More Twitterings [featuring talk of BBC editorial guidelines]

I know that political Twitter is often a blood sport, and that only a surprisingly small minority of the public ever bothers with Twitter at all, but it a favourite haunt of many of my least favourite BBC journalists. 

And do you get delightful cat videos and opportunities to vote on whether the 3-voice, 4-voice or 5-voice mass settings by your favourite Tudor composer you prefer.

One quirk of my Twitter feed is that, over the years, I've 'followed' the following four people: James Delingpole, Maajid Nawaz, Sunder Katwala and Shayan Sardarizadeh. 

You may know them all already [especially as they've all featured on the blog before], but I'll introduce them nonetheless: 

James is a conservative who thinks nearly everything being done in the name of Covid and climate change is a scam. Maajid is an ex-Muslim extremist turned Lib Dem broadcaster who shares some of James's takes. Sunder is a left-liberal think tanker who really doesn't like Maajid. And Shayan is an impartial BBC journalist from  Mike Wendling's BBC Trending/BBC Disinformation Unit with a strong interest in QAnon who works alongside the famous Marianna Spring and often 'likes' in tandem with her on Twitter. 

I'm happy to follow all of them, being broad-minded, even though all four of them irritate me from time to time. I like to hear what interesting people like this are saying. So this today is like a rare astronomical conjunction of planets as it features all four of them together:

There's James doing his thing, and jumping more sharks than Evel Knievel doubling for The Fonz in a David Attenborough documentary about sharks. 

And there's Sunder doing his thing and bullying Maajid for being guilty by association. 

And there's Shayan, the impartial BBC guy, doing his thing and impartially taking sides on the same side he always takes by 'liking' Sunder's attack on Maajid and James.

What are they like!

Of course, James Delingpole, Maajid Nawaz and Sunder Katwala aren't bound by the BBC's guidelines on impartiality. They can 'like' what they want, unlike Shayan Sardarizadeh. 

Those pesky BBC editorial guidelines don't stop Shayan though!

Tim Davie can 'talk the talk' as much as he likes about BBC staff's impartiality-busting on social media because the BBC's been promising to clean it up its act on that front for years now, and yet here we are again. 

Joining the dots...

 

Never a man to knowingly understate an argument, Peter Oborne has come down heavily against the new BBC chairman, Richard Sharp. 

Writing for the controversial, Islamist-linked Middle East Eye, Mr Oborne raises the alarm that Mr Sharp donated "thousands of dollars" ("thousand of pounds" surely?) to Quilliam - Maajid Nawaz & Co's counter-extremism organisation. 

Peter Oborne calls Quilliam "controversial". It's not trusted by Muslims but admired by the super-rich, he says.

He then cites a controversial fellow Middle East Eye writer, Nafeez Ahmed (he's the sort of 'investigative journalist' who writes articles connecting Michael Gove and Douglas Murray to white nationalism, the far-right and white supremacism), using him to bring in another 'controversial' organisation:

Since then, its supporters have included the John Templeton Foundation, described by investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed as “an American conservative philanthropic organisation, with close ties to the Tea Party and extreme right-wing Christian networks”.

That's the very same John Templeton Foundation that awards prize for writing in a 'science & religion' context - many scientists - the winners of which have been quite regularly interviewed on Radio 4's ultra-liberal religious affairs programme Sunday over the years. Past winners include Martin Rees, Paul Davies, the late John Barrow, John Polkinghorne, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, Lord Sacks, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and the Dalai Lama, etc. [It's not like Edward Stourton to have the extreme right-wing on his programme - especially those sort of ultra-right extremists!]: 

Mr Ahmed is clearly never a man to knowingly understate an argument either. 

Lots of nudge-nudge-wink-winking and joining the dots by Peter O here...

...but Peter Oborne is particularly angry about Quilliam - and, thus, by association, Richard Sharp - for giving credence to the idea that Pakistani Muslims are disproportionately involved in the paedophile grooming gangs that have blighted so many British cities in recent decades. 

He claims Quilliam "helped to fuel racism and division" because Pakistani Muslims aren't disproportionally involved - as per an article in the Guardian (of course) by two controversial academics, Ella Cockbain and Waqas Tufail, who put a very particular (and controversial) slant on a government report last year. 

All this means that the BBC risks "pursuing a sectarian agenda" by having Mr Sharp as their new boss, says Mr Oborne, ending thunderously:

Sharp needs to explain himself. Major public appointments cannot be left to patronage and cronyism, and their holders should be ready to tell Parliament and the British people everything about the causes they have chosen to advance. 

Quilliam, Mr Sharp and the BBC haven't apparently been returning his wacky calls on this apparently. 

I'm not sure Peter Oborne is on the side of the angels here. 

*******

Anyhow, Peter Oborne might inspire others - or, indeed, himself - to further, similar feats of the human imagination. 

How about this, for example? 

Peter Sharp's CV, submitted to Parliament, reads:

Richard has served as a member of the UK Board of International Rescue and serves as a supporter and trustee of other Refugee focused charities.

International Rescue is, famously, nothing to do with Thunderbirds but the relief organisation now headed by David Miliband. So Mr Sharp must be linked to extreme far-Blairite, pro-immigration globalist Mr Miliband. And 'some people' say Mr Soros is involved with funding International Rescue too.

Join the dots again Peter...

[After the passing of Robert Fisk, there's a gap in the market for someone to fisk. And Peter Oborne might very well be that man].

A Twitter Tale, starring Evan Davis

Twitter feeds have become a hot topic today, what with tech giant Twitter's private owners "permanently suspending" the present US president, the famous Donald Trump. 

I don't think that my Twitter feed is anything like an echo chamber. I deliberately try to avoid making it so. I follow leftwingers and rightwingers, pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit people, pro-lockdowners and anti-lockdowners, people who liked Level 42 and people who didn't like Level 42 (like Rob Burley), cat people and dog people, anti-BBC people and pro-BBC people, etc.

Doing so can occasionally raise my blood pressure, but it also keeps me aware of other points of view. 

(I'll confess to breaking down just once. I unfollowed one person last year: Newsnight's hyperactive, intolerably hyper-biased Lewis Goodall. I did so purely for health reasons. He was making me sick. He was much, much too much.) 

