I was wrong

 If you’ve been paying attention you’ll know I hardly ever watch the BBC these days. I keep mentioning that to account for my prolonged silences interspersed with off-topic observations.. 

However I have to comment on the reappearance of Abdel Bari Atwan, whose services I thought had been quietly  dispensed with by the BBC.  I was wrong. He was on Dateline again on 19th August, following the attack on Salman Rushdie.

Melanie Phillips has written about this topic as has the Jewish Chronicle both citing the most outrageous of his remarks. 

The BBC, of course, has no intention of reprimanding or silencing Atwan as they think he represents legitimate views, and letting him air them is an expression of the BBC’s even-handedness. 

The problem is, however, that along with the rest of the left the BBC genuinely thinks it is indeed upholding balance, fairness and objectivity. It believes that it represents the political centre ground. That’s why it views its critics axiomatically as extremists who can safely be disregarded.

To be fair to Bari, as we like to call him on ITBB, he did imply that carrying out the actual fatwa  in it’s original form (death to Rushdie the blasphemer) was a tad beyond its sell-by date, but he defended the principle that such blasphemy as Rushdie’s was “very, very cruel when he talked about the Prophet Mohammed and his wives” which was also “very, very dangerous”. He added: “About 90 per cent of the people of the Muslim world believe that freedom of expression [is] practised only to insult Muslims”.

I’m not sure if Dateline itself isn’t about to be axed. I read it somewhere. Maybe they’ve realised that it’s a tiny bit politically biased.

Melanie Phillips doesn’t stop there. In her criticisms of the BBC, as well as Atwan’s other offensive remarks, she mentions the infamous Balen report about the BBC’s bias against Israel.  It has never seen the light of day, and its ongoing secrecy has been defended to the tune of  around £300,000 (of licence fee-payers dosh) in legal fees.   She refers to her own appearances as the token right-winger who is

“almost never given the opportunity to address the lies told about Israel.”

The BBC is caught fibbing

   

So the BBC was flat-out lying it appears.

Here's the editor of the Jewish Chronicle Jake Wallis Simons:

1/ It is with a heavy heart — I love the BBC and it has always been a privilege to work there — that the JC reports on the corporation again this week…

2/ We reveal that the BBC fully recorded an incendiary radio debate about whether anti-Zionism should be a “protected characteristic” despite claiming just hours later that no such item was planned for broadcast.

3/ The discussion for Radio 4 (for which I’ve worked quite a bit), in which Rabbi Jonathan Romain opposed Jewish anti-Israel blogger Robert Cohen, took place last Friday and was set to go out on Sunday.

4/ Later that day, responding to widespread criticism, the BBC told the JC: “We are always exploring a range of possible topics but there’s no planned item about anti-Zionism on the Sunday programme.”

5/ However, Rabbi Romain told the JC that after the segment was recorded, producers told him it would be broadcast on Sunday. It was later pulled.

6/ Read full story, written by Rosa Doherty, here: 

BBC did record the ‘anti-Zionism’ debate which it said it wasn’t planning

The BBC digs its heels in

As Charlie observes on the open thread, something very odd is going on...

The Jewish Chronicle has a main headline today, Outrage as BBC demands victims of Oxford Street bus attack reveal identities.

The BBC is refusing to respond to legal complaints about their coverage of the antisemitism bus incident on Oxford Street until the teenage victims on the bus are named. 

“We will be unable to substantively further progress your legal complaint until you identify your clients,” they say, adding it's an “uncontroversial principle of English law that a defendant is entitled to know the identity of the party or parties that are making a claim against them.”

Crossbench peer Lord Carlile - a barrister who was called to the bar 52 years ago - is not impressed. He strongly disagrees, saying: 

It is wholly unacceptable for the BBC to try to force frightened teenagers to reveal their names, particularly as there is film of the incident anyway. It is not part of a civil action. All they are doing at this stage is seeking answers from the BBC and an apology. The BBC is just wrong and it goes against public interest to insist that people who have been subjected to an attack should identify themselves at this stage.

The BBC has a very bad habit of digging its heels in when it's in the wrong about something. 

"No longer 'suitable'"

Talking about out with the old, in with the new...

The Jewish Chronicle has a new editor, with Jake Wallis Simons taking over from Stephen Pollard. 

It sounds as if both have had similar experiences of the BBC:

Jake Wallis Simons, present editor of the JC: Personally, since I joined the JC, I’ve been on TV probably twice a week on various channels, particularly Sky News. The BBC hasn’t asked me to come on once. And I have broadcast a lot for BBC in the past! Stephen Pollard had the same experience.

