Meet me half way?

Impartiality? Forget it. Let’s ditch all this impartiality nonsense, both in our expectations and in the BBC’s charter-embedded claim. No-one can boast a truly open mind. Even newborn babies are pre-programmed with one distinctly partial aspiration; stayin' alive. (The Beegees did that?)

We all come to the table with our biases and prejudices, but there is a more achievable, and more realistic aspiration available for the BBC. (Balance.) 

For we bloggers, there is no need to bother with any of that, but nonetheless, we do actually try to stay reasonable. That is why, say, Rob Burley is prepared to listen to Craig’s well-founded correction on the Twitter rather than just uttering the well-known working-class expression “Fuck off”.

You might find this hard to believe, but Craig and I are more dedicated and staunch in our research than you might think. We’re on a kind of self-imposed zero-hours contract, like those poorly rewarded carers who are paid for ‘hands-on client time’ only. Or like peripatetic teachers. 

Anyway, there’s much work going on below the water-line what with the challenge of checking, checking, checking, while trying to keep topical. When mistakes creep in, as they will, it’s often down to haste. No proof-readers, no editors. We have agendas, but they’re our own agendas, and we are attached to them.

That’s part one of my preamble. Actually, this is still preamble.  I just wanted to say that, at heart, we’re on the side of Tommy Robinson (versus the Islamisation of the Western world.)

We can’t understand how things have got like this. Why has the so-called liberal left decided to herd the general public into a kind of docile acquiescence in the creeping Islamification of the civilised world? Just why? Having just started to become enlightened, humankind is back-tracking toward the dark ages of old.

It would appear that the person taking credit for the draconian Facebook/Instagram ban on Tommy Robinson is Mohammed Shafiq. If that is true, I really do despair. Mr Shafiq is no stranger to this site. He used to be a regular guest on The Big Questions, very shouty, very dogmatic and very Islamic.

Has this odious person really shouted himself all the way to acquiring the influence and the clout to stifle criticism and impose a virtual blasphemy law upon the internet, while the likes of Hamas are free to spout their racist bile on the same platform?  How did it come to this? 

That is why we are on the side of Tommy Robinson. But Tommy Robinson is flawed. We have to acknowledge that, otherwise our credibility is shot.

Do you want me to go into it all? Craig advised me to let it lie for a while, but I’ve started, so maybe I should finish. 

To be honest (always try to be) I was very sceptical of Lucy Brown. What was that spectacular row in Woburn (?) High Street all about? It must have been something important.   She said she had Tommy’s prison number tattooed on her wrist! Who would even do something like that?  So why did she suddenly decide to abandon her enmity and work with Tommy again? There seemed to be something altogether disingenuous about Lucy Brown. But then, what did I know? I had only seen selected clips of her contributions within the actual PanoDrama. 

Now I’ve heard her interview with David Vance, all is forgiven. Well, nearly all. I’m still sceptical, but that’s embedded in my suspicious and ever-wary DNA.

Ignore Vancey’s melodramatic opening jingle, and if I may say so, his ever so slightly sycophantic interviewing technique, but the upshot is that Lucy Brown has engaged her brain and realised that the PanoDrama is a massive curate’s egg. (soundcloud H/T StewGreen / B-BBC)

Much of the evidence against Sweeney that Tommy and his ill-advised editors have pounced upon is incredibly weak. It leaves one wondering when Tommy Robinson went all politically correct. I mean, the word ‘woofter’. Is that really evidence of homophobia? Come on! The word ‘honky’?   No no no, don’t be silly, please.

There is also the matter of the retracted statements by two of his former Rebel Media colleagues, which were so convoluted and dubious that I couldn’t be bothered to decipher them. They should have been left on the cutting-room floor.  Same goes for the confused interpretation of Sweeney’s promise to disguise Lucy Brown’s identity. He was probably describing the thing they do to disguise voices by slowing the recording down to deep bass. Rumour has it that there may be more to the chap who was sacked "for his right-wing views" than meets the eye, and if so, that’s another weak link.

Even if one genuinely believes that these flaws were merely a deliberate attempt to mirror the BBC’s own flaws, I’m disappointed that they bigged-up and exaggerated the wrong stuff, which leaves a massive weak link and positively asks, nay begs for the BBC to demolish the entire case for the prosecution.

This video is worth watching.

I blame the team. The editorial team that threw the virtual baby out with the bathwater.  They could have administered a seismic shock, but instead, they’ve defused their own bomb. 

At most, the BBC could throw Sweeney to the wolves. If they do, much as I dislike his 'investigative journalist' persona, I’d think of it as an injustice. I might even feel sorry for him.

However, there is one massive ‘gotcha’ that Tommy’s ruse really did capture, and that is the BBC’s ill-advised collaboration with Hope-not-Hate. In other words, the BBC routinely sets out with a pre-conceived agenda and proceeds to seek out and cherry-pick from any source that fits the bill in order to hammer home whatever self-serving message they choose to send. There’s an extreme example of the BBC using very questionable sources on BBC Watch.

