Corbyn supporters on Twitter have furiously denounced the reporter for trying to 'entrap' the Labour leader and have called for her to be sacked.
The curious thing is that no one anywhere (as far as I can see) has so far been able to name the guilty reporter and Twitter has, for the last eight or nine hours or so, been asserting that it's a BBC reporter and, thus, blaming the BBC.
Many of them want to know precisely which BBC reporter, so they can try and get her sacked presumably.
Well, I can't work out who it is either, but, donning my trusty deerstalker, I followed the Twitter trail back to the first complaints about that interview (searching under 'Corbyn reporter') and found that all the earliest complaints were complaining, as it was happening, about a Sky reporter asking the crass question.
So, Watson, the case is elementary: It's only after the BBC took up the clip and started broadcasting it (without naming the source or the reporter) and then, making the situation worse, after YouTube videos of the BBC's clip began circulating widely, that people began assuming that it was a BBC reporter asking the 'disgraceful' question. (Not unreasonably).
(ITV also broadcast it on their website, but few people read that - enough though for a smattering of people to accuse ITV of asking the crass question!).
Chinese whispers? Seems so.
I'm too fixated on the BBC to be able to recognise the offending Sky reporter's voice, so if any of you can solve the mystery, please let us know below.
A series of tweets by Jeremy Corbyn’s meteorologist brother leave little doubt that Piers Corbyn is a staunch anti-Zionist with unmistakably antisemitic inclinations. When challenged over retweeting an antisemitic conspiracy theorist’s Tweet: “Isn’t it odd that ISIS has not touched Israel’s oil pipeline?” he pleaded that he only did so “to get an answer.”
This response is eerily reminiscent of his brother’s excuse for befriending Hamas and Hezbollah (to engage with them) that one has to agree that - as Jeremy himself says - there is indeed a strong familial similitude.
Today the hard-left Labour leader defended his brother saying: “No, my brother isn’t wrong”.
Questioned by The Sun after a speech in Harlow, Essex, the Leader of the Opposition added: “My brother has his point of view, I have mine and we actually fundamentally agree - we are a family that were brought up fighting racism from the day we were born.”
How can Jeremy Corbyn actually say, with a straight face, that he’s been fighting racism since ”the day we were born”, when he’s been speaking at rallies and chairing meetings alongside some of the most rabidly antisemitic individuals and actively campaigning against Israel - probably “from the day we were born”?
It all boils down to those claims that “anti-Zionism is nothing to do with antisemitism” and its sibling “legitimate criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is not antisemitic”.
“Something is clearly happening, but what? Many on the left argue that they are being wrongly accused. They are not against Jews, they say, only opposed to the policies of the state of Israel. Here one must state the obvious. Criticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic. Nor is the BDS movement inherently anti-Semitic. Many of its supporters have a genuine concern for human rights. It is, though, a front for the new anti-Semitism, an unholy alliance of radical Islamism and the political left.”
“Anti-semitism is a virus that survives by mutating. In the Middle Ages, Jews were hated because of their religion. In the 19th and 20th centuries they were hated because of their race. Today they are hated because of their nation state, Israel. Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism”
“Anti-Semitism is a form of cognitive failure. It reduces complex problems to simplicities. It divides the world into black and white, seeing all the fault on one side and all the victimhood on the other. It singles out one group among a hundred offenders for the blame. It silences dissent and never engages in self-criticism. The argument is always the same. We are innocent; they are guilty. It follows that if we—Christians, members of the Aryan race or Muslims—are to be free, they, the Jews, or the state of Israel must be destroyed. That is how the great crimes begin.”
The comments below the line clearly show that antisemitism is alive and kicking.
“legitimate criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is not antisemitic” might well be technically correct, but it rather depends on what is meant by ‘legitimate’. Since most criticisms of the Israeli government relate to actions taken to protect Israeli citizens from all manner of murderous attacks the interpretation of ‘legitimacy’ is ultimately a matter of opinion.
Antisemites interpret most of the Israeli government’s actions as illegitimate, simply because they don’t accept the right of Israel to exist as the Jewish state, and that is simply because they have wilfully swallowed an ahistorical Palestinian version of events surrounding Israel’s inception; therein lies the problem. They have absorbed a peculiar one-sided, racist, narrative - and that’s the way they like it.
If they truly believe that there is a thing called Muslim Land, which solely and immutably belongs to Palestinian Arabs who are the true indigenes, while Jewish Israelis are merely interlopers and colonialists, that Palestinian Arabs and their descendants, amounting to several million people who have been inculcated with intense Jew-hatred “since they were born” should be allowed to exercise their “right to return’, then what else can you expect than “from the river to the sea”?
