Common sense

I might have to apologise for saying this, and please don't twist my words, but he should have known; Jacob Rees-Mogg should have known better than to opine on anything as sensitive as Grenfell. 

The media already regards Jacob Rees-Mogg as ‘other’, and it’s on permanent, collective stand-by, waiting to pounce when he does or says the wrong thing, which he surely will and duly has.

He just about survived lollgate, but one has to ask - how woke does one need to be in order to survive? Woker than this, for sure. Is Rees-Mogg so disconnected from reality that he hadn’t even noticed that some things are sacred? 

In the light of the fact that a certain topic has been sanctified, alongside Jo Cox and Princess Diana, I wonder - is it, or is it not ‘common sense’ to steer clear of anything related to G-G-G-Grenfell? Did I really say that? Oh, my days. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry.

I’m not heartless or unsympathetic but the BBC’s fetishisation of the Grenfell tragedy has pushed me in that direction. Now I’ve been cornered into expressing heartless and unsympathetic thoughts. Actually, let’s not go there; suffice it to say that the media has erected a consecrated buffer zone around Grenfell Tower and its former inhabitants.

This is not so much about What Jacob Said as about what the media said he said. Wouldn’t it have been much more expedient for anyone with the nous to consider the possibility that Grenfell has been Dianafied, (JoCoxified if you’re a bit younger) to have stayed woke and kept one’s cake-hole firmly closed? In the present zeitgeist, I mean. 

What I’m saying is, in the days of ‘watch what you say! The media’s looking’ hadn’t you better keep your head well below the parapet? Isn’t the best thing to do just to keep shtum? Watch it!! You’ll be crucified!

  

Here’s the thing. I just read Brendan O’Neill’s article  Jacob Rees-Mogg is right about Grenfell. We know Brendan is a bit of a controversialist, (and why not?) and there’s a generous helping of common sense in there for sure, but was Jacob Rees-Mogg really 'sensible' to express, in public,  his thoughts on what kind of behaviour represents ‘common sense’ at all? Even more so when these particular thoughts concerned a situation in which he was unlikely ever to find himself. Namely, living, with all one’s worldly goods and chattels, in a twenty-story tower block, engulfed in flames and hotter than Hades? I mean, we’ve all heard tales of smoke-filled single, solitary stairwells and what can happen when panicking men women and children are all trying to flee at the same time. 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I wouldn’t have thought ignoring the advice of the fire service would necessarily represent one’s immediate and obvious common-sensible reaction. Of course, instinct says get out while you can, but on the other hand, sometimes best practice in certain situations does (apparently) turn out to be the most counter-intuitive. So I’m told.

I mean, apart from that quibble, Brendan is right. However, my point is that if we all have to take the hyper-woke diktat of the scandal-hungry media into account before we open our mouth we’re in big trouble. 

Should the media, especially the BBC, be allowed to try, convict and crucify anyone it feels like? The cavalier way it twists and massages these things to fit its agenda is truly chilling.

Apologies in advance and now I’ll shut up.

Style guide.

I was glad to see Jacob Rees-Mogg’s style guide because it put me right on something I’ve struggled with.  I’m probably not going to use Esq. all that much - (Envelopes?) (Handwriting?) (Postman Pat?) in fact I’ve almost forgotten how to hold my pen - but I was particularly glad to hear that organisations are singular. 

That means I must call the BBC “it” and not “they” or ‘them”. If I remember.

Someone said this the other day

To quote something someone said the other day (to be precise, it was yesterday and the someone was Craig - and he didn’t exactly say it; he blogged it.) 

Did Mishal Husain lie during her Jacob Rees-Mogg interview? 

Well, did she lie? Craig concluded that technically, she didn’t. Perhaps it was just semantics - the issue being whether or not quoting someone is effectively endorsing it. Even Fran Unsworth seems to be worrying about this. She certainly looks worried in that picture.

The Times (£) has related the incident, which was of great interest to bloggers about the BBC’s bias, in particular, the headline: Brexit: Jacob Rees-Mogg attacks BBC ‘lefty obsession’ with AfD tweet and: “I think this is typical of the BBC’s obsession, dare I say it, the Today programme’s obsession, about this.”

Anyway, the subject was sort of intriguing, so I listened again on the BBC’s revamped listen-again facility, which Siobhan from W1A has (probably) titled “BBC Sounds”. 

(It’s just iPlayer, revamped so that one can no longer link to the direct spot, (at least I don’t know how - you used to be able to use:  #playt=?h?m?s ) and you can no longer see the Today Programme’s running order, or read the list of contributors.) In other words ‘listen again’ has effectively been downgraded, made user-unfriendly; if you want to know any of these facts now you have to do it manually so to speak.

So the question is, does retweeting or quoting from what ‘someone told me the other day’ constitute an endorsement of that viewpoint, or indicate one’s approval of the sentiment expressed therein?

The AfD leader asks "Is it any wonder the British see bad faith behind every manoeuvre from Brussels?" https://t.co/hc7wtyLkiA

— Jacob Rees-Mogg (@Jacob_Rees_Mogg) March 31, 2019

We’re talking James Naughtie and the interview with Justin Webb on the Today Programme 22/03/19, in which the original comparison between Jacob Rees Mogg and France's National Front / Germany’s AfD first raised its controversial head. 

Also present with Justin, for your information, was Kathleen Burk, Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at University College London and the topic was the state of British Politics at the time of Brexit.

During that brief conversation, there were no less than three examples of Jim using the ‘some say’ strategy. 

I’ll list them since you’re so riveted.