Today, on my timeline, has been notable for three people I follow - LBC's Maajid Nawaz (who I mostly agree with), British Future's Sunder Katwala (who I sometimes agree with)  and the BBC's Evan Davis (who I never again with 😜) - getting involved in a discussion.

Actually, I say 'discussion', but it was mainly Sunder and Evan chatting about Maajid behind his back.

*******

Right, so for those new to the Twitter soap opera......

Maajid was the former Islamist radical who abandoned Islamism, became a Lib Dem and then embarked on a successful non-BBC radio career where he said all sorts of things that right-wingers like.

Sunder is a thoughtful, left-leaning blogger and activist of the pro-immigration variety. 

And Evan is a BBC presenter with an especial thing for the Paddington Bear movie.

Sunder has been going after Maajid, pretty much daily - relentlessly - sending out dozens of tweets most days for months, now totally many hundreds at least, slamming Maajid personally for his views on the US election, and, to a lesser extent, coronavirus - because (among other things) Maajid has backed those alleging voter fraud and election rigging in the US election.

Today Evan Davis stepped in, possibly to rescue Sunder from his near 24/7 obsession with the misguided LBC presenter.

(All this Twitter stuff might be boring you rigid, but please hang on for Evan's point of view...)

Sunder had, as is his way, been getting into his quotidian stride this morning (nightgown off, suit on) and posting tweet after tweet after tweet attacking (bullying?) Maajid again, once again, and again some more, over the LBC man's highly sceptical, non-Marianna-approved views on the validity of the US election result.

Then Evan, evidently trying to stage 'an intervention', said:

Evan Davis: Sunder, there is literally no-one on Twitter I respect more than you... 

I take daily guidance on what to think about things by observing what you say. But I wonder whether you (and many others) give too much attention to cranky views and conspiracies. Can't we just ignore them?

Sunder posted four replies, including a graph, justifying himself, but Evan replied again:

Evan Davis: As always, you are thoughtful and reasonable on this. But when it comes to crazy views, I worry most about the potential for discourse and argument to cement opinions rather than change them. 

So, stepping back and goggling afresh...

The BBC's Evan Davis (a) says he "respects...literally no-one...more than you" to very possibly the most ultra-mainstream, left-liberal, pro-immigration, 'very BBC' person I follow. (Truth or politeness?). 

He then (b) slurps that he takes "daily guidance on what to think about observing what you say" to the same 'very BBC' pundit. (Truth or politeness?).

It wouldn't surprise me. Sunder's way of thinking is, indeed, very BBC. That Evan hangs on his every word daily would be a very BBC thing to do.

Note, above all, that Evan is advising Sunder to "ignore" the likes of Maajid Nawaz. (That's Evan's main point here.) And he's doing so because he, Evan Davis, clearly also disapproves of Maajid's "cranky views and conspiracies".

Like Samira Ahmed, Evan Davis then evidently advances the line that airing and arguing and discussing such "crazy views" as those expressed by Maajid about the US election are something to "worry" about.

"Discourse" and "argument" thus become problematic -  things with "the potential...to cement opinions rather than change them". 

Evan seems to be calling for the censoring of certain kinds of "discourse" and "argument" here, doesn't he? Shush!!!

Such censorship of people with 'wrong' views has a long BBC pedigree.

As for Sunder Katwala, I suspect he'll ignore Evan. He's a man on a mission to 'Get Maajid'.

Good news

It appears that the good news about Israel and the UAE establishing ties might only be the beginning, and that other good news could be coming soon. 

It appears that Saudi Arabia is giving its blessing to the deal by allowing flights between Israel and the UAE to cross its air space - something that sounds to me like a definite signal of where the Saudis are heading. 

And it appears that Oman and Bahrain are on the point of following the UAE's lead, which would give the Saudis cover to follow suit some time soon.  

And, very intriguingly, the post-al Bashir Sudanese government appear to be on the verge too. 

So peace might be breaking out all over between Israel and the Arabs as more and more Arab regimes realise that (a) Israel could be a valuable friend against their enemies (principally Iran) and (b) that the twin Palestinian leaderships - both nice Holocaust-denying Mr Abbas's lot and the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood Islamists of Hamas - are more of a clapped-out hindrance than a help to making the region a safer space to live. 

If Israel can then tempt them to treat their citizens humanely, move towards democracy, and work against spreading extremism (including Wahhabi influence) then the world could be a much better place for it.

On blog-related matters, Maajid Nawaz rightly (as he is so often these days) called the Israel-UAE deal "immensely significant" and a "HUGE victory for diplomacy and peace" and says that next up "it must be peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia"...

...to which former Brexit Party MEP Lance Forman replied:

Maajid - why do you think there has been so little coverage of this historic deal in the MSM?  I find it bizarre.

Lance isn't wrong. Yes, Jeremy Bowen - the BBC's anti-Israel Middle East editor tweeted about it (with the absolute opposite of enthusiasm) - but he wasn't across the BBC's airwaves talking about it. 

And the third Israeli peace deal with an Arab state was reported (as TV Eyes confirms) but as a very, very marginal story. 

The paucity of coverage was truly something to behold.

Maajid's reply was:

Punditry is unable to analyse Israel & Trump except through a narcissistic West-centric lens. Which, by definition, “otherises” Palestinians (bigotry of low expectations) while taking a Eurocentric “ownership” of Jews: a combination of domestic antisemitism & foreign Orientalism.

...which, if you strip out the (intentional) jargon, is a very astute observation. It captures Jeremy Bowen & Co's outlook perfectly, don't you think? 

"Media: stop gaslighting Jews"

Any passing BBC people should read the following by Maajid Nawaz (which I've arranged from his Twitter feed into a short 'pamphlet') explaining why the lazy or disingenuous attempts at drawing equivalence between Labour antisemitism and Conservative 'Islamophobia' are wrong, deeply misguided and downright dangerous:

Chapter One

I’m getting rather tired of the equivocation around this Labour antisemitism issue, so here’s a thread for confused pundits & voters. Some smart people out there have been hoodwinked by dishonest political hacks, or are simply too tribal to accept the difference in the following (written on twitter so apologies for the choppy style). 