Stephen Pollard, previous editor of the JC: FWIW, I used to do BBC Any Questions every so often. Haven't been on once since I joined the JC 13 years ago. I was told by a senior BBC apparatchik it meant I was no longer "suitable". I should say the person who told me this profoundly disagreed with the idea - they were explaining it to me.

Update: One reply to this came from Labour Against Antisemitism's Emma Picken: 

I would say I'm shocked.... but I'm not. How often did the BBC wheel out JVL? I lost count.

Jewish Voice for Labour is a controversial Corbynite group.

 By coincidence, there's news today from Harry's Place: 

The BBC are planning on digging their antisemitism hole even deeper on Sunday morning on BBC Radio 4 where there will be a discussion about whether Anti Zionism is a protected characteristic featuring an interview with JVL's Diana Neslen.

So BBC, are people from the fringe, far-left JVL more "suitable" for you than people from the mainstream Jewish Chronicle? And if so, why?

Keep calm and carry on

The mini-drama that’s being acted out in the Spectator has a parallel relevance to this blog (my position here) 

Stephen Daisley is a divisive figure in the Spectator. The Marmite kind of divisive.

Here we have a comparatively niche article about the fortunes and misfortunes of two English language Jewish newspapers, The Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News. They’ve both gone into liquidation, but some kind of rescue plan seems to be in the offing.

The below-the-line discussion ignores the content of the piece and coagulates instead around the justification for publishing such a ‘minority interest’ issue in the Spectator. And, predictably, it has brought a few unpleasant realities out of the woodwork. 

Personally, I find the journalism in the Jewish News (in our sidebar) a little bland. Also, rather error-prone, but it sometimes comes up with some valuable insights.

The ‘best’ comment (according to Disqus’s “Best” league table) is from ‘ugly-fish’  - ugly by name - ugly by nature, maybe.

 Here it is:

“It's obviously a subject very close to the writer's heart, but why is he banging on about this in The Spectator? I and, I suspect, many other Speccie readers don't give a f*ck about The JC.”

That’s the first of several, to the effect that 

 'Jewy stuff like that has no business in the Spectator. No-one cares.'

So, should I conclude that the Spectator readership is mildly antisemitic? At the time of writing, out of the 13 comments,  seven support ugly fish,  three are against, and the rest seem indifferent or halfway between.

I’m not suggesting that Jewish issues deserve Special Status. I can easily imagine similar, or much more virulent responses if, say, the Spectator featured an article about some Muslim related media organ going out of business. 

It’s merely that in the current climate - rampant antisemitism everywhere - it hits a sore spot.

So,  with regard to this blog. 

I realise that antisemitism on the BBC - often in the guise of anti-Israel reporting, but not exclusively - coupled with its aggressively pro-Islam angle - is a far more serious problem than a few negative responses to articles by Stephen Daisley. 

The BBC has a wider reach and a much bigger influence on public opinion, which ultimately affects government foreign policy, so my focus on antisemitism and anti-Zionism has a rightful place on a blog about BBC bias.

I won’t pretend that it’s not dispiriting to be met with comparative indifference to my ‘Israel” posts, but as long as this blog exists, I’ll do what I do, and I hope Stephen Daisley keeps doing what he does too. 

My enemy's enemy. Updated

An intra-familial spat between two cheeks of the same (pro-Zionist) arse is going on right now. (Isn’t there always?)

You can read about it below the line on Harry’s Place, and naturally, it’s also in the Twittersphere.

Roughly, it boils down to slightly differing takes on the riveting topic of antisemitism - Islamophobia.

(Don’t go away!)

How much equivalence is there between the two? Melanie Phillips has written an article titled:

“Don’t fall for bogus claims of ‘Islamophobia” in the Jewish Chronicle. 'The taunt of Islamophobia is used to silence any criticism of the Islamic world, including Islamic extremism.’

“The Palestinians constantly spew out medieval and Nazi-themed hatred of Jews, presenting them as the source of all evil in the world. They claim that the Jews were behind 9/11, that they are current-day Nazis and that they control US foreign policy and the world’s finances and media.

However, she adds, later:


Shockingly, some Jewish leaders have gone along with [this travesty,] even equating “Islamophobia” with antisemitism. 

This displays a quite stunning ignorance and naivety. Of course, true prejudice against Muslims should be condemned, just like prejudice against Hindus, Sikhs or anyone else.