1.)
…………. “I have never seen the sustained level of contempt for the leaders of both parties.. somebody said to me the other day, ’you would have to go back to the 19th century to find the time whiny had a piece minister and a leader of the opposition simultaneously at such a level of incompetence' That’s what they believe and I think in the long term that the two parties are both in a position from which they can’t recover……..…”

2.)
“………….Now I’m not saying that the Conservative party’s going to split overnight and disappear, ‘course it’s not; the same is true of Labour. But I think there are things afoot that cannot be corrected. Somebody put it to me the other day: ‘Look! In any other European country the Conservative Party wouldn't exist in its current form. The ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg's group, in France would be in the National Front, because that's what they believe, and in Germany they would be in the AfD.’ It's only because of our system that the carapace of this party keeps them in. And I think on both sides of the aisle that can't last………….”

3.)
“………….I mean I just think that the leadership of both parties is at the moment so spectacularly weak. I mean a Labour person was saying to me the other night: ‘Can you imagine, in the face of what this government has been unable to do in a thousand days on Brexit, that Corbyn is, by any poll, 4,5, 6 percentage points behind’ It’s almost incredible!….”

Just to be clear (or not) in all the above cases it’s a bit confusing as to whether the sentences following (what I assume) to be these quotes are actually Jim’s own thoughts or part of the quote itself.

All these examples do look as if Jim was using them to elucidate or illuminate his own view, but he could try to claim, not very convincingly, I’d say, that they were ‘nuffing to do with me, guv’.

Anyway, now we’ve clarified that - and by the way, as Craig already told us, Jim had to sort of apologise for his problematic comparison.  

Important questions arise from the above affair.  Namely:

Number one: 

What is so terrible about associating oneself with an anti-immigration / anti-Islam party “whose leader in the German parliament's views include Germany being overrun by Arabs and Roma”?   

Mishal Husain’s reaction - she audibly recoils in horror at the very idea, which is inappropriate and hardly impartial. It’s undoubtedly un-PC in the current climate to opine negatively about Islamic immigration, but surely it is a matter of legitimate concern. The word “overrun”  in particular is clumsy and emotive - was that word chosen by Mishal to make the AfD sound worse than absolutely necessary? (to coin a phrase)

Number two: 

Jacob Rees Mogg’s reaction, i.e., “What Mr Naugtie said was an outrageous slur” might have been justified when the National Front in France was run by the old man Le Pen, but surely his daughter Marine’s present-day incarnation of the party has distanced itself from all that Nazi stuff. And, surely the AfD is a legitimate party - nationalist, maybe, patriotic, certainly, but I genuinely don’t know whether they are truly anti-semitic, or if that is another example of people lazily equating “Islamophobia” with antisemitism. Is there a parallel with the Labour Party’s Jewish “fig leaves”?

If you watch the speech that J R-M Tweeted (Alice Weidel’s) it’s pretty impressive, and sympathetic to the UK. What’s not to like? I really do not know whether the AfD is antisemitic. It’s a difficult one, and hard to find substantive evidence either way. I understand someone was once expelled for something relevant, but other parties have similar problems. It seems to me that far too many people, including Jews, are adding two and two to make five.

In their most desperate hour of need, Jewish refugees were shamefully refused sanctuary by Britain. However, it doesn’t follow that the answer lies in indiscriminate and perpetual open borders. There is little or no comparison between the situation then and now, and antisemitism and Islamophobia are entirely different. Conflating them is lazy and ignorant and it muddies the waters. Why, someone said that only the other day.

Did Mishal Husain lie during her Jacob Rees-Mogg interview?

I know that some of you heard this interview from yesterday's Today:

Mishal Husain: I want to ask you finally about what you did the other day in re-tweeting and drawing attention to something the AfD had put out. I know you've been asked about this quite a few times and you've said so far that you don't agree with everything that they stand for but that you wanted to draw attention to this. But you have nevertheless chosen to shine a spotlight on a party whose core principles are anti-immigration, anti-Islam, whose leader in the German parliament's views include Germany being overrun by Arabs and Roma. Is there nothing in that that gives you pause for thought, that at least you should clarify what you put out and say you don't support their other beliefs?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Well, I think this is typical of the BBC's obsession, dare I say it the Today programme's obsession, about this. And Mr. Naughtie quite shamefully said the other week that the ERG was like the National Front in France, which we most certainly...

Mishal Husain: (interrupting) He was quoting someone else, as I'm sure you know.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: No, he wasn't. He said it himself. It was his view. And he's a BBC person. He's paid by licence fee...

Mishal Husain: (interrupting) How about answering the question...

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I'm coming to the question...

Mishal Husain: ...about which of the AfD's principles you believe in?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Hold on, hold on, you must be patient and not interrupt so much because the answer needs to be given properly. The BBC does have this obsession. What Mr. Naughtie said was an outrageous slur, and he wasn't challenged by whoever it was who was interviewing him. That wasn't raised, which seems to me a matter of competence...

Mishal Husain: (interrupting) Again, again, again, it wasn't his view.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Well, it was a view he expressed...

Mishal Husain: (interrupting) The AfD stands for anti immigration and anti-Islam...

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Hold on, hold on, just a moment. When Mr. Naughtie quotes somebody and it's not his view that's fine, but when I quote somebody and it's not my view that's a great shock. And that seems to me typical of the Today programme's lefty approach,...

Mishal Husain: (interrupting) Jacob Rees-Mogg...

Jacob Rees-Mogg: ... an obsession with this issue.

Mishal Husain: ...thank you so much. 

Jacob Rees-Mogg: And thank you so much.