This is where the BBC comes in. It’s the duty of the BBC, in the light of increasing antisemitism, to put the record straight. First they need to educate themselves, then they can begin.
But I fear it’s way too late. There was a debate the other day in Westminster Hall about “Local government and ethical procurement”. MPs discussed whether councils should be able to apply BDS - that is BDS against Israel in particular, and as an afterthought (lest anyone should deem that racist) BDS in general in case any local council suddenly feels passionate about some cause or other and wishes to demonstrate displeasure in practical terms.
It came to my attention belatedly; the debate took place on 15th March, and was secured by a well known anti-Zionist MP, Richard Burden Birmingham Northfield) (Lab). The issue was:
“the procurement policy note issued by the Cabinet Office on 17 February entitled “Putting a stop to public procurement boycotts” and about the proposed changes to the rules governing the local government pension scheme’s investments—for which I understand the Cabinet Office is also responsible, for some reason”
Nothing to do with his personal wish to BDS Israel or his desire to allow local councils to boycott, divest and sanction Israel to their hearts' content. Just legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and to stand up for the rights of the Palestinians. Never mind what happened with SodaStream, it’s a matter of principle.
“Comments from Zionists like Merseyside MP Louise Ellman prompted Piers Corbyn, 69, to tweet: “ABSURD! JC + All #Corbyns are committee #AntiNazi. #Zionists cant cope with anyone supporting rights for #Palestine”.
Most of the usual haters attended. They heavily outnumbered the members who turned up to oppose the motion. Louise Ellman wasn’t there and who could blame her.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) gave an impassioned speech opposing BDS, but it fell on deaf ears.
The consensus was definitively with BDS. The BDSers continually referred to “illegal settlements” with such certainty that one might almost think they knew what they were talking about. They manifestly believed it themselves. The experts.
Did you know that there is a branch of Fatah in the UK? It’s called Fatah UK, and it has sponsored a visit to ‘Palestine’. One can assume that was the source of such certainty.
One of the most troubling segments in one particular speech was this speculation about the danger of the government’s decision to put a stop to public procurements boycotts:
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
“Can the Minister explain what he thinks the effect will be on race relations in my constituency, which has a large number of people of Muslim faith from a background of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yemen, Somalia and Somaliland? What would be the impact on them if they saw their council tax being used to buy goods from the illegal Israeli settlements?”
This person had such a hangdog look on his face that I almost felt sorry for him. Imagine being at the mercy of that multicultural pressure group? Can’t be much fun. (But why is it that his constituents from such diverse origins should automatically be ‘impacted’ by their local council procuring goods from Israel or “illegal settlements” ? What business is it of theirs?
It can’t really be because they want to help the Palestinians, some of whom would be deprived of the productive, materially beneficial employment they currently enjoy, should BDS be applied. No, it’s just simple antisemitism. Racism.
It makes your heart sink, seeing such a pathetic, spiteful, racist pantomime being performed at the heart of our supposed democracy.
"Student broke ‘safe space’ rules by raising arm."
Imogen Wilson
“In my year as a sabbatical officer I’ve witnessed a horrific rise in anti-Semitism on university campuses all over the UK. Unsurprisingly, the speeches in favour of BDS were quick to silence cries of anti-Semitism, claiming that BDS isn’t meant to harm Jewish students, and is about the liberation of Palestinians.”
I’m proud of the work that student unions do for women, BME, LGBT+ and disabled groups of students. However, the ignorance of the struggles that Jewish students face on campus is astounding from people who fight so hard for the liberation of other oppressed groups.
Here’s a comment appropriated from below the line of the aforementioned article:
KHALED NAJJARAPR 04, 2016 - 02:44 PM“....My name is Khaled Najjar, I’m a Palestinian living in Luxembourg. My entire family lives in Palestine (in the west bank). Since 3 of my brothers and my cousin all work in Israeli companies, I can tell you the BDS movement is by no means a movement supported by most Palestinians. while it is popular by many in Europe, it is economically lethal for the majority of households in Palestine. you might think you are supporting Palestinians when in fact, they are the very first to be hurt from boycotting Israeli firms (aka – their own work places, which put bread on their table and pay their pension).
As I hear a lot of this BDS talk where I live, I clearly see it is done in good heart and good intentions (mostly by good people). It is just not promoting in any way a Palestinian state, and it also prevents establishing economic joint-ventures between Palestinian and Israeli companies, and by doing so, preventing the Palestinian economy from standing of its feet.”