People of any political persuasion must acknowledge:

1) Every party will have some policies you don’t like.

2) Every party will also have rogue members, or leaders, who said nasty things too.

3) Usually, if a party has policies you disagree with, you simply don’t vote for them.

4) For Britain’s Jews & their allies, the issue with Labour Party is none of the above. I repeat: it is *none of the above*. So Corbynists, pls stop obfuscating, strawmanning & deflecting.

5) The issue is Labour Party stands accused of being *institutionally antisemitic* (racist).

6) This is *very* different to finding individual policies you hate, or representatives who utter bigotry.

7) For a body to be institutionally racist (ironically, a phrase coined by a 90s Labour gov. inquiry) *not every member* is necessarily a racist, nor necessarily is the leader.

8) For a body to be deemed *institutionally racist*, intention & individual behaviour isn’t a primary issue. Rather outcomes are considered. If the totality of this body’s procedures, institutions & structure lead to *racist outcomes*, then sincerity & individual intent is no defence.

9) This is why 90s Lab government’s McPherson inquiry (rightly) deemed police ‘institutionally racist’ after unpunished racist murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence. They were not calling all police officers racist. Nor did it mean that other UK orgs didn’t suffer racism too.

10) So, back to the Labour Party: British jews and their allies are accusing this Labour Party under Corbyn of being ‘institutionally antisemitic’. This means precisely that the party’s mechanisms, procedures and institutions lead to racist outcomes against its Jewish members.

11) This does *not* mean every Labour member is racist. It also does not necessarily imply that even Corbyn is (he might be). Rather, it points to the failure of Corbyn’s ship, with him as captain, to steer away from antisemitism. Sincere individual intent is not a condition here.

12) What British Jews are (correctly) alleging is that the Labour Party discriminates against them, as a party machine. That the outcomes in that party no longer protect them against racism. This is an *institutional* failure.

13) So, back to my opening line about political tribalism: any instinctive defence, “Whataboutery” response, or even allegations of hypocrisy, like “why aren’t you doing more to address racism in your own party?” entirely miss the nature & seriousness of what is (accurately) alleged:

14) British Jews and their allies are *not* in a state of alarm because Labour has individual racists in it (which is bad enough as it is). No. The Tories, Lib Dem’s, Brexit party & others all have bad apples. I repeat: the issue isn’t the existence of bad apples.

15) The issue very precisely & seriously is under Corbyn, Labour seems not only to have ignored the problem, or denied it, but in many cases doubled down on it & worse even blamed the victims for reporting it. In other words: the Labour Party machine has been co-opted by racism.

16) If one understands the nature & seriousness of the allegation, then one would never reply by saying, by way of example: “but what about Johnson and niqabi Muslim letterboxes?” Bad thing to say, but not evidence that the Tory party *machine* discriminates against Muslim members.

17) Also, it’s very important to recognise that criticising ultra-Conservative Muslim dress is a political right, because the ‘choice’ to adopt fundamentalist dress is a valid societal choice that must equally be subjected to scrutiny - like any religious conservatism must be.

18) No. Racism is not the same as criticising my religious choices, or lack thereof. You can (politely) criticise my religion, because it’s an idea. All ideas must be scrutinised. But one cannot insult another’s race, without being rightly deemed a racist.

19) Jews are both a people and a religion. European antisemitic tropes against Jews concern their supposed habits as a ‘people’, not their religion. So, it's racism to suggest that all Jews are secret greedy capitalists, or have large ugly hooked noses, for example.

20) No serious Jewish voice or organisation has ever said it’s racist to criticise Israel. None. I repeat, none. This is a complete Strawman. I criticise Netanyahu’s policies regularly and know many Jews and Israelis who do so too. The issue is about:

a) traditional European antisemitism flooding back into Labour (eg: East London ‘greedy capitalist’ mural that Corbyn defended),

b) holding Israel’s Jews to higher standard than the world,

c) an obsessive focus on Israel for errors that are far worse elsewhere,

d) supporting or otherwise praising genocidal, jew-murdering terrorist groups.

21) Some examples for all of the above can be (non-exhaustively) found here: https://twitter.com/thegolem_/status/1191348844375740416…

22) So, people like Tory Baroness Warsi, who seems to have made a career of late out of deflecting over this antisemitism issue in Labour, to attacking her own party instead over “Islamophobia” (sic) totally miss the point:

23) Johnson, or any rogue Tory MP or member, can and do say racist or proto-racist things, but does the party with a Muslim-origin Chancellor really discriminate against Muslims institutionally? Does it then double down & deny its racism (I repeat: blasphemy is not racism).

24) This Muslim believes not. And I have *never* voted Tory in my life, and will not do so this time either. There are problems in the Conservative party, yes. I disagree with them, yes. But they are yet to meet the test of being *institutionally* anti-Muslim.

25) Truth is, there is only one major political party right now that has had senior former cabinet members resign over this (correctly) alleged *institutional* racism. There is only one party that is being investigated by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission over said racism. That party is the Labour Party.

26) AND THIS IS WHERE I GET UPSET: if Boris Johnson, Jo Swinson, or anyone other party leader, let alone individual MP, had SHARED A PANEL in Parliament with members of the now banned violent NEO-NAZI UK-based TERRORIST group National Action, you would all be going ballistic now.

27) Yet Corbyn not only shared platforms with jew-killing Hizbollah & Hamas TERRORISTS, he not only called them friends, but took £20K from their sponsor: holocaust denying theocratic dictatorship of Iran. Now..imagine you’re Jewish, and then imagine Corbyn in No.10 as PM. Precisely.

After all the above has been digested & recognised as a unique problem only with Labour right now, then add that Corbyn is a Brexiter too & may bargain away the UK with SNP (allowing Scotland another vote) just to become PM, you’ll get why we say #NoToAppeasement & #NeverCorbyn.

After the holocaust we vowed in Europe #NeverAgain - then Bosnia happened. Europe is not immune to repeat-offending. We must never be too arrogant to think we are. Brexit or Remain, we do have choices other than Labour. We must not betray our Jewish cousins over a tribal vote.