Monkey Brains raised the following point on the open thread last night:

NISA on Biased BBC:
"In interview with JRM this morning was Mishal Husain (Toady) lying when she claimed Naughtie was quoting someone else when he stated that ERG was like Front National?
This clip from Guido would suggest she was, it sounds very much like his opinion.
https://order-order.com/2019/03/22/erg-slam-bbc-presenters-outrageous-claim-front-national/

That clip from Guido runs as follows:

In any other European country, the Conservative Party would not exist in its current form. The ERG, Jacob Rees-Mogg's group, in France would be in the National Front, because that's what they believe, and in Germany they would be in the AfD. It's only because of our system that the carapace of this party keeps them in. And I think on both sides of the aisle that can't last.

It's the one I quoted on an earlier post.

So did Mishal Husain lie?

Well, if you look back to the actual Today interview and give Jim Naughtie's answer in full, you find that he said the following:

My argument is, I think, that there things afoot that are going to change the system. Look, in the 1960s. as we both know, more than 90% of people voted Conservative or Labour - in, for example, the '64 general election. That figure is now down to the low 60s. And that's not going to change. Now, I'm not saying the Conservative Party is going to split overnight and disappear. Of course it's not. The same is true of Labour. But I think there are things afoot that cannot be corrected. Somebody put it to me the other day, look, in any other European country the Conservative Party wouldn't exist in its current form. The ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg's group, in France would be in the National Front, because that's what they believe, and in Germany they would be in the AfD. It's only because of our system that the carapace of this party keeps them in. And I think on both sides of the aisle that can't last.

Yes, the Guido clip that 'went viral' and, in time, led to James Naughtie giving a half-apology about it, began just after JN had said "Somebody put it to me other day".

So that's why Mishal Husain said that he was quoting somebody else. Because he was.

And thus, it was very naughty of Guido to edit it in that way and make it sound as if Jim Naughtie was giving his own view, undiluted.

So, yes, Mishal Husain wasn't lying.

But...

Of course, we all know the BBC and its use of "Some say" - degrees of separation, and all that. And it did sound to me as if Jim wasn't just reporting what that particular Somebody had said to him but was also endorsing it and making use of it to make a broader point of his own.

(And his use of "my argument" and "I think", for example, only adds to that impression.)

So, actually, Jim Naughtie probably was agreeing with what Somebody said about the ERG but he gave himself the perfect (very BBC) cover for so doing should any complaints come in about bias.

Any complaint to the BBC, therefore, would inevitably result in the BBC saying exactly what Mishal Husain said: "He was quoting someone else, as I'm sure you know."

And if anyone quotes Guido (or, indeed, me on this blog!), the BBC will say that it was an edited clip which omitted the start of James Naughtie's sentence - the bit that gave the (get-out-of-jail-free) context. 

Mark Mardell and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Another tweet:

Was it "a disgraceful hatchet job on Jacob Rees-Mogg" from Mark Mardell on The World This Weekend today?

Well, the feature began with Mark saying this:

He declined our offer of an interview so, the next best thing, I've been to his constituency of North East Somerset...

And it included commentary from Mark Mardell that said this:

Whatever happens next Jacob Rees-Mogg is likely to have a big role. While he plays on politesse, like Brexit itself, he divides people into armed camps.

So he's divisive and he "plays on" his politeness? Hmm.

Anyhow, the meat of this segment was on its use of local people (vox pops and interviewees) to give their views on Mr. Rees-Mogg (or "Rees-Mogg", as Mark kept on calling him). So, to see if Hand At The Back really has a point, I've transcribed the bits specifically about Mr. Rees-Mogg from Mark's report - presented in order of first appearance:

• I think it is to support. I'm not so sure that posh boys should be put in charge because they do think they are natural leaders, but I'm not so sure about that. I think he's a very destructive character.
• I suppose she's [Mrs May] got to be pushed a bit, but he can probably stop now I think. 
• I think Jacob's a nice person. He is highly intelligent. However I think he's very intransigent about the whole thing. At the moment his group of MPs are causing all sorts of problems for the nation.
• He's a very measured man. He's not putting incendiary arguments.
• I think he's just being against May and the Cabinet. I think he's just been the proverbial pain in their backside, and I don't know if it's been to the good.
• I've been very interested to see that Jacob has been much more conciliatory than some of the other members. Probably a feeling of necessity is part of it, in view of recent votes. Above all I find that he's honest, I remember saying to him in 2008, some time like that, "Jacob, you're going to get hammered. Some of these things are not politically correct, or not considered so". And he kind of shrugged his shoulders and says he feels that's inevitable. He's going to say what he thinks anyway and he'll take the consequences. {MM: Would he make a good leader, good Prime Minister?}. Superb, yes. yes.
• I've written to him on many occasions. I always get a reply back - he's very courteous- always on House of Commons notepaper. And it nearly always has a transcript of his most recent speech, which nearly always seems to refer to something happening in the 19th or 18th century, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny actually. His Brexit arguments are preposterous. I think they're self-serving and I think he's intending to take us, the peasants, for a ride. The first Sunday of every month We have a demonstration in Bath and one occasion in the summer when Mr. Rees Mogg was being particularly objectionable I dressed up as Rees-Mogg - top hat, tails and white tie - and did a little semi-scripted song and dance based on Babar the Elephant. {MM: Can you give us a burst?}. No, I can't remember the words. {MM: Sadly, very sadly. no one thought to record that rendition}. It's been a coup of the right. They've basically taken us to the cleaners. 

A vox pop count and a word count there would suggest that Mr. Rees-Mogg isn't the toast of North-East Somerset. And a length of contribution count would make that seem even starker: The fourth contributor in the list ("He's a very measured man") said just that, without introduction, and then vanished, while the "peasants" guy (a People's Vote campaigner) got by far the longest 'go' at having his say about Mr. Rees-Mogg and even the "superb" guy was, as MM said, "not uncritical" of Mr. Rees-Mogg.

