This evenings viewing

You’ll have heard that Tony Hall has reversed the BBC’s unfortunate decision about Naga Munchetti and she has been uncensured. Will heads roll? Come back John Humphrys, that’s your speciality isn’t it?

I intended to watch Jane Corbin’s take on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, mainly because I’ve just mastered the fluent pronunciation of 'Khashoggi', with both adjacent gs (hard and soft) bound seamlessly together, which is more than most BBC announcers can manage. 

The problem was that the TV was tuned to Channel Four and I was transfixed by the post-conference interview with a portly-looking Krishnan Guru-Murphy, Rachel Sylvester, Craig Oliver and Gillian Keegan MP. 

Tory MP Gillian Keegan tells @krishgm re Johnson groping claims: ‘I've no reason not to believe him’ https://t.co/ZGhx9zfywd

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) September 30, 2019

Unsurprisingly, being Channel 4, the topic they were most excited about was Boris and thigh-gate. Who lied? If it wasn’t Charlotte Edwardes with her extra e, it must be Boris, the lying letch.

I had been reflecting on the increasing ubiquity of Rachel Sylvester as seen on TV. She’s been on loadsa political programmes recently. She’s a columnist for The Times, yet she appears to be a very priggish lefty. 

In the event, I sacrificed the first half of Khashoggi to my own morbid need to see how far Channel 4 could go with their petty, childish and spiteful Boris-bashing gossip. Gillian Keegan was the only sane person present and Guru-Murthy was almost beside himself with glee.

Looking at Rachel Sylvester’s spite-flecked eyes and listening to her squeaky voice one couldn’t help thinking that no-one’s going to be touching any of her body parts under or over any dinner-tables any time soon without written permission.

Watching Ed Balls on BBC 2 marvelling at our massive non-European fruit and veg related import and export industry was a nice change. It came across as rather pro-Brexit. Probably accidentally.

A bet on the Geegees.

What is the BBC saying about Saudi Arabia, arms sales and the grizzly murder of the man they call a 'dissident journalist' who we eventually discovered was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

(How do you pronounce Khashoggi?- Is it hard ‘K” or soft ‘H’  - aitch not haitch - and is there supposed to be a hard ‘G’ followed by a soft ‘g’ rather than two soft gees? It’s quite a difficult word to enunciate effortlessly, but hat’s off to the announcers that have mastered a smooth 'Hashog-jee.'

From a position of sheer ignorance, I instinctively feel that’s the best bet (and good luck with Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha.) 

I can’t help seeing parallels between the media's apparent advocacy of an immediate cease-fire and/or an embargo on arms sales to Saudi Arabia because of, a) the murder of Khashoggi and, b) the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and the same media’s attitude to various Hamas/ Gaza/ Israel wars. Immediate cease-fires may not always produce the best outcome, arguably.

I know next to nothing about the Houthi insurgency and I can’t see much information about it in Paul Adam’s ‘explanation’. I understand that Paul Adams is far from impartial in this (or any other) area.

The BBC does provide some info here - circa 2015. Judging from the fact that the Houthis are (or were) known as Ansar Allah (Partisans of God), that they seem to be a spin-off of al-Shabab, and are backed by Iran, one might reasonably wonder if an immediate cease-fire would prolong the suffering of the unfortunate Yemeni population rather than bring it to a decisive end. 

I speak from a position of near total ignorance, rather like various panellists and pundits I’ve heard vehemently opining on the Beeb.