After all this, if we still choose Labour, at least let’s stop pretending we are “progressives”, or that we care about racism & minorities or that we “listen to victims when they tell us we’re hurting them”. It’s all BS. Just admit that you really don’t give a damn about Jews.

Ends.

Chapter Two

BBC Politics: "Unfortunately Islamophobia is a serious problem, it’s endemic, it’s institutional within the Conservative Party”. Muslim Council of Britain’s Miqdaad Versi says “no action has been taken” and the party has a “structural problem”. 

Your MCB is dominated by Jamat-e-Islami Islamists (Muslim Brotherhood equivalents in South-Asia) so it’s no surprise you’d say this. Oh & only 2% of us British Muslims actually think you represent us politically. So stop pretending you do.

The day Boris Johnson calls neo-Nazi black & Muslim killing terrorists his friends (he hasn’t) & accepts funds into his personal account from a neo-Nazi endorsing state, is the day you get to equivocate like this.

Media: stop gaslighting Jews.

Chapter Three

My dear media pundits: 

On Labour antisemitism, I understand that you’re generalists, who have to be abreast of everything, and therefore can’t be on top of everything, but I’ve been engaged in these issues of political extremism *all my adult life*, literally from opposing sides. 

So at least (please) do me the favour of reading a thread I write *before* repeating the cliche back to me that “all racism is bad, and the Tories are racist too” (as if I - a Muslim survivor of violent racist attacks, and the War on Terror era - hadn’t thought of that angle).

I’m not saying you have to agree with everything I say, I’d be worried if you did, but on this (clearly my forte) please (for my sanity) read my view in any given thread first & then disagree (preferably without repeating an objection that I’ve already addressed in the thread).

Or better yet *ask* me instead of *telling* me about a topic I’ve spent the last 25 years and 2 additional Islamic languages learning.

Honestly, before responding please pause to consider if it’s slightly patronising, in any way at all for you to respond with tried & tested cliches about Tory ‘Islamophobia’ (sic) when the issues are disgustingly incomparable.

Aside from that annoying misnomer ‘Islamophobia’ (which really reinforces a ‘death for blasphemy’ taboo in my parents’ country Pakistan & here in UK) the comparison of Tory anti-Muslim bigotry would only be appropriate if Boris Johnson had called the Neo-Nazi Christchurch killer his “friend” and had taken money, personally, from a state that funded that killer (as Corbyn did with Hamas while taking up to £20K from Iran).

So, until the day Boris Johnson flirts with actual Muslim-killing terrorists it’s disgusting to draw such analogies, because they are deeply insensitive to our Jewish friends.

What’s also disgustingly insensitive is to compare any policy of the Israeli state with a terror group. Again, the appropriate comparison with Hamas & Hezbollah is to the Christchurch anti-Muslim neo-Nazi killer, not Netanyahu (despite my fierce disagreements with his policies). Netanyahu is a state leader, not a genocidal anti-Muslim terrorist. Only political amateurs and/or morally bereft obfuscators equivocate & confuse statecraft (agree or disagree with it) with genocidal terrorism that eg: targets babies.

So pls, do try to assume I’m not as stupid as you may think I am (no matter how hard that may be) and consider that I may have already thought of what you’re about to say regarding the very real presence of Tory ‘Islamophobia’ (sic).

I dunno, just maybe, during the 4 years I spent studying & debating these issues as a political prisoner in Egypt when surely I had time to rethink many of the political assumptions you now may hold & advocate (that I used to fiercely advocate too), maybe that time allowed me to arrive at a slightly unique perspective? Maybe?

Thank you and forgive me, this isn’t meant to sound like a whinge. It’s just so morally wrong to equate Corbyn’s moral & institutional support for terrorism with ‘mere’ Tory bigotry or crudeness.

And before anyone says it, no, I don’t vote Tory. I’m voting @LibDems. Thank you. 

I’m really sorry for this, but you won’t believe the amount of ‘splaining I have to put up with.

Agenda? What agenda?

Here's an exchange from the latest Open Thread:

Monkey Brains4 March 2019 at 22:42

Guardian reporting that the school teaching LBGT equality has had to back down...

According to the Guardian: "On Friday about 600 Muslim children, aged between four and 11, were withdrawn from the school for the day, parents said."

A lesson learned perhaps.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/04/birmingham-school-stops-lgbt-lessons-after-parent-protests

1. 
   stewgreen5 March 2019 at 15:03

   R4Today school said it has no backed down but merely suspended the prog until next term, in order to have discussions with parents.
2. 
   Monkey Brains5 March 2019 at 17:11

   The BBC are peddling Fake News. This is what the BBC Website says: "But it has faced criticism from some Muslim parents for teaching children about same-sex couples." Note the "some" - what does some signal to you? 10,20, 30 or 50 maybe.
   And here's the Guardian reporting on this:
   
   "On Friday about 600 Muslim children, aged between four and 11, were withdrawn from the school for the day, parents said."
   
   The BBC website makes no mention of the withdrawal of over 600 children instead using the weasel word that opponents of the teaching programme were "claiming" hundreds of children were kept out of school. And, by the way, as far as I know that was an illegal act by the parents.
   
   Here's the BBC report:
   
   https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47452904
   
   The difference in treatment is I think due to the Guardian being even more LGBT-focused than the BBC which sees "social cohesion" as its top priority.

And here are the full texts of the BBC and Guardian articles, followed by the report on the same story from the Times. 

The BBC's "social cohesion above everything else" bias is pretty much proven here. 

Note how long it takes for the BBC to mention the word "Muslim", and (as MB says) how coy they are about the numbers involved in the protest. 

Also note how the word "threats" - featured in the Guardian and Times reports - doesn't make the BBC report. 

There is clearly some very conscious editorial decision-making going on behind that BBC report - and it's a kind of BBC editorialising that we've highlighted many, many times before. 

The idea that the BBC hasn't got an agenda and that it doesn't go out of its way to push it is, yet again, shown to be a false idea by this kind of comparative reporting:

THE BBC:

Parkfield Community School LGBT protests: School denies 'U-turn'

A school which has suspended lessons about LGBT rights and homophobia following protests from parents has denied the move is a U-turn.