But was it a hatchet job? Well, there's wriggle-room for Mark Mardell to claim that both sides of the Jacob Rees-Mogg war were represented here, and he could - and doubtless would - say that he talked to some people, recorded what they said and then faithfully played it all back to us (though that requires us to place our trust in his complete integrity as a BBC reporter), but the balance was definitely heavily against the Member for the 18th Century here and a constituency that voted 52% for Leave was made to seem unsympathetic towards him. 

I wonder if he listened to it?

Jacob Rees-Mogg gets the full Jonathan Dimbleby treatment

Jacob and the other one

On this morning's Today, just before the 8 o'clock news, Jonathan Dimbleby (brother of the more famous David) previewed tonight's Any Questions:

An airport shuts down; more homeless die; Trump drops another bombshell; Putin backs Brexit; Theresa May turns pantomime dame; Jeremy Corbyn provides rich pickings for lip-readers; cabinet ministers are openly at odds with each other but reassure us that troops will be on standby if needed. So a festive mood for our last programme of the year with Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of Brexit's militant tendency; Joanna Cherry for the 'don't leave at any price' SNP; Shami Chakrabarti speaking for Labour's 'we have yet to decide' option; and former president of the CBI now chair of London First Paul Drechsler, who would just like some certainty please. This evening at 8 o'clock. 

Of the phrases used to describe the four guests, you'll spot that Jacob Rees-Mogg got the insulting one and that, as far as the other guests go, Baroness Chakrabarti got a critical one, while - in contrast - Joanna Cherry and Paul Drechsler both got helpful ones.

Why was that? Was it because the latter pair are the clearest opponents of Brexit, so merit such 'helpful' introductions, while Jacob Rees-Mogg, as the clearest supporter of Brexit, merits nothing but mockery? And did Shami end up with a (gentler) ribbing because of her party leadership's refusal to come down clearly on the same side as Ms. Cherry and Mr. Drechsler over Brexit? Or is this all just conspiracy-theory-mongering?

Whatever, it wasn't a one-off from the BBC man today.

Here's Jonathan Dimbleby's introduction to the programme itself, coming live from London. And note who this time is the only guest to get belittled and mocked. (Spoiler alert: It's Jacob):

Joanna Cherry is a QC by profession but, nowadays, virtually fully engaged in speaking for her party, the SNP, at Westminster on justice and home affairs. Shami Chakrabarti came to prominence as the director of the human rights charity Liberty/ She's now in the Lords and serves the Labour Party Shadow Attorney General. Jacob Rees-Mogg chairs the European Research Group, which was instrumental in failing to topple Theresa May as his party leader last week. No less significantly he says, admits, acknowledges, he's never changed one of his six children's nappies. Paul Drechsler is deputy president the CBI (he was president before that), chair of the Bibby shipping line and, after running a number of major businesses, is now chair of London First, which campaigns to make the capital the best city in the world to do business. Our panel. 

Yes, Ms. Cherry, the Noble Baroness and Mr. Drechsler got straightforward introductions, which none of them would have felt displeased by, from their BBC host. Only Mr. Rees-Mogg got the full 'Jonathan Dimbleby treatment'.

Besides the outright derision of "...was instrumental in failing to topple...", there was also the loaded 'colour' about him not changing his six children's nappies ("says, admits, acknowledges") .

And (girding our loins and listening on) who do you think got interrupted the most by Jonathan tonight? Yes, Jacob Rees-Mogg.

And who got asked the most challenging questions by Jonathan? Yes, Jacob Rees-Mogg - by a large margin (more than twice any one else).

And which panellist did Jonathan mockingly impersonate during one of the BBC man's many interventions? Yes, Jacob Rees-Mogg.

And who was the only panellist to get repeated questions about his personal integrity from BBC presenter Jonathan Dimbleby? Well, you might have thought Baroness Chakrabarti would have been first in line for that kind of treatment but, no, this is the BBC....so, yes, it was Jacob Rees-Mogg again.

My take on the stats for tonight's Any Questions runs as follows:

Jacob Rees-Mogg

Questions - 12

Interruptions - 4

Joanna Cherry

Questions - 2

Interruptions - 1

Paul Drechsler

Questions - 5

Interruptions - 1

Shami Chakrabarti 

Questions - 4

Interruptions - 3

Anyhow, another very vital statistic was pointed out by Mr Rees-Mogg himself (on Twitter):

And when the Brexit question came up it very clearly was 3 Remainers (and the most vocal part of the audience) against 1 Brexiteer.

As I've said before, I rarely listen to Any Questions these days (having been a great fan in my youth), mostly because of what I felt was the bias of its presenter and production team. I dipped in tonight (purely for the blog's sake) - as I did a few weeks back - and found it exactly how I remember it: Biased. 

"Casting about aspersions of honesty"

For your interest, here's a transcript of the PM interview last night between Evan Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg MP:

From an earlier occasion when Jacob told Evan off

Evan Davis: Let's talk to Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative MP, chair of the European Research Group. Very good evening to you.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Good evening.

Evan Davis: Let's start with the Government ones. You don't think those are fair simulations. Correct?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There's a fundamental flaw if you read the Government's paper, which is that it doesn't take into account global economic trends. And one of the major global economic trends is that 90% of future global economic growth is expected to come from outside the European Union. So if you take out that level of growth you end up with figures that are not likely to be accurate.