The row surrounding this subject references a piece by David Toube (once-upon-a-time of Harry’s Place / now of Quilliam) which also appears in the Jewish Chronicle. It’s headed: ”Melanie Phillips is wrong to dismiss the concept of Islamophobia”

“It is impossible, practically speaking, to disentangle conspiracism directed at Jews, and that which has Muslims as its target. Call it Islamophobia, call it anti-Muslim bigotry: we should all be concerned at the rise of deadly conspiracy theories. 

Yes, antisemitism is rife within the Arab world and within Muslim communities. No sensible person doubts that. Yes, the term “Islamophobia” is used by Islamists in order to dodge criticism of their theocratic and totalitarian politics, and by others in order to advance the case for a quasi-blasphemy law. For this reason, some argue for a better term than “Islamophobia”: me included.  

But such marginal arguments over terminology must not distract from the concern over a genuine, and deeply worrying phenomenon. If we pretend that, because the term Islamophobia is sometimes misused by rotters, it doesn’t exist at all - as Melanie Phillips appears to have done -  we are indistinguishable from the likes of the Labour Against the Witch-hunt mob, who devote themselves to denying clear cases of antisemitism, and defending obvious antisemites. 

It seems you can criticise Islam, yes, you can mention that antisemitism is rife in the Arab World and within Muslim communities, AND you are allowed to say that the term Islamophobia can be a polite wedge in the door for your dreaded blasphemy law. But you mustn’t pretend that Islamophobia doesn’t exist.

In my humble opinion, Melanie Phillips hasn’t said any such thing - (that Islamophobia doesn’t exist) which almost renders the somewhat peevish accusation aimed at Stephen Pollard, which is that he shouldn’t have published her article, irrelevant. The spat seems like an overblown fuss about nothing.

Nevertheless, the Board of Deputies has weighed in, as well as another voice from Quilliam, Maajid Nawaz. I haven’t studied this piece, but I hear it’s more of a  nuanced affair than an overtly negative critique of Melanie Phillips or the JC.

Another article (again by someone associated with Quilliam) might, in time, put these unnecessary intra-familial spats into perspective. This is in the Christmas edition of the Spectator (£) and it is by Ed Husain.

Islam’s reformation: an Arab-Israeli alliance is taking shape in the Middle East
New maps of the Muslim mind are being drawn and old hatreds are on the run.

Briefly, it seems that the malevolence of Iran’s Mullahs has galvanised its enemies. It may be a case of ‘my enemy’s enemy’, but never mind. If the Arab world drags itself into the of the real world and brings about enlightenment and reform to radical antisemitic Islam, Islamophobia and the left-wing/Islamic antisemitism axis may not figure so consequentially, frighteningly and crucially in the lives of future generations. Our children, grandchildren and so on. (Bar human extinction) 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Baroness Warsi has been speaking to Nick Robinson on the 

Today Programme 2:39 

Nick Robinson introduces an item about the Conservative Party’s long-awaited review into Islamophobia. Now Boris has widened the remit to include ‘all forms of bigotry and prejudice INCLUDING Islamophobia. 

Oh, dear! This sounds ominous. Are they equating it with Corbyn’s tedious and sneaky ‘All forms of racism” addendum? The BBC reports:

“The party said Prof Swaran Singh would look at how it handles complaints and tries to clamp down on discrimination.

Baroness Warsi criticises Professor Singh’s remit and questions his suitability for the role. Oh, dear! Is Prof Singh going to be another Shami? 

“It’s been a long time coming” opines the Baroness, and it must have appropriate scope to cover ‘everything that has happened’. The person who chairs the enquiry must have the confidence of the Muslim community with which Professor Singh’s views are not compatible, she opines. She is unhappy with his background and his views. 

The Runnymede Trust complains that “he’s someone who believes racism itself is a contested term” 

“The man himself doesn’t believe that racism exists.”

Baroness Warsi says she has no problem with the widened scope of the inquiry; her issue is that Professor Singh won’t look at what is actually going on or how it’s been dealt with.

Nick Robinson 

There is a controversy around whether there’s a clear meaning to the word Islamophobia - some say hatred of Muslim people “for who they are and their beliefs”, others are worried that the term can be abused by Islamic extremists to say ‘you may not criticise our practices even if it’s the wearing of the burka or the use of Sharia law to repress women, and they are nervous that it can be ‘over-interpreted’ Do you think that that criticism, that concern has no foundation?