Parkfield Community School in Alum Rock, Birmingham, has seen protests over its No Outsiders project.

It said it was always the plan for the classes to stop at half-term.

But, it added, there is a need for discussions between teachers and parents about the curriculum and how it should be delivered in the future.

A spokesperson for the school - which has about 740 pupils aged three to 11 - told the BBC the No Outsiders programme is still an integral part of its ethos.

They said it was always in the curriculum plan to use the remainder of the term for religious education.

The project was developed by assistant head Andrew Moffat in 2014, with the aim to educate children to accept differences in society.

As well as LGBT issues, it teaches about race, religion, gender identity, age and disabilities.

But it has faced criticism from some Muslim parents for teaching children about same-sex couples.

Parents said the classes are not appropriate for young children and have staged protests claiming hundreds of pupils were kept home from lessons on Friday.

Liam Byrne, MP for Hodge Hill, who was present at a recent meeting between the school and parents, said he has asked the Secretary of State to meet with families.

The school said it will hold talks with concerned parents over the remainder of the school term about the teaching of The Equality Act 2010.

In a letter detailing plans, it encouraged parents to ask their children what No Outsiders is about, saying "the children are very clear there is no focus on one aspect of equality, rather No Outsiders teaches that everyone is welcome".

It also said, in light of new government legislation to make relationships education compulsory in primary schools from September 2020, it will be consulting with parents to develop its policy and curriculum on the subject.

THE GUARDIAN:

Birmingham school stops LGBT lessons after parents protest

A primary school that taught pupils about homosexuality as part of a programme to challenge homophobia has stopped the lessons after hundreds of children were withdrawn by parents in protest.
Parkfield community school in Saltley, Birmingham, has been the scene of weekly protests over the lessons, which parents claim are promoting gay and transgender lifestyles.
In a letter to parents, the school said: “Up to the end of this term, we will not be delivering any No Outsiders lessons in our long-term year curriculum plan, as this half term has already been blocked for religious education (RE). Equality assemblies will continue as normal and our welcoming No Outsiders ethos will be there for all.”
On Friday about 600 Muslim children, aged between four and 11, were withdrawn from the school for the day, parents said. The school would not confirm the number.
The school made clear that it had never intended to continue the No Outsiders lessons this half term and confirmed that the lessons would resume only after a full consultation with every parent.
Last month, the Guardian reported that the assistant headteacher of the school was forced to defend the lessons after 400 predominantly Muslim parents signed a petition calling for them to be dropped from the curriculum.
Andrew Moffat, who was awarded an MBE for his work in equality education, said he was threatened and targeted via a leaflet campaign after the school piloted the No Outsiders programme. Its ethos is to promote LGBT equality and challenge homophobia in primary schools.
Moffat, the author of Challenging Homophobia in Primary Schools who is currently shortlisted for a world’s best teacher award, resigned from another primary school – Chilwell Croft academy, also in Birmingham – after a similar dispute with Muslim and Christian parents.
Parents have been protesting outside the Saltley school, which is rated as outstanding by Ofsted. At one protest they held signs that read “say no to promoting of homosexuality and LGBT ways of life to our children”, “stop exploiting children’s innocence”, and “education not indoctrination”.
Children from reception age through to year six were being taught five No Outsiders lessons a year, each one covering topics to meet requirements in the Equality Act. Books being read by the pupils include Mommy, Mama and Me, and King & King – stories about same-sex relationships and marriages.
However, after the inclusion of the programme in the curriculum, Moffat, who is in a civil partnership, faced protests and the removal of children from the school.
The school appealed to parents to stop the protests, saying they were “upsetting and disruptive” for the children.
In a letter to the parents, the trustee board of Excelsior Multi Academy Trust, which runs the school, confirmed that after a meeting between Andrew Warren, the regional schools commissioner for the West Midlands, parents, the trust, and Liam Byrne MP, it was decided that a full consultation would take place with parents.
The letter said: “The discussions were a helpful first step and identified the key issues that are concerning parents, including the ethos, the books, the age appropriateness, the lessons and the assemblies. The agreed outcome of the meeting was the need to have a discussion with the school community about the No Outsiders curriculum and how it should be delivered.”
The issue was first raised by Fatima Shah, who pulled her 10-year-old daughter out of the school, saying children were too young to be learning about same-sex marriages and LGBT rights in the classroom.
“We are not a bunch of homophobic mothers,” she said. “We just feel that some of these lessons are inappropriate. Some of the themes being discussed are very adult and complex and the children are getting confused.
“They need to be allowed to be children rather than having to constantly think about equalities and rights.”
Shabana Mahmood, the MP for Birmingham Ladywood, spoke out after parents in her constituency complained that primary schools were teaching their children about same-sex relationships.
She said parents did not oppose sex and relationship education, but felt their children were too young for some of the things being taught.
Speaking in a Commons debate, Mahmood said: “None of my constituents is seeking particular or differential opt-outs at secondary school level. It is all about the age appropriateness of conversations with young children in the context of religious backgrounds.”
Mahmood, who has backed gay rights legislation in the Commons including voting for same-sex marriage, said the government should ensure the rights of minorities were protected, but that included the rights of people with orthodox religious views, including some Jews and Christians as well as some Muslims.
However, the chief inspector of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, supported the school, saying it was vital children knew about “families that have two mummies or two daddies”.
Byrne, whose constituency includes the school, has suggested parents, faith leaders in the Muslim community and the LGBT rights group Stonewall could work together on a curriculum.
The schools minister Nick Gibb said it was important for schools to take the religious beliefs of their pupils into account when they decide to deliver certain content to ensure topics were handled appropriately. 