People sometimes ask me if I’d like to have a job as a proper TV critic. No way. One of the reasons I don’t blog more frequently, or tackle a broader range of programmes is that I don’t watch all that much TV - apart from the News Channel and, say, a Scandi Noir or two on BBC Four.
After its shaky start I’m now enjoying The Night Manager, too. I never listen to radio 5 live, which BBC bias-watchers often cite as the source of much frustration.
On Sunday mornings, if I’m not doing lunch, I do like to binge on Andrew Marr, The Big Questions and Sunday Politics.
This was one time when interruptions would have been intrusive, and for whatever reason Andrew held back and allowed his victim to speak. It could have been purely because Marr was enjoying the spectacle of the tory “Ant and Dec” being slowly and agonizingly undermined, but let’s say the end justified the means, if that’s the appropriate saying.
It does seem that IDS had specific reasons for the untimeliness of his resignation, and it leaves us wondering what he proposes to do about moderating the chancellor’s soulless, purely mercenary policies now, from outside the government, rather than from inside lobbying for his particular, more humanitarian, cause. There’s an obvious analogy there. It’s the In / Out dilemma again.
Anyway I’m not in the business of analysing politicians or telling people what to think. I’m just saying what I think. I reserve the right to change my mind at any time.
*****
I admit my thoughts are often really shallow. When it comes to The Big Questions, my shallowness blossoms.
When the shot pans out to reveal the front row, my first instinct is spot the regulars. After that, spot the weirdos, the headscarves, the gurners and the fidgeters. Today I spotted a lad in the audience with a massive pale candy-floss afro. I wish he’d spoken so that we could have had a closer look. That’s how shallow I am.
I’m distracted by people waving their arms around, being expressive and animated all the time. People don’t do that in real life. I’m told they’re taught to do that in ‘presenter school’, but not everyone who does it on TV has gone to presenter school, whatever that is.
So, today the front row contained Owen Jones. He doesn’t wave his arms around, only his mouth, which he talks out of - one side at time. Sometimes he seems proper bright; next minute he’s on a forum with Hsiao-Hung Pai and someone called Ash with yellow comedy talons, and he seems as dopey as ever.
Also present was the other Owen Jones, the hippy vicar called “Peter” with the dog collar and the hair. He’s weird, isn’t he? Best of all, they had Piers Corbyn. It was mad.
Sorry for overlapping, but Craig’s post actually describes the content of the show, whereas mine’s purely facetious. As usual.
******
One series I did watch with pleasure was Happy Valley. I came to the party late, but for me it was outstanding in that it had a proper ending. Dramas frequently start well and fizzle out towards the end as though the writer has run out of steam or has merely lost interest. This time the ending was just right. No car chase, no shoot-out. The only quibble was the poor audibility, which I’ve mentioned before. I must say James Norton is a versatile actor. At least, his appearance can change radically, along with the character. Most luvvies these days remain stubbornly ‘themselves’ playing this or that role. But James is the character. I liked him as a baddie.
Some James Nortons
*******
Another topic, a teeny bit on the shallow side perhaps, concerns Theresa May’s cleavage. What was she thinking? Cleavage on budget day? Bad judgment.
*******
Andrew Neil’s reviewers made a good job of discussing Iain Duncan Smith. I do like it when The Sunday Politics discusses The Andrew Marr Show. It’s incest, but not as we know it.
They speculated on the future of the Conservative party (in the event of either outcome of the EU referendum) and whether Iain Duncan Smith’s resignation would help the Brexit campaign (they thought it would) and whether it would irretrievably damage the PM’s and the Chancellor’s credibility. (They thought not) Those were the questions I wanted them to discuss, though who’s to say whether their answers were particularly definitive or authoritative. Heidi Allen was jolly, don’t you think?
********
I’m sorry that so many of you loathe Jo Brand by the way. I’ve seen that opinion expressed often enough on Biased-BBC so it wasn't a surprise. I can definitely understand that someone’s politics can completely pollute everything about them. Turn them toxic, as Isabel Oakeshott might say.
I feel that way about Ken Loach, Vanessa Redgrave, Emma Thompson, Jeremy Hardy and Alexie Sayle, to name but a few. But Jo, no.
********
Oh yes, and I do wish our anonymouses would include some identifying marker somewhere in their comments. I had hoped that we could eventually achieve a little community, with regular contributors establishing their own comment personalities.
But we’ve been here for ages, and that doesn’t seem to be happening.
The best blogs have lively comments sections, so what does that make this blog?
