the Israeli cabinet endorsed a controversial bill declaring the country a Jewish state, a move that will alienate the Palestinian minority further and push the government closer to early elections.The bill affirms that Jewish law should inspire the Israeli legal system, and reserves other “national rights” for Jews, including the right to immigrate. If passed by the full Knesset, it would become a “basic law,” akin to a constitutional amendment.”
I see the online version has another illustration.
A Palestinian boy plays inside the wreckage of a car in Gaza city (next to houses that were destroyed)AFP/Getty.
What is going on here? Blimey. Anyhow the boy, who looks about 6 years old, appears to be delighted.
Are these pictures trying to convey a message? Oh dear.
Actually, at this stage the debate in the Knesset was just that. A debate. No apartheid law has been brought in. It’s a debate about democracy, equal rights, the nature of the ‘Jewish’ State and discrimination. A debate that would be unthinkable in any Islamic state, at which the world doesn’t seem to bat an eyelid.
According to Carlstrom: “The version approved yesterday will not bring immediate changes but experts say it will make it easier for the Knesset to approve discriminatory laws and for the high court to uphold them.”
Don’t we just love ‘experts?”
The article includes some ‘background’, political. (“It’s the upcoming elections, stupid” ) as well as the customary emotive statistics, hence the illustrations.
So is this another step towards the “Judaization” of which Yolande Knell and co write so disapprovingly? Is it mere provocation for ongoing Palestinian fury?
The BBC hasn’t reported any of this, so far as I can see (perhaps it has mentioned it on the World service?) but Al Jazeera had a fairly even-handed discussion about it which included a mention (from the anchor) of the elephant in the room, i.e. the Islamic nature of Israel’s neighbours.
Watch out for it on the Beeb. Update:
There was an interesting thread on Harry’s Place about this issue. Blogger and regular contributor to Harry’s Place Marc Goldberg wrote about this proposed new law in his characteristically angst-ridden style.
“As a Jewish Israeli this bill doesn’t give me anything I don’t already have and caters to a fear that doesn’t bother me. It does however serve as a slap in the face to Israeli Arabs attempting to integrate into Israeli society. An extra little reminder from the government that they’re not wanted in the modern state of Israel. It’s a shame. Particularly at a time when Israeli Arabs actually seem to be coming more into the fold.”
Fundamentally Goldberg is a staunch Zionist, but his criticisms of the Israeli government, albeit well-meant, are beginning to look a bit disloyal. No matter how affectionate and constructive a given criticism might be, in a particular context it’s often wise to keep them ‘within the family’.
As far as Israel is concerned, all criticism is a potential gift to the enemy. The argument in the btl comments on that thread seems to be whether or not Harry’s Place is enough of an ‘insider ‘- a family member - to bear what might be considered internal wrangling, by airing its dirty linen in public, without undermining its delicate fundamentals; whether, as far as pro-Israel site Harry’s Place is concerned, Israel’s reputation can withstand continual bashing from one of its own.
Problem is, if you criticise the critic, you’re damned as an unreasonable ‘Israel Firster’, and if you don’t the world just grabs the criticism and runs away with it.
A couple of days ago I read an article on one of the inside pages of the Times, headed “Doctors tell of chaos in Gaza’s hospitals.” It was written by Gregg Carlstrom and it looked as though he had been influenced by Julia Mc Farlane’s graphic BBC piece about doctors’ hardships in Gaza during Operation Protective edge because it appeared soon after McFarlane’s report had been fairly heavily promoted by the BBC.
Here’s a short excerpt:
“Even before this summer’s six week war, which killed more than 2,100 Palestinians and injured 12,000, Gaza’s health service had been crippled by an eight year Israeli siege.”
Unlike McFarlane’s article, which featured UK doctors whose trip to Gaza had been funded by certain charities with questionable political affiliations, Carlstrom’s piece contained statements and anecdotes from doctors and staff of the Shifa hospital.
Having read the above quoted excerpt, which appeared near the beginning of the article, Carlstrom’s casual readers may have missed the latter part in which a slight between-the-lines hint that the Palestinians themselves bore the best part of the blame for the situation could just about be detected.
However, a significant little phrase in there leapt out, as significant little phrases are apt to do.
“.........Gaza’s health service had been crippled by an eight year Israeli siege.”
What’s wrong with that? Firstly, if Gaza’s health service has been crippled by anything, it hasn’t been crippled by Israel; and secondly Israel’s import restrictions are a necessity and not a siege.