Baroness Warsi counters with the (effectively) equivalent argument in relation to antisemitism and criticism of “the State of Israel”.  

“The term (Islamophobia) has been around for decades - “the Runnymede Trust coined the phrase 20 years ago, and it’s been an accepted part of the ‘racial justice’ phrase” [..] it clearly shows that it does not stop the criticism of Islam; it is in no way directed at theology and practice - it’s about ‘the radicalisation of a community’ irrespective of whether they believe in a religion or not”.

I hate to pour cold water on the veracity or the sincerity of that argument, but I’m pretty sure the recommended working definition of Islamophobia included “perceived Muslimness” and the dictionary definition has: “dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force”. So it kind of undermines the Baroness’s assurance that it is “in no way directed at theology and practice.

If you have been, thanks for listening.

Update:
Brendan O'Neill. The Shaming of Swaran Singh

"Sayeeda Warsi has reached a new low. This former Conservative cabinet minister and self-styled spokesperson for Britain’s Muslim community has instigated a pile-on against Swaran Singh, the professor who has been chosen by the Conservatives to head their inquiry into their internal handling of complaints about discrimination, including Islamophobia. Professor Singh’s crime? He once wrote a nuanced, moving essay for spiked about his own family history in Kashmir which goes against Ms Warsi’s view of the Kashmir conflict. How dare he."

That sinking feeling is back

That sinking feeling is back. Glastonbury time again.

As if Glasto dominating the airwaves wasn’t bad enough, the thought of Ed and Yvette Balls queueing up for the showers and Jeremy Corbyn appearing on the pyramid stage, (presumably to rapturous applause) hearing that Radiohead had been heckled with shouts of  “Free Palestine”  was just about the last straw.

I see Malia Bouattia signed off her NUS presidency by shouting “Free, free Palestine”, doubtless to similarly rapturous applause from her student fans; but a glimmer of light is here, in the form of a lone voice at the BBC, John Ware, who happens to have noticed the Al Quds Day March, even if his BBC colleagues didn’t.

"How's this for hate?
"We are fed up of the Zionists, we are fed up with all their rabbis; we are fed up with all their synagogues; we are fed up with their supporters."
Or this?
"Zionists. are responsible for the murder of people in Grenfell Tower - the Zionist supporters of the Tory Party."
I went to the annual Al Quds Days march in central London last weekend to watch several hundred supporters of Hezbollah, the "Party of God." [...]

“Please welcome Nazim Ali, the Al Quds' Master of Ceremonies for the march, organised by the Khoeminist oxymoronically named Islamic Human Rights Commission
Here's another of Nazim's gags. 

While presenting the IHRC's "Islamophobe of the Year" award shortly after the 2015 massacre by jihadists of 12 journalists and a policeman at the Paris-based satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine, he said: "No one from Charlie Hebdo could make it" (to the awards ceremony). 

Are you cracking up? No? How 's this then?
"We've always been a peaceful, family-friendly, humanitarian protest" Nazim shouted to the marchers. "That's what we're about." 

And then pointing to the protestors, he said ""Do not react to these people... Do not react to the IDF." 

Judging by the frenzy Nazim had worked himself into, my impression was that "react" was exactly what he hoped the Jewish protestors would do. "You've hit the nail," a police officer said. 

"Bye, bye Zionists, bye bye bye" taunted Nazim, waving his hands as the march prepared to move off. 

"Free, free Palestine" he chanted which got the ritual response: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” [...]

"The march was nothing short of a three-hour public hate fest against Jews who regard themselves as Zionists – who are the vast majority of Jews. Nazim Ali repeatedly referred to the only "real Jews" being those marching with him, the tiny fringe from Neturei Karta. "Zionists are the imposters" he said ".Do not talk to them.they like to show themselves as 'victims': 'Oh, we're Zionists; we're victims; we've only killed 10 children today; we're victims - we didn't get a chance to kill 20'." 

So much hate in just 24 hours both in Finsbury Park and central London. It shows just how difficult some of these "difficult and often embarrassing conversations" in countering extremism, are going to be.

They say ‘we mustn’t let the terrorists divide us” but their refusal to connect the causes they support with the terrorism they say they wish to defy, means they themselves perpetuate and exacerbate the division.

Another piece in the JC explains where our government could ‘do the right thing’ if it had a mind to.

"The issue of government subsidies for Palestinian terrorist salaries has returned to the international spotlight. What began in November 2013 as a barely believable revelation — that taxpayers in Britain, the US and other Western nations were bankrolling terrorist salaries — has now become a universally-acknowledged, impossible-to-deny and impossible-to-defend embarrassment for governments.