Evan Davis: Except that...that to be taken out, you would have had that growth regardless of whether we're in or out, so we can sell more to India whether we're in the EU or out of the EU. So it's only the difference, which is why their report says they don't think it's very significant.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: No, I don't think that's accurate, because one of the reasons we have difficulties getting into other markets is because of the protectionist racket run by the European Union that keeps out low-priced goods of high quality from countries outside the European Union. Bear in mind, we put protectionist tariffs and non-tariff barriers on goods that we don't even manufacture in this country to protect inefficient incompetent European businesses at a high cost to British consumers. We can get rid of that once we've left the European Union. That's why global economic trends are crucial.

Evan Davis: And the Treasury thought it wasn't a very significant factor,. which is why they didn't model all that growth. Let me just ask you...

Jacob Rees-Mogg: (interrupting) Indeed, but let me just finish on that, because bear in mind the Treasury said that we would lose 800,000 jobs, up to, simply by voting to leave the European Union. That was nonsense. It said we would have a punishment Brexit [presumably he meants 'Budget' there]. That was nonsense. The Treasury's reputation has been for politicised forecasts,...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) Right, and interestingly...

Jacob Rees-Mogg: ...which is why George Osborne set up the Office For Budget Responsibility to do it independently.

Evan Davis: And interestingly, all the independent forecasts give you the same story: This isn't economic calamity, unless we have a disorderly Brexit. It's basically 1-5% loss in our kind of long-term national income. Shouldn't you just be honest and say, look, that is what is going to happen folks. It's worth it because you want to take back control or have lower immigration, whatever it is, but there's a small price to pay...

Jacob Rees-Mogg: (speaking over) No, I...

Evan Davis: ...and you will notice it after 10 or 15 years.

Jacob Rees-Mogg:  I think casting about aspersions of honesty it is an improper thing for the BBC to do. I think you have to take on good faith what people come on your programme to say, and I think it's disreputable of you to put it in that way. People have honest disagreements, and there are economists, who actually got many things right before, who disagree. And bear in mind the consensus view was that joining the euro would be good for us, being in the Exchange Rate Mechanism would be good for us...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) There was enormous division on those things and there was not the same consensus about them.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: (speaking over) Oh hold on! On the Exchange Rate Mechanism there was an almost entire consensus that us being in the Exchange Rate Mechanism was good for the country, and I think that to rewrite history in that way is simply inaccurate. And these consensus forecasts are very bad at getting inflexion points. As Andy Haldane, the senior economist at the Bank of England, has himself said - and wrote a very interesting paper about - why didn't the forecasters get 2008 right? The reason: they're not good inflexion points, and leaving the European Union is unquestionably an inflexion point.

Evan Davis: Let's get a quick reaction to the Bank of England's projection. It's a much shorter term one: Disorderly Brexit, worse economic crisis - a worse shock, than the financial crisis - economy shrinking by 8%. You just have to say everybody's biased, everybody's out for your...for your case, don't you, because this is a completely separate, independent forecast?..

Jacob Rees-Mogg: (interrupting) It's not independent. It's by the Bank of England and by Mark Carney, who has been hostile to Brexit all the way through, is a second-tier failed Canadian politician who, unfortunately, we have running one of our most distinguished institutions, who has trashed its reputation by his succession of hysterical and wrong forecasts. And for the Bank of England to be talking down the pound is, I think, unprecedented. It is not what the Bank of England is there to do. and it's deeply irresponsible of them.

Evan Davis: You can't accept?....you got cross with me when I said you need to be honest about the economic effect, you got cross with me for saying that, but you cannot accept that if the Bank of England as an institution is capable of sitting down, using a set of very conventional models - there are not outlying models. It's not like they're saying much that's different from anyone else who looks at this -  you can't accept that they just do their best to model and tell the country what it's in for if it has a disorderly Brexit?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think the Bank of England's activities around the Brexit debate were quite extraordinary, that it doesn't interfere in general elections but it decided to interfere in the referendum and to make highly speculative and so far erroneous forecasts, and I think it's that reputation that makes these further forecasts less than credible.

Evan Davis: Jacob Rees-Mogg,...

Jacob Rees-Mogg: (speaking over) It's a pleasure.

Evan Davis:  (laughing) ...thanks for, thanks for joining us.

He'll get his coat

Regular readers will be delighted to know that veteran BBC foreign correspondent Hugh Sykes is still having his say on Twitter. Here's his take on Mr. Rees-Mogg MP:

Back

Hmm. 

I know Sunday is usually the day for an Andrew Marr Show ft Rob Burley post here at ITBB, but BBC Executive Editor Rob has (quite rightly) been exercising his prerogative to ignore the usual mass seething of left-wing BBC critics who attend each and every edition of his former baby.

But...

He chose (on Twitter) to criticise Gary Neville instead. 

Big mistake. His Twitter timeline is now full of furious Gary Neville fans fulminating against him. 

Maybe R Rob should stick to beating up Corbynista haters of Andrew Marr. He's very good at that. And it would probably be far, far less stressful that beating off those massed ranks of angry Nevillistas (who, from the looks of it, make the Neville family of the War of the Roses look like Countryfile-watching, sherry-sipping wallflowers).  

(Note to self: Never post a piece here at ITBB that's rude about Gary Neville. We think Gary Neville's great and don't mind him being a miserable git one bit. In fact we applaud him without reservation for being such a miserable git. 

Second note to self: Remind Sue of that when she gets back off her well-earned holiday). 

As a blogger about BBC bias I do find the weekly Twitter tumult about The Andrew Marr Show fascinating (as you probably know). It's like looking in an inverted mirror from ten years ago and seeing the Left now reflecting back, with uncanny precision, the language and style and way of conspiratorial thinking of the Right back then, even down to the rude puns on political opponents' names and the particularly personal jibes against females (especially journalists) of the opposite political persuasion. Astonishingly (and I really didn't see this coming) a surprising number of these left-wing anti-BBC types are now starting to call for the scrapping of the licence fee.