I'll repeat; I could have written the previous paragraph without Tommy Robinson’s Docudrama, but here we have a flawed, yet a potentially useful example of the BBC’s duplicitous methods. Even worse, we have a terrifying example of Islam’s ability to impose de facto blasphemy laws. We have Mohammed Shafiq apparently closing down Tommy Robinson’s Facebook and Instagram sites and currently endeavouring to close down his YouTube one too.

The only consolation is the thought that this ridiculous capitulation to the likes of Shafiq will prove to be a gigantic own goal - the injustice of the ban is quite enough to increase Tommy Robinson’s profile and it also goes a long way to making up for the deficiencies in PanoDrama.

Meanwhile, in other news, we have the malicious Corbynist MP Chris Williamson pandering to antisemitic members of Momentum, and the Labour Party opposing Sajid Javid’s decision to ban Hezbollah (Hizb’allah) together with its gaily gun-emblazoned flags.

Just imagine. If the BBC hadn’t spent the last six or seven decades concealing the malicious, stultifying, racist nature of the so-called Palestinian cause - more pro-Palestinian than the actual Palestinians - half today’s antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism wouldn’t be the problem it is.

Please. Bring your agenda alongside my agenda and at least meet me halfway.

I no longer understand the rules

Having missed PMQs yesterday I only heard about the extraordinary exchange between Charles Walker MP and the Prime Minister on Susan Hulme’s BBC radio 4 late night parliamentary round-up.

Many others have commented on this surreal episode, but I’m still trying to digest Theresa May’s ambiguous and, if I may say so, obscurantist response. 

Here’s the dialogue, courtesy of the BBC: 

Mr Walker, the MP for Broxbourne, had asked Mrs May: "When people make fun of Christianity in this country, it rightly turns the other cheek.

"When a young gymnast, Louis Smith, makes fun of another religion widely practised in this country, he is hounded on Twitter by the media and suspended by his association.

"For goodness sake, this man received death threats and we have all looked the other way.

"My question to the prime minister is this: What is going on in this country because I no longer understand the rules?” 

Mrs May responded, saying: "I understand the level of concern that you have raised in relation to this matter.

"This is a balance that we need to find. We value freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this country - that is absolutely essential in underpinning our democracy.

"But we also value tolerance to others. We also value tolerance in relation to religions. This is one of the issues that we have looked at in the counter-extremism strategy that the Government has produced.

"I think we need to ensure that yes it is right that people can have that freedom of expression, but in doing so that right has a responsibility too - and that is a responsibility to recognise the importance of tolerance to others.”

This mealy-mouthed mumbo jumbo about tolerance is on a par with Jeremy Corbyn’s “I oppose racism in all its forms”.

Several prominent journalists have been appalled at the way Louis Smith has been humiliated by the baying P.C. brigade, and I see his two-month ban by British Gymnastics as a very ill omen indeed. The BBC is maintaining its customary policy of impartiality in this matter. 

I tried to watch the Home Affairs Committee hearing on Sharia Courts that took place the other day. 

I got to the end of the first panel and gave up, but I might go back and give it another try later on. Yvette Cooper has taken Keith Vaz’s role and seems to have acquired some of his oleaginousness in the process.

What bothered me most was the way some of the committee seem to have taken an adversarial position against critics of Sharia courts. 

On the all female panel were:

• Zlakha Ahmed MBE, Chief Executive, Apna Haq
• Shaista Gohir OBE, Chair, Muslim Women's Network UK
• Dr Elham Manea, Senior Fellow, European Foundation for Democracy
• Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All

I was familiar with Namazie as she is well known for her views on reforming Islam, and I recognised the verbose Shasta Gohir OBE as she was on TV on and off all day. 

Dr. Manea spoke well, but was interrogated in a gratuitously hostile fashion by Chuka Umunna. The lady in black gave me the creeps. Sorry, but there it is. 

Naz Shah, who, perhaps to save herself some embarrassment, stood down from this committee when they were addressing antisemitism, was back in action. Having been convincingly contrite over her own ‘ignorant behaviour’ she reverted to type by invoking human rights and freedom to follow one’s faith, in a mixture of passion and aggression.

Throughout this section I felt that all the contributors were dancing energetically on the head of a pin and that the fatal flaw running through the entire process was the failure to question the fundamental concept of allowing Sharia Courts in Britain in 2016.

Massive Islam-shaped elephant in the room.

The premise of the inquiry seemed to be that Islam has been accepted as part of the norm in Britain, no matter how antithetical, therefore we have to accept it in all its forms along with all the cultural baggage it brings with it.

This normalisation is deeply worrying to many of us.

You will have seen this. 

Shafiq is a well known figure  to regular viewers of the BBC’s Sunday morning religious programmes like SML and TBQs. He is very rude and finds it difficult to shut up. His description of the Gatestone Institute and the Henry Jackson Society as fascist and totalitarian showed an astonishing lack of self awareness, as did his inability to pronounce “Baroness Cox”, which repeatedly came out as Baronex Cox.