THE TIMES:

Primary school drops trans rights classes after boycott
A primary school that taught pupils about gay and transgender rights to challenge prejudice has stopped the lessons after hundreds of Muslim parents withdrew their children in protest.
Andrew Moffat, assistant head of Parkfield school in Birmingham, was appointed MBE for his work teaching children about equality. He devised the No Outsiders programme to teach pupils about same-sex couples and combat homophobia and transphobia. It comprised five lessons a year as part of sex and relationship education.
The community school, rated “outstanding” by Ofsted in 2016, was the subject of weekly protests from parents, who said that the lessons were “aggressively promoting homosexuality”.
Fatima Shah told the BBC that the protesters were “not a bunch of homophobic mothers” and that the classes were “not age-appropriate” and “not what we send children to school for”.
Last Friday a group of parents said that 600 Muslim children — about 80 per cent of the school’s pupils — had been kept away. The school would not confirm the number.
Mr Moffat said last month that he had received threats from some parents, including “nasty emails” and a message warning that he “wouldn’t last long”.
The school has now given in to the protesters and will not teach any more No Outsiders lessons this term after a meeting between the regional schools commissioner; parents; Liam Byrne, the local MP; and the trust that runs the school.
The school said in a letter to parents: “Up to the end of this term, we will not be delivering any No Outsiders lessons in our long-term year curriculum plan, as this half term has already been blocked for religious education. Equality assemblies will continue as normal and our welcoming No Outsiders ethos will be there for all.”
The Excelsior Multi Academy Trust said that it would have “a discussion with the school community about the No Outsiders curriculum and how it should be delivered”.

P.S. Here's a non-BBC thought on the subject form Maajid Nawaz:

Imagine a white populist right-wing community doing this, and then understand why I talk about the Bigotry Of Low Expectations among the Regressive Left. 

We'd like to apologise

These are from Guido. The perils of live broadcasting?  Or something.

A Modest Proposal

Via Twitter, I've been watching (yes watching) quite a few snatches of LBC. It's a fascinating channel, with presenters ranging from Nigel Farage and Iain Dale on the Right to Maajid Nawaz and James O'Brien on the Left (though no Katie Hopkins any more of course). You know their views, and they aren't afraid to express them, but they also like engaging with listeners who disagree with them. It's open and healthy and democratic, and it feels like breath of fresh air in comparison to, say, BBC Radio 4 or Radio 5 Live.

Because of the range of views at LBC, and the undisguised nature of those views by the LBC presenters themselves, you don't find yourself repeatedly caught in the claustrophobic atmosphere of so many BBC talk shows where 'impartial' BBC presenters try to pretend that they have no views and yet can't stop them leaking out - a BBC problem made so much worse by the fact that, unlike LBC's presenters, most of the BBC's presenters seem to inhabit a narrow part of the political spectrum and to share a similar outlook on so many things.

Just imagine how much more interesting Radio 4's Woman's Hour would be, for example, if it (flexibly) alternated, presenter-wise, between days when Dame Jenni Murray, Jane Garvey and Emma Barnett were presenting and days when women with a very different point of view, say Kathy Gyngell, Laura Perrins and Jane Kelly of The Conservative Woman, were presenting. How much less stifling and agenda-driven it would feel if that kind of thing happened, and how much more interesting it would surely be. 

While we're waiting for that to happen (yeah, as if!), here's a bit of recent LBC broadcasting (h/t Biased BBC):

And for more on Maajid's theme and a very clear example of the BBC's stifling uniformity of view, just try yesterday's Sunday on Radio 4. 

By-and-large it consisted of lots and lots of talk of love and hope and interfaith harmony, and 'It's Nothing To Do With Islam', and the 'backlash', the 'backlash', the 'backlash', and everyone singing from the same hymn sheet, and (with one exception) the presenter (Martin Bashir) leading this congregation of like-minded people. It proved so unrelenting that I couldn't bring myself to re-listen to it in order to write about it yesterday.

And it was entirely typical, therefore, of Sunday to deal with the issue of Didsbury Mosque by talking to an outreach worker there, taking his every word on trust and sympathising with him about the 'backlash' the mosque has (allegedly) been facing - in other words, by taking the mosque's side. (Listen for yourselves). 

Back to the future

The message from a mature man wearing a Leninist cap is “I’m stuck somewhere in the past.” Cap and man say: “We’re bucking the current trend for ‘progressive’. Going forward we’re going backwards.”

if the cap fits

I’m all confused.  Onwards and downwards. I wonder if we’ll reach the 1930s by the 2030s. I hope not. Look out! 

Some things move on. Take the Guardian. In the olden days when Leninist caps were cool everyone used to love the Manchester Guardian. It sounds as if it was properly progressive back then, but it stagnated. Strangely there’s been a faint whiff of ‘progressive’ in the air at the Guardian recently. Well, not in the actual Guardian. In the readership.

When they publish a truly awful piece, the below the line response isn’t undiluted antisemitism any more. (Oddly, that crowd seems to have migrated to the Telegraph) 

So although the Guardian carries on publishing flattering articles about members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, they now receive a bloody good hammering below the line. That’s what I call progress.

What’s your opinion of Maajid Nawaz? Good guy, or not quite sure?

Well, he was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, but he’s moved on. So much so that he’s co-created Quilliam, and has had a big hand in formulating David Cameron’s new invisible crackdown policy. 

Not everyone is willing to trust people who wake up one day and say something unexpected. Some of us are suspicious and a bit traditional. A bit conservative. For example when a man announces he’s now a she, the progressive way is to accept it just like that. It’s the rule. Some of us are inclined to be a bit stick-in-the mud and we can’t get used to it.

However, Maajid Nawaz says he has seen the light, and he has made a pretty convincing case. In special circumstances involving the Guardian and a dirty trick he certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 You can read all about it here and if you like, you can observe it being played out on Twitter.

Apparently a Guardian commissioning editor named Nosheen Iqbal laid a trap for Maajid. She wrote to Quilliam, offering him a wonderful opportunity to publicise his dedicated work in her wonderful Guardian G2 supplement.

Nosheen was aware of Maajid’s contribution to the government’s policy on extremism, and she disliked it. So she rashly Tweeted a negative remark about Maajid, perhaps to reassure the Twitterati that she didn’t approve of the crackdown, just in case anyone thought she was a disloyal Muslim or something. Otherwise why make an unforced error.

In order to prevent Maajid stumbling upon the bad Tweet she asterisked the middle ‘a’s so that it wouldn’t show up in a search. Sneaky, eh? He wouldn’t spot the Tweet and he’d go blithely ahead with the interview thinking she was on side. Given the fawning nature of the invitation why wouldn’t he?