(I assume, maybe wrongly given that I can't fathom out quite what they want and suspect they can't either, that they want a wholly tax-funded state broadcaster run by a Corbyn government that will ensure the right kind of BBC impartiality).

The bulk of what I saw today can be summarised thusly:

(1) Left-wingers (in their many hundreds) raging that Jacob Reece-Posh - a hateful far-right Tory backbencher from the pages of The Beano - was invited on. The BBC are bigging him up, like they bigged up Boris and Nigel Farage. The BBC are not just Tory they're far-right, and pro-Brexit. They invited JRM on to promote their right-wing, pro-Brexit agenda. Etc. 

plus

(2) Left-wingers (in their many hundreds) ranting about Isabel Oakshit being on the paper review. She's a vile, ugly, right-wing woman who was dressed in scruffy tracksuit bottoms/pyjamas. The BBC's obsessed with her. She's never off the BBC. She's nasty. Her and Jacob Reece-Posh -  it's all too much! Pro-Brexit, right-wing BBC bias. Etc.

I'm not exaggerating there. I saw more than a few tweets about Isabel Oakeshott being vile and ugly from morally superior people who, often in the same tweet, themselves posted vile and ugly comments about her being vile and ugly. And the number of people 'punning' on her surname and replacing '-shott' with '-shit' was quite astonishing. (They might say 'great minds think alike' of course!). 

And, of course, lots of left-wing people were stridently complaining that Jacob Rees-Mogg and even Damian Hinds got a lot less challenges and interruptions from Andrew Marr than Labour's nice Jonathan Ashworth. I suppose I should do my old thing and count the interruptions but I'm pretty certain the Ashworth & Hinds interviews were roughly as tough as each other. The JRM interview was, I think, a bit tamer - perhaps because, as those moaning Corbynistas were the first to say today, JRM isn't a frontline politician. Unlike Mr. Hinds and Mr. Ashworth, he's a backbencher. 

And no, O Corbynista hordes, Andrew Marr wasn't saying that Jacob will be the next PM. He was saying that the bookies make him their favourite. And, despite what you first thought, that's not really the same thing, is it?

(I probably shouldn't have asked that question. A few Corbynistas on Twitter think this blog's posts about The Andrew Marr Show show us to be a pro-BBC blog that will defend the BBC at all costs.) 

Nice to see Andrew Marr back and looking well though. He's no Emma Barnett of course. Only Emma Barnett is. Or Andrew Neil.

Points of View

I see tonight that my and Sue's estimable former Biased BBC editor, David Vance, is giving vent today (on Twitter rather than at Biased BBC) to his anger about the BBC's treatment of Jacob Rees-Mogg:

Thoughts?

To label or not to label?

I'm just starting to listen to that Nick Robinson/Jacob Rees-Mogg interview now and was immediately brought up short by Nick's introduction to his two guests - Jacob R-M and Charles Grant from the pro-European think tank the Centre for European Reform:

(Jacob Rees-Mogg) is chair of the European Research Group, a pro-Brexit Conservative Party organisation, and Charles Grant is the man who he claimed had said all this, head of the Centre for the (sic) European Reform, a think tank. 

As for the 'complaints from both sides'-related point from barrister Tim Baldwin quoted in the previous post about Nick Robinson "not challenging JR-M head on in promulgating this acknowledged lie", well, it shows the nonsense of the 'complaints from both sides' argument. Mr Baldwin, despite being a barrister, was just plain wrong. Nick Robinson didn't just challenge Mr Rees-Mogg head on, he placed him in the firing line and kept on firing (hectoring him, you might say). If anything, the bias went in the exact opposite direction to that claimed by Mr Baldwin, especially as Charles Grant didn't get anything like so rough a ride from his BBC interviewer.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, UK Antifa and the BBC

Jacob R-M on the receiving end of a hate crime!

The 'big story' on my strange Twitter feed tonight is Jacob Rees-Mogg being caught up in a far-left-provoked piece of violence at Bristol University. 

An overwhelmingly male, balaclava-and-baseball-cap-sporting band of coyly aggressive heroes tried to shout down the very conservative and polite Mr. Rees-Mogg for being "fascist scum" (evidently not knowing much about fascism).

Mr. Rees-Mogg behaved bravely and impeccably and walked towards them and tried to engage with them, but they weren't having it. They shouted, abused and refused to engage, and then fisticuffs ensued.

Mr. Rees-Mogg (with worrying shades of Jo Cox) may have been a victim of their violence but, from the footage, he didn't bat an eyelid and kept on trying to calm the situation.

He insists he wasn't assaulted by the left-wing bullies. Others (including the BBC's reporter at the event) insist he was.

'Tory' Kuenssberg (aka Laura) probably won't have appealed to such 'anti-fascist' thugs or to the worst elements of the Corbynista phenomenon tonight by tweeting:

And the BBC's News website's prominent Home page report about it (as it stands now) isn't, thank goodness, biased in favour of the Antifa-style bullies. A BBC reporter was present - the splendidly-named James Craig (an inversion of my Christian names) - and he wrote the following:

Jacob Rees-Mogg speech disrupted by hard left AntiFa at University of West England. Watch what Mogg does!!! 💪

Video by @ben_kew pic.twitter.com/t0ofQYDayF

— Raheem 🇬🇧🇺🇸 (@RaheemKassam) February 2, 2018

Belated catch-up

I kept my eye on the blog while I was out of office. Not a lot, but just enough. Indulge me while I revisit some topics that Craig amply covered in my absence. (Or scroll past)

Number one was the episode of Question Time in which Jacob Rees-Mogg did his own side a disservice by quoting from, of all things, a dodgy article in the Sun. Shame, really, when there were umpteen more reliable sources he might have cited. Name one? Well, I can’t think of one right now. Ask me again some other time.