"A recent in-depth study has calculated that all terror incentives and rewards paid by the Palestinian Authority over the past four years total a mind-numbing $1 billion. 

As more citizens are murdered by Islamist terrorists in Great Britain, Europe, the US and elsewhere, Western donor governments have found their financial involvement with the Palestinian Authority terrorist salary programme increasingly indefensible.

‘The Palestinian “Law of the Prisoner” openly rewards those convicted of even the most heinous attacks with generous monthly “salaries” and a phantom job in the PA government. 

The salaries increase on a sliding scale. The more carnage inflicted and the longer the prisoner sentence, the higher the salary. 

Terrorists receiving a five-year sentence are granted just a few hundred dollars each month. The bloodiest murderers are paid as much $3,000 monthly. Cheques are sent directly to the prisoner, who appoints a power of attorney to distribute the funds.”

What about the BBC doing an in-depth study of that preposterous situation? I’m sure John Ware would be up for it.

The BBC's 'soft boycott' of Israel

Citing again the ever-vigilant Alan at Biased BBC for pointing this out...

The eminently sensible Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle published a powerful piece a few days ago about the BBC and its attitude to Israel. 

Please read it for yourselves and see what you think. I think it raises a serious question mark over the BBC's reporting. 

To summarise Stephen's case: You may have heard reports this past week of a potentially transformative treatment for prostate cancer. It was widely reported. Radio 4's Today reported it, but what Today didn't mention was that much of the research was carried out in Israel. The BBC News website reported it, but only mentioned that the treatment was developed in Israel in what Stephen Pollard, understandably, calls "a throwaway line right at the end". (Paragraph 31 out of 31).

Stephen writes:

I wish I could believe this is just an honest mistake – that, purely by chance, the Israeli origins of a medical breakthrough had been left out. But I’m afraid I don’t think that – and I don’t think you will, either. It happens too often and too regularly for it to be pure chance. It’s what I call the soft-boycott strategy.

Can you think of a good reason why as to why Today didn't mention it (as SP says they didn't) or why the BBC News website relegated the fact to the very end of its main report (as can be seen from the report itself)? 

Is the BBC engaged in a 'soft boycott' of good news about Israel?

Things I've read (and can remember)

Having (it appears) become merely a weekend blogger, Friday night now seems to mean catching up with all sorts of things - and trying to remember all the other things about the BBC which have flitted across my mind in the past five days. 

(I wish the world would slow down. There's been far too much going on and my brain isn't what it used to be.)

Among the things I've read this week have been the following:


1. THE CONSERVATIVE WOMAN: Biased BBC will load the dice against Brexit and Cameron’s claim he has banished “ever closer union” is a legal fiction - both by former BBC producer David Keighley.

The first piece looks at the BBC Trust's slippery behaviour - first, in slipping out the BBC's editorial guidelines on the corporation's EU referendum coverage and, second, regarding the Trust's offhand rejection of MPs' concerns about monitoring BBC bias.

The second piece includes a striking example of pro-EU bias from the BBC News website, awarding "a win" to David Cameron for 'exempting us from ever-closer union'. Whether the PM has actually done so (legally-speaking) is disputed, so the BBC awarding him "a win" might be premature (and biased).


2. THE NEW STATESMAN: The BBC has never been a natural home for Eurosceptics – just ask the young Michael Gove - a piece by former BBC head of television news/former Today editor Roger Mosey.

Mr Mosey, as might be expected, puts a generally pro-BBC case, but admits:

(1) that he "came across vanishingly few EU withdrawalists in [his]broadcasting life". 

(2) that BBC colleagues would 'hear' "the flapping of white coats" when "Tory Euro-bashers" and UKIP's Lord Pearson denounced the EU and BBC pro-EU bias. 

(3) that he thinks the BBC is too London-centric and, thus, thinks too much like pro-EU London than the rest of the country. 

(4) that like the rest of the Westminster Bubble, the BBC tends to concentrate more on "process" than "policy" (hence, presumably, all the 'splits' stuff).

(5) that BBC staff are "much more In than Out".

3. THE SPECTATOR: Who will watch for BBC bias in the EU referendum campaign?  - by Charles Moore...

...in which Mr Moore hopes that pro-Leave campaigners will be monitoring the BBC for bias (I think his wish will come true!) and where he recalls a couple of hours of biased (pro-EU) BBC broadcasting on Today (a classic example of what I've recently been calling a 'snapshot').