Did you see that Canada has passed a motion? A new anti-Islamophobia motion to be precise. 

Some people might see this as progress. Theresa May might see that motion as Canada’s official sanctioning of taking a responsibility to recognise the importance of tolerance to others.

I just see that motion as shite. 

Brits for blasphemy

The news about Mumtaz Qadri’s funeral in Pakistan was widely reported in the media and all over the internet. 

In case anyone missed, it, Qadri was  executed in Pakistan or the murder of Governor Salman Taseer whose ‘crime’ was to campaign against Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

However, in Pakistan, they are very fond of their blasphemy laws, and they are very fond of people like Mumtaz Qadri, so they were up in arms at his ‘martyrdom’ . 

The crowds came out in force waving their arms in the air to show that they were literally up in arms as is their wont. 

Everyone in the media has had something to say about this, even the BBC.  I heard quite a good report about it on FOOC, for example. Since this appalling business took place in Pakistan, one’s shock and disgust might be tempered by thoughts such as, eg., it’s really none of our business, or, par for the course in Pakistan and thank goodness we don’t live in a country like that.

But wait. 

BBC Asian  network mentioned in passing that some Imams in this country were expressing similar sentiments too.

“Now, why is there so much support for Mumtaz Qadri, both in Pakistan and here in the UK? “ asks the Asian Network presenter (of their reporter in Pakistan.)

“It has to do with how controversial the issue of blasphemy is. Of course blasphemy is a capital punishment here in Pakistan; people who are accused of blasphemy are put on death row and even though no-one has actually been hanged or put to death for blasphemy it remains very inflammatory.  

Most people who are accused of blasphemy are either killed or lynched even before their cases make it to the courts, and that’s because of course the society here, you know religious and conservative, many people, specially people with strict Islamic backgrounds see it as an insult to the prophet Muhammed. 

Mumtaz Qadri was executed yesterday, but has been hailed as a hero by some Islamist groups out there; he has also had some support here on Facebook a Bradford Imam has said he was wrongfully executed and martyred in the way of Allah. In another post a sheikh from Coventry has called him our esteemed shahid. “

Well, I thought, now this is our business. 

Cue Harry’s Place. It seems that self-appointed spokesperson for the Muslim community and seasoned BBC ‘expert’ on Islamic issues Mohammed Shafiq is one of those British Muslims who supported Qadri. 

If the government is seriously interested in cracking down on this kind of extremism you’d think they’d ‘do something’. Of course they won’t. Just as they won’t do anything about the rabid antisemitism coming from Shafiq and his cronies. And the BBC will continue to put him on programmes like The Big Questions and Panorama. Here he is in 2007 spouting crap about  “organised sexual exploitation by ruthless criminal gangs”.

“These are criminals. They’re not Asian criminals; they’re not Muslim criminals; not white criminals. They are criminals and they should be treated a s criminals.”

Wrong in 2007; still wrong in 2016.  What sort of country are we? 

Will the BBC let support for Mumtaz Qadri by British Muslims slip by under their noses, unchallenged and uncontested? Do they think we should accept blasphemy laws here, in accord with ‘religious and conservative’ Islam, lest we should be thought intolerant? Do they think it’s okay for supporters of Qadri to preach in British mosques, or are they appalled and outraged enough to investigate it properly?

Bad Egg

Isn’t it odd that the BBC lags behind events in oh so many ways? When something they find distasteful comes along they drag their feet until they simply can’t ignore the elephant pounding on the door.

This time it was the black egg over on Channel 4. I rarely watch Channel 4 news because of the obvious political bias of Jon Snow. He really can be a disgrace, as Richard Millett will testify. 

But via Harry’s Place (I know) I was urged to watch the episode of Channel Four News that was aired on the 28th. It was broadcast before the Newsnight edition I mentioned here. 

That probably explains why the BBC actually deigned to address the issue - a catch-up type of thing.

“We’ve taken the decision to cover up the image in case it causes offence to some viewers..”

Anyway, it seems that Channel 4 introduced the Jesus and Mo debacle with an illustration of the offending cartoon. With “Mo” blacked out. They’d specially made a Mo-shaped blackout graphic that looked a bit like Mo was wearing an eyeless burka, or as the cartoonist described it “ a black egg.” 

The egg of Islamophobia.  It was asking to be lampooned, and so it was.

Here’s that Channel 4 news, which includes an interview with Mohammed Shafiq.

Note  how Shafiq repeatedly calls him Jon throughout the interview. In my opinion Shafiq is asking to be lampooned and at least he’s *against violence*. We really really need one of those old style impressionists. Who would dare to do Mohammed Shafiq? Rory Bremner? Culshaw? McGowan? 

“This sounds neither liberal nor democratic!” “ Who elected you? “  - some of the counter arguments put by Snow. But I don’t think his heart was really in it. Innit.