Accusing the BBC of tagging most positive domestic news stories with ‘despite Brexit’ without having specific examples at your fingertips is to walk into a well-worn trap. Best avoided. J R-M should have known better. No good relying on a faint hope that ‘everyone will know what I mean”, is it? He should have cited something more reliable. This blog for example. “Is the BBC Biased?” is not just any old BBC-bashing site. We are reasonable and fair, and we engage with our critics. (At least Craig does). Still, Jacob R-M  has probably never even ‘eard of us.

Next, HIGNFY. I haven’t watched this programme for ages. The humour is so *Laboured* - but I spotted a clip containing some uncharacteristic quips as described here by Craig. 

After the usual hilarious banter from Hislop and Co. about the discredited MP for Sheffield Hallam,  Jared O’Mara, chairperson Rhod Gilbert (of the annoyingly raspy voice) said: 

“In his comments, Jared O'Mara has been homophobic, xenophobic and sexist. Worst of all, in the eyes of the Labour Party, he doesn't have a bad word to say about Jews.”

The embarrassed gasp from the audience (and the cringing faces of the team) said something about the current labour Party’s “perceived” antisemitism. But what? 

On one level, (the groan/gasp) was because there *is* such a thing as antisemitism in the labour party. 

On another level, they groaned it was because the audience doesn’t think there is any such thing… as per the Chakrabarti report. Let’s call it the Alexei Sayle school of thought 

But on a more subtle, double bluff kind of level, the embarrassment could have been related to a rumour that the only ‘parliamentary’ issue that Mr. O’Mara has properly applied himself to is the anti-Israel / pro Palestinian cause.  So, if this is the case, he does have some bad words to say about Jews after all. However I suppose that’s a bit too convoluted for your average HIGNFY audience.

  

Now for the story I would have addressed at the time, but for circumstances beyond my control. It is, of course, the BBC’s non-coverage of the Israeli Judo debacle in the UAE. I think there’s more to this story than one might think. 

Do you accept that the BBC is more than averagely interested in sport? (Okay, I concede that most of the media is pretty interested in it too.) Whatevah.

Not only is there massive coverage of sport on the BBC website, but each sport, including Judo, seems to have its own section.  Who knew? Not me - (I do now, of course.)

But about this particular incident, not a squeak. That is, despite the pages and pages of reports covering it on a plethora of platforms; try a simple Google: “Tal Flicker”. It's gone viral.

Most comments I’ve seen praise this young man’s dignity.  Several blame the International Judo Federation, or whatever the body calls itself, for allowing this to happen. 

How ever did 'they' (the IJF / UAE) get away with it? 

I was trying to imagine what the BBC might say to justify ignoring the story altogether. It wasn’t on their sports page. It wasn’t even on their Judo page. 

They might claim that only G.B. results are appropriate for the BBC to report, which I suppose is fair enough. But it wasn’t even reported as a news story.  I mean it was a controversial, unsportsmanlike incident with, dare I say it, ‘racist’ overtones. It wasn’t the only incident of that ilk, either. You’d think it would make one of the BBC’s many spin-off departments. Magazine? Trending? But no. Not a sausage. 

Maybe someone should alert Mike Wendling in case he hasn’t heard.

When Jacob met James

News of James Chapman’s proposed new party, imaginatively called the Democrats, has been floating around for a day or so, but it was this morning’s performance on the Today Programme which set the www. buzzing. Guido has the sound clip. The BBC saw fit to introduce its customary balance by inviting the unflappable Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg into the studio as well.

I suspect listeners were more impressed by the ferocity of Mr. Chapman's interruptions and his somewhat hysterical delivery than by his message, which was roughly that:

• He has several supporters or sympathisers including 7 ministers, including 2 cabinet members.

• The Tory brand is damaged and can never again be elected. 

• A Hard Brexit will make Black Wednesday look like a picnic. 

• 60% of the Tory Party are/were for Remain.

• The gap in the centre leaves people politically homeless.

• We were sold a pack of lies during the referendum campaign.

• Where is the £350?

• Brexit is undeliverable and will be disastrous to the economy.

• Jacob Rees-Mogg has captured my party.

Jacob Rees-Mogg managed:

• The democratic process.

• Undermining the democratic process.

• The will of the people.

Anyway, one of the most un self-aware remarks one is likely to ever hear was John Humphrys saying indignantly  “Let him finish his sentence!”

Who brought the race into this row?

Broadcasting House.

It has been drawn to my attention (I didn’t listen to it live) that radio 4’s Broadcasting House covered the Mail on Sunday’s piece about the feud between Michael Foster and the Corbynistas  in their paper review. 

The guest reviewers were: popular Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, anti-Israel campaigner Rachel Shabi and Kenton Allen, TV producer and former sound-effects person on the Archers. (I wonder if the Ambridge character ‘Kenton’ was named after him.) 

The topic in question came after the discussion about the Archers and I thought it was almost worth transcribing it, as it neatly encapsulates the contributors’ attitudes. to the topic in question. 

Paddy O’C:

Rachel Shabi, move the page. The Mail on Sunday -  what’s happening? 

RS:

“Well. It’s a bit um annoying to see the Daily Mail frame the story in this way. 