An incidental moment in Charles Moore's piece recalls another Speccie piece by Rod Liddle (prior to Nick Robinson's arrival). Rod strongly suspected that John Humphrys was the rumoured "Tory" on the Today team. Charles suspects that John Humphrys might be the one non-Remain member of the Today team.

(That might explain the otherwise baffling series of features slagging him off over the past year or so on Roger Bolton's Feedback - a series of attacks that has always felt oddly personal to my ears.

Well, if the BBC can fill its airwaves with endless speculation, so can I!)


4. THE JEWISH CHRONICLE: Israel must stop making it easy for the boycotters - by John Ware.

The headline doesn't tell the full story here. The veteran BBC Panorama reporter lands a few solid punches on the strange and frequently antisemitic BDS brigade.


5. THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: The media is twisting the knife into Israel over the 'lone wolf intifada' - by Eylon Aslan-Levy.

Those notorious BBC headlines make their appearance here, and Eylon makes a strong case against the media in general. 

Not bovvered

Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters were outraged at the audacity of Cathy Newman’s ambush  of their hero in some back alley t’other day.

It was filmed and widely disseminated on the internet. 

Newman questioned him on his association with Hamas and Hezbollah and friendships with antisemitic individuals like Raed Salah, to which he protested  “they never said anything antisemitic in front of me”, and of infamous holocaust denier Paul Eisen “I didn’t know he was a holocaust denier.” 

His main defence seemed to be that his mother stood alongside the Jewish people and the Irish people against the fascists in the notorious Cable Street demonstration.

As if those answers weren’t feeble enough, Cathy Newman’s questions were pretty feeble as well. 

Let’s not forget that Channel Four is as censorious and condemnatory of Israel’s defensive activities as anyone. Jon Snow is probably more guilty of promulgating pro-Palestinian propaganda  than Corbyn. 

However, apart from the actual holocaust deniers, most Israel-bashers will concede that the Jews suffered at the hands of Hitler; some of them even admit that Jews have suffered in a unique way. This does not translate into sympathy for Israel. Somehow, somewhere on the journey between universal sympathy for survivors of Belsen and Auschwitz and the establishment of the Jewish state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people, something went awry. Logic, history, facts, documentary evidence - all flew out the window.  Out with the philosemitism, in with the antisemitism.

Personally I feel that insincere challenges from the likes of Cathy Newman are futile because the bulk of Corbyn’s supporters couldn’t care less about his friendship with Salah, Sizer, Eisen, and now, another scandal, his association with a fellow named Dyab Abou Jahjaj.

The most damaging aspect of these revelations is that Corbyn seems to have forgotten his  friendship with this man altogether. Various investigators have come up with all sorts of evidence, which indicate that he’s a liar, or, if you prefer, economical with the actualité. In other words their hero is behaving in the manner of someone to whom the truth is irrelevant. 

The Telegraph has joined in the fun. 

And so has the Daily Mail:

“As to my position towards Palestine, it is guided by anti-racism and decolonisation logic. The racists are the Zionists themselves.”  

Opines Dyab Abou Jahjaj.

“Douglas Murray, of the human rights think tank the Henry Jackson Society tonight accused Mr Corbyn of being a ‘cheeerleader’ for Jahjah.He said: ‘Jahjah is a well-known thug on the Continent, particularly in Belgium and Holland’.‘Mr Corbyn hosted him in London in 2009 - long after his views because widely known. Indeed he was banned from entering the UK that year by the Home Secretary.‘But it’s not just the fact that he was receiving Jahjah – he was cheerleading for him. That is what makes this case so troubling.’”

The Jewish Chronicle posed some questions a few days ago, and it seems Corbyn has now attempted to answer them, through a spokesperson from his office.

All his answers are rather pathetic. He was unaware of the antisemitic beliefs of the individuals he befriended at the time he befriended or supported them He didn’t know. He didn’t recollect. He didn’t mean ‘friends’ literally when he said ‘friends’. He meant it as a term of diplomacy. He condemns antisemitic language, even when he’s spoken at rallies where antisemitic posters are being brandished in front of cameras; he was unaware of them. Raed Salah never said anything antisemitic in front of him. Dyou Abou Jahjah never expressed nasty views in front of him, and he claims he didn’t  even know him.

Doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter. Water off a duck’s back. Corbynistas will say it’s a smear campaign. They don’t care. Are they bovvered? No. They.  Ain’t.