 “Maajid’s consistently dedicated work to combat extremism and the increased public awareness around Quilliam Foundation following the PM’s speech yesterday, would be great to build on that momentum and flag up the crucial work being done behind the scenes.” 

Did you think the Guardian would represent Maajid and his good work fair and square? Or just fair?

‘Course not. They did a hatchet job, and what’s more they made extensive use of derogatory gossip from anonymous sources, which, as was pointed out by ‘Jacobinism’, is against the Guardian’s editorial guidelines.

Hypocrisy is rife. Who could forget Mehdi Hasan’s fawning  letter to the Daily Mail. 

If it’s the kind of thing journalists do these days, all we can do is defend ourselves online, which is what Maajid Nawaz did. He posted a point-by-point  rebuttal on Facebook, which also received quite a lot of attention and made the Guardian look pretty bad.

Nosheen Iqbal got found out. Pretty obvious she would be. What happens when you do stuff like that? As one Tweeter put it “U get cort”  What did she do then? Tweeted of course. 

 “Bored now. Whine amongst yrselves”

That little combo of text speak, arrogance and insult epitomises Twitter, the Guardian and people with heads full of crap, all rolled into one. 

Since we’re talking about the Telegraph as well as the Guardian, when I first heard that Peter Oborne had quit, I fleetingly thought Oh, I might get the Telegraph again now. But no. If you look at the  online antisemitic and ignorant below-the-line comments, you feel there must be something nasty in the Telegraph woodshed.

propaganda for primary schools

Look at this article about pro-Palestinian material that is being included in education packs. Nothing much wrong with the article itself.

The Telegraph is not promoting this NUT / children’s education charity 'Edukid' teaching resources pack. “My name is Saleh” .

In fact Camilla Turner is flagging it up as dodgy.  

 “ Writing in the pack’s foreword, Christine Blower, the NUT general secretary, explains the project was “inspired by a union delegation visit [to the Palestinian territories] in 2013”.

I’m sure that NUT visit was most inspiring. Blower’s not just the NUT general secretary, she’s also a member of the PSC . The NUT is actually in league with the PSC and they’re obviously proud of it.

“This year again Palestine was centre stage at the National Union of Teacher’s annual delegates conference in Harrogate during the Easter weekend. “

This propaganda is utterly unacceptable. Are they going to get away with that Nicky Morgan?  Are there cracks in your crackdown? The Telegraph was right to flag it up. However, below the line you’ll see a fine crop of virulently antisemitic comments from the current Telegraph commentariat. Did they migrate from the Guardian? Did they expect a good reception at the Telegraph and know their comments won’t be deleted.

The Telegraph quotes Tom Wilson from the Henry Jackson Society: 

"We need to be more vigilant about the politicisation of British classrooms”.

Someone accused the Henry Jackson Society of being pro-Israel.  Imagine that! Not fair, Miss Blower!! If you’re pro Israel you shouldn’t be entitled to defend Israel!   You’re excluded from the discussion on the grounds that you’re pro-Israel!   

Of course, according to the Telegraph’s below-the-line zeitgeist, if you’re a prominent member of both the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and the NUT you’re entitled to put emotive pro Palestinian/ anti-Israel propaganda into your education resource packs, but if you support Israel, you’re not even entitled to speak out against it.

The rise of Hitler started in this way. We’re going backwards at an alarming pace. It looks like we could reach the 1930s before 2030.

Update.

I saw this this morning. NUT pulls “one-sided” literature on Middle East following heavy criticism

There was a parliamentary delegation to Israel recently led by Sir Eric Pickles, which makes a change from MPs telling us about their trips to Gaza or visits to the Middle East organised by CAABU.

 “It comes after former communities secretary and current chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel, Sir Eric Pickles MP, said the union had “well and truly crossed the line” with the initiative, which it promoted in schools across the UK. 

 Pickles said: “The NUT have well and truly crossed the line as to what is acceptable with this appalling document. It’s reference to ‘Jews’ as opposed to ‘Israelis’ is particularly objectionable. I would suggest this pernicious document be withdrawn immediately.” 

“Andrew Percy MP concurred, saying: “The NUT’s attempt to justify its indefensible document by saying they work with the Holocaust Education Trust is utterly derisory.”He added: “As a former history teacher, if any of my students produced such a biased piece of work they wouldn’t have expected to pass.”

The (temporary) withdrawal of this pack is bound to be attributed to that all-powerful Jewish Lobby.

The Express uses the word “forced” in its headline.

“Teaching union is forced to withdraw anti-Israeli 'propaganda' from British classrooms” 

The Express’s headline writer decided to put the word “propaganda” in quotes and use the word “forced”. They could have said:  'NUT withdraws biased resource pack.'  

“The Charities Commission said it was set to investigate Edukid to see if the children’s education charity had breached any of its regulations.
The Department for Education said that the law was “crystal clear” in that all political discussions in school should be “unbiased and balanced.” 

“Teachers should only use teaching materials which are suitable for their children and we trust them to decide which resources to use in their lessons,” the DfE said at the time.Initially, the NUT defended itself against accusations of anti-semitism and producing political propaganda by saying that it worked “with many organisations, including the Holocaust Educational Trust”. 

But after 24 hours of uproar and lobbying by campaigners, the union performed an about turn and acknowledged that the books and videos could be breaching impartiality rules.”

Update 2. 

My goodness. 

Talking of G2, the Guardian brings you progressive art. 

I wonder if Nosheen Iqbal was one of the commissioning editors who selected this unique piece by conceptual artist Gillian Wearing, ‘best known for video artworks like Sixty-Minute Silence, her Turner prize-winning film in which 26 men and women stand in front of a camera, dressed in police uniforms, doing nothing.’

You can win a print! 

"Drunken night of temptation"

Not BBC-bias-related in any way - and at the risk of sounding like a BBC reporter on Twitter or a BBC comedian - but...

Oh...My....God...The.Daily.Mail!

I've been wanting to post something about their splash headline for most of the day but only just remembered now that our blog's official title ends with the words "...and any other matters that take our fancy", and this takes my fancy, so...