The headline ‘Corbyn purges top Jewish donor’ of Mail on Sunday article, and ‘reignites race row.’ Well I think it’s the MoS that brought the race into this row, um, this is about Michael Foster who was barred by Corbyn after he mounted an attack on the Labour Party leader though the MoS, and he likened the  Corbyn supporters to stormtroopers. So the, hehe, the violent, intimidating Nazi forces that helped their rise to power in 1930s Germany - um to call - to suggest that this is a purge of somebody who is Jewish, I think is …incredibly dangerous and damaging and unfair and the worst way to frame this subject. Antisemitism is a real and serious issue and the last thing we wanna do is to dilute or detract or in any way weaken people’s perception of what antisemitism looks like, and feels like and sounds like - um - Michael Foster has not been barred because he’s Jewish, he’s been barred because he’s likened Corbyn supporters to stormtroopers, which, at a time when the Labour Party is using, you know, theres’s abusive language all round, it’s the very last thing he should have done and it’s clearly a mistake.” 

Paddy O’C:

Well he’ll be giving his account of that on TWATO, thanks for bringing it to our attention. Jacob Rees Mogg, where would you start? 

JR-M:

Well just on that. I thought that was an excellent story by the MoS and it’s worth looking at the dateline that they produce, of serious problems in the Labour Party with antisemitism, and Maureen Lipman with whom I’ve reviewed the papers on your programme in the past, a very sensible intelligent lady, has raised these concerns, so I think just to brush them under the carpet is a mistake, ugh, but I would start with the Sunday Express…… 

Paddy O’C:

Rachel wants you to know she doesn’t want to brush it under the carpet… 

RS:

Actually the last thing I’m suggesting we do is brush the matter under the carpet and I just think that’s a really erroneous way to frame the debate. It is an issue, let’s make it an issue of antisemitism and not just a way to attack the Labour Party… 

KA: 

Well maybe the way to deal  with it is not just to expel the Jewish member who brought it to your attention…

RS: 

The Jewish member who brought it to your attention has been expelled or suspended for…

KA: 

That would be a moronic thing to do…

RS:

 ….for calling Corbyn supporters stormtroopers.

KA: 

Prone to hyperbole, he’s a former showbiz agent. I’m sure he’ll apologise for that, but to expel the Jewish member for just raising the issue of antisemitism seems to be a bizarre thing to do.

RS: 

Well I think that antisemitism is really important and I wish we could discuss it in a sensible way, without using it as a stick to either bash or, you know, not bash, the Labour Party. 

Paddy O’C:

Ok, we’ve got the passion here.

Well, at the risk of reigniting the race row yet again, I’ll refrain from using this to bash, you know, not bash, Rachel Shabi.

EU 'meddle' muddle

If you’re still undecided, not yet sure which way to jump, here’s something that might help you make up your mind.

If you’re in the EU you’re funding illegal settlements. Not a lot of people (probably) know that, but something we do all know is that settlements are considered to be an obstacle to peace in the Middle East, if not the obstacle. The Palestinian side has managed to persuade many people who neither know nor care about the minutiae of the Oslo Accord and the status of areas A, B and C (or for that matter, the deviousness of the Palestinians) and has succeeded in convincing them that this is so. They even managed to get the world to accept that a freeze on settlement construction was a legitimate “precondition” and not just an excuse for avoiding talks. 

Even though Israel has very good reasons to dispute it, let’s agree that the majority ‘world view’ firmly holds the belief that settlements are illegal under international law, and are “the” obstacle to peace.

Maybe you missed this story because it was in the OMG The Daily Mail. 

Below: a picture of “Dutch diplomats and Palestinian officials” studying maps of the region in a room decorated with portraits of a saluting Yassir Arafat and a smiling Mahmoud Abbas. They’re searching for suitable land upon which to erect settlements (funded by us.)

Did I mention that these particular settlements were not homes for Jews? They’re for Palestinians. Ah, well that’s different, I hear you say.

However not everyone thinks it’s different; almost unbelievably, to avoid being taken to court for “building unauthorised  settlements and roads on land placed under Israeli jurisdiction by the Oslo Accords, to which the EU is a signatory” - guess what??   EU bureaucrats are claiming diplomatic immunity.

Now you might well think, it’s fine. The Israelis don’t like it up ‘em. There they go, building settlements willy nilly, obstructing the peace that the innocent Palestinians would dearly love to achieve, and the minute the Palestinians do the exact same thing, they don’t like it. Taste of their own medicine and all that.

That’s what you would say. What EU would say, maybe.

But that’s not quite right. There’s much more to it, and at least two of our own MPs get it. 

Andrew Percy MP told the MailOnline: 

'The EU should comply with the law. It should not be meddling in the Middle East, then hiding behind some dodgy use of diplomatic immunity,'. 

'This is a gross waste of taxpayers' money. It's another example of money given to the EU over which Parliament has no real oversight.  

'The British electorate is contributing to this but we are completely unaware of how it's being spent. We don't know who is spending this, and we can't vote them out.' 

He added: 'No wonder the EU think they're above the law. They are untouchable.' 

Mr Percy also expressed serious concerns that the EU is 'undermining the Oslo Accords' and 'damaging attempts at peace' in the Middle East. 'Not only is it a waste of taxpayers' money, it is morally questionable,' 

This month, the EU approved a further £193million of aid to the Palestinian Authority.

Jacob Rees-Mogg said:

'It is deeply concerning that the EU falls back on diplomatic immunity after breaking planning regulations,'  

 'The UK Government would take a very dim view of a friendly state doing that to us. 

'Diplomatic immunity is there to protect envoys from unjust treatment, not to protect the high-handed behaviour of arrogant bureaucracies.' 

'The EU maintains that it is based on fundamental principles of rule of law and support for democracy. But when this clashes with its bureaucratic bungling, neither rule of law nor democracy seem important.'

So for anyone teetering on the brink as far as Brexit is concerned -  hope that helps. If you're wondering, I don't think the BBC has reported this.  Please tell me if I'm wrong.