“ from the very first day of the seven-week conflict the BBC misled its audiences by stating or implying that shortages of medical equipment in the Gaza Strip are a consequence of border restrictions imposed by Israel. On no occasion has any effort been made to clarify to BBC audiences that the permanent shortage of drugs and medical supplies in the Gaza Strip is the result of ongoing disputes between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and that Israel does not place any restrictions whatsoever on the entry of such items into the Strip.”
Having seen Carlstrom’s article I Googled around a bit, as you do, and I found a few other questionable things that seem to keep slipping into his pieces. For instance:
“All this has been triggered by an act that even Israeli security officials believe was probably not approved by top members of Hamas in Gaza or Qatar but was more likely the work of a rogue Hamas branch in Hebron: the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers.”
Can you tell what it is yet? It’s one of Jon Donnison’s pet theories, that Hamas was unfairly blamed for the murder of the three Israeli teenagers. I understand he’s still sticking to it.
the one about the apartheid bus. It had to be corrected because the strapline “Bus ban on Palestinians ‘reeks of apartheid state’ and the caption:
“Palestinians are to be banned from all Israeli buses in the occupied West bank for security reasons, in a move that critics say “reeks of apartheid.” ”
was misleading ( and incorrect).
I must say the sleight of hand trick of headlining an article with a wildly emotive quote from “critics” is shared by many *innocent face* impartial journo-magicians these days. Recently Robert Tait, another habitual between the lines Israel-basher, used an inflammatory quote from Mahmoud Abbas in a Telegraph piece.
“Israel accused of 'act of war’ after closing religious site” Yes, but by whom? By someone who accuses Israel of committing an act of war merely by its very existence, that’s who.
We all know how fond Mahmoud Abbas is of making inflammatory accusations. He does so in a devil-may-care manner, casting them wide in the hope that some will fall upon fertile ground, which they usually do, and exploiting them as a click bait headline is naughty.
Incidentally, doesn’t it strike anyone else as completely preposterous that the latest contrived Palestinian victimhood spat is reported sympathetically (to Abbas) by the media? I mean, a Palestinian shot a Jew who had the audacity to campaign for the Jews’ right to pray near the “third holiest” site for Muslims and the most holy site for Jews.
All we’ve heard for the last couple of days is how crucial it is that the Al-Aqsa mosque is open for business in time for Friday prayers. Remind me, which religion’s ability to pray in a specific location is deemed “essential”, and which is forbidden altogether - and who is it that is saying :
"This dangerous Israeli escalation is a declaration of war on the Palestinian people and its sacred places and on the Arab and Islamic nation," said Nabil Abu Redeineh, Mr Abbas's spokesman. "Harming the places sacred to Muslims and Christians is a red line. The state of Palestine will take all legal measures to hold Israel accountable and to stop these ongoing attacks."
I can’t understand how anyone can’t be incredulous at that. It’s reminiscent of the accusation that Israel (with a substantial Israeli-Arab population) is an apartheid state, from the mouths of anyone who blithely accepts the Jew-free policy that Abbas freely boasts he intends to implement in his future Palestinian state.
I see Maureen Lipman has made a few headlines this week. She’s fallen out of love with the current Labour party. I’m not sure I agree with the way she has gone about explaining why she’s taken this stand. Many of the below the line comments were depressing, not just below the Standpoint article, but some of the comments under several mainstream press reports that decided to covered the story were blatantly antisemitic. Quite surprising that some weren’t moderated. I was surprised to see that Guido’s Maureen Lipman article had fewer antisemitic BTL comments than normal for that site, unlike the Jenny Tonge piece, which takes Order-Order’s commentariat back to its familiar kindergarten level.
The Guardian’s comment section is full of ignorant anti-Jewish remarks as is the Mail’s. Divided in politics, united in antisemitism.
I didn’t think much of this week’s Apprentice. It’s being strangulated to death by its own format. The next task should be to put it out of its misery, I’d volunteer to project manage it humanely.
Oh well, just a few observations.
Some reviewers thought Lordy fired the most interesting candidates last week; premature ejectulation. But not for me. I was glad to see the back of them. Sarah seemed to have those plastic red-lips clenched between her teeth all the time. I had a pair once and they’re no fun. You can’t speak or smile in case they fall off.
Anyway, she and the Alvin Hall impersonator were as dull on Dara’s aftermath show as they were on the show proper.
The project manager was surely Jessica Hynes. Was it Jessica Hynes? I won’t tell anyone.
As for the tasks. How bad can ‘tasks’ be? Very. And how dull? The superimposed deadlines make the tasks in the Apprentice and all ‘task’ based programmes virtually impossible to complete; successfully or at all.