Oh...My....God...The.Daily.Mail!:

Caught on camera: Married Lib Dem 'feminist' who is running for Parliament is filmed with stripper in drunken night of temptation

You've got to admire the sheer lip-smacking hypocrisy, and archaic wording, of "Drunken night of temptation" - especially given the the paper's use of photos of said Lib Dem candidate and said stripper.

The comments at the Mail aren't going the Lib Dem candidate's way. He's being slagged off something rotten.

Still, I can't see any death threats among the Mail's comments. He's had plenty of them too over the past year or so from Muslim fanatics, plus hordes of vile abuse (something the Mail omits to mention). 

That Lib Dem candidate is Maajid Nawaz. You may have seen him on the BBC, being shouted at by Mohammed Shafiq or Mo Ansar.

Odious Press conference

In an ideal world bloggers and Journalists would aim for clarity, brevity and accuracy. 

Anyone who deftly manages to include context or give adequate, succinct background to a complex topic in a bite-size blog post, whilst neither treating the reader as an ignoramus nor expecting too much of them deserves admiration. 

I wanted to write about ‘That-News-Conference’, but there was so much background, (Caged prisoners, Amnesty International, Moazzam Begg, Gita Sahgal etc etc.) that I couldn’t decide whether to assume the reader was familiar with it, or to start at the beginning of a tedious resume of everything I’d read, from 2010 to the present day. 

As luck would have it I saw this piece in the Daily Mail, so I don’t need to worry now.

Nauseating! An odious press conference, apologists for terror and the do-gooders who fund them

You get a good bit of history as well as the writer’s incredulous reaction to the ‘odious press conference’ that was “Broadcast live for 52 minutes on the BBC and 58 on Sky News” 

I still want to add that I’m sure the BBC is growing more and more out of touch with normal people. Who at the BBC thought it was a good decision to give an unprecedented, undiluted, wall to wall chunk of exposure to those ludicrous clowns blaming our security forces for making the poor little ‘beautiful guy’ hack people’s heads off?

Apart from the BBC no-one thought it was a good move. it. Not the public. In fact several actual BBC people questioned it.  Nobody - even those in the media, apart from whoever orchestrated the coverage seemed to think it was the right thing to do.

The atmosphere in Britain is quite strange these days. Menacing in many ways. The state broadcaster constantly pumps out stultifying political correctness and pro-Islam propaganda that is so seriously at odds with the mood of the public that all sorts of people are beginning to notice it.   Not just people like me I must point out.

There was a Five Live phone-in thing. I’ve never listened to Five Live before; it was a first (and last) for me, however someone linked to it, saying that Nicky Campbell had been chatting with a professor who ‘got it right’, more or less. It turned out to be Anthony Glees.

He said that Mohammed Emwazi was radicalised before MI5 got their hands on him, not because of it, and the mysterious “radicalisation” was something to do with Westminster University, whose Islamic society hosts extremist preachers and Imams such as Haitham Haddad. 

However, as soon as these facts had been established, and Nicky appeared satisfied that they had been, people began saying that beheading and suchlike is ‘nothing to do with (the real) Islam, it’s simple criminality, and moderate Muslims mustn’t be tarred with the same brush.

Cynicism and caution makes it hard to accept that Maajid Nawaz is 100% on my wave length. I mean he’s still a practicing Muslim, and I can’t be sure if he secretly harbours his coreligionists’ inherent antipathy to the Jew. That aside, his interview with Andrew Neil was quite convincing. 

(Am I inherently anti-Islam, is he inherently anti-Jew, or both? Never mind for now.) 

The BBC is busily indoctrinating us with an extreme version of political correctness, and in its own subversive way, radicalising the passive viewer. You mustn’t say this, you must think that, you must tolerate the intolerant; your prejudices and antisemitic tendencies must be disguised as something else. These days you mustn’t reveal your ‘bigotry’ by criticising Islam. I don’t think they can report you to the police or put you on a Bigotry control order (BPIM) but they can sure give you some pretty poisonous looks. 

Even taking into account the BBC’s radical pro-Muslim position,  Asim Qureshi and Cerie Bullivant were still hard to take seriously. How could anyone fall for that bullshit? 

Their far-fetched allegations were infantile, irrelevant and plainly ludicrous. Qureshi’s saccharine plea that Emwazi was ‘beautiful’ and ‘softly spoken’ and the accusation that MI5 ‘harassed’  the poor chap into a beheading spree were as illogical as they were stark raving ridiculous. 

Their entire, simpering clownish performance was unworthy of the reverential questioning that came from the floor, and if any self-flagellating liberals were dumb enough to believe Emwaz’s knife-skills are somehow our fault, and if the implausible answers they heard weren’t enough to arouse serious misgivings about their own gullibility that would be obvious to anyone sane, surely the twosome’s appearance alone should have been enough to crack a smile in the innermost subconscious of the most ernest of a BBC /PC worshipper.

Qureshi with his materialistic, western, capitalist’s trendy suit and specs, the upside-down effect of hirsute chin and shiny bald head, the unsightly prayer-bruise, (probably a badge of honour) and his wall-eyed, buck-toothed sidekick Bullivant with the pubic-hair fuzz on his chin and the dark shirt, allegedly worn at all times to camouflage the sparseness of the beard. 

I’m waiting to hear it was all a stunt by some clever impressionists.You don’t get clever impressionists these days though, do you?

Why give these  parodies of nobodies any air time? If their ludicrousness isn’t enough to make them a laughing stock, there’s You Tube. Qureshi preaching hatred in 2006. Are the BBC aware of that? If not, they’re the only ones who aint; and if they are, shouldn’t they be putting these fools in context and treating them with the disdain they deserve?

Jihad is just ‘the right to defend oneself against the west’  claims this twit. He’s winging it here, when confronted on CNN. Watch this. He’s beginning to have doubts. He’s not completely sure anyone but the BBC is falling for it. 

The whole escapade was nothing more than a publicity stunt for these clowns. I don’t think publicly identifying “Jihad John’ makes one jot of difference. So what if we know his name  So what if we don’t. We know he’s a Muslim. Duh! 

We know he was exposed to extreme Islamist preachers at one of this country’s many traitorous universities that are rife with antisemitism and hatred of the country that has gifted them the freedom to hate it.