Mind Your Language

This happened in the House of Commons yesterday:

Brendan O'Hara, SNP: Last night I tuned in to the BBC 10 o'clock news to get the latest on this terrible disaster, and I was absolutely appalled when a presenter informed me that around 30 migrants had drowned. Migrants don't drown. People drown. Men, women and children drown. So will the Secretary of State join me in asking the BBC News editorial team and any other news outlet thinking of using that term to reflect on their use of such dehumanising language and afford these poor people the respect that they deserve? 

Priti Patel, Home Secretary: Even during the Afghan operations and Op Pitting I heard a lot of language that quite frankly seemed to be inappropriate around people who were fleeing. So yes, I will.

I refer the honourable lady to Melanie Phillips:  “Pass the smelling salts: the BBC is right. Why is the Home Secretary endorsing an attack on objectivity?”

As Melanie say, Brendan O'Hara's argument is “tendentious” and “absured” - a “manipulative piece of verbal mischief”. Migrants' is “a neutral and objective term” - “the one term that accurately covers all these different categories of people making these unlawful Channel crossings”. He's seeking to “reframe” the mass illegal crossings of the English Channel as “a decontextualised humanitarian challenge which no-one with a heart could possibly resist. And he is requiring the BBC to assist him in doing so.”

 

As for Priti Patel's reply, Melanie writes:

So because she heard inappropriate language about Afghans, the Home Secretary is going to complain to the BBC for its use of wholly appropriate language to describe a different group of people in a different situation?

She continues:

Why is Priti Patel endorsing this attack on BBC objectivity — the very quality which the BBC is usually rightly accused of lacking? Why is she thus giving implicit succour to those who exploit the accelerating crisis in the English Channel — a crisis which she and Boris Johnson have failed to resolve — to denigrate those who wish to uphold the integrity of their country’s borders and the rule of law?

The BBC is often very wrong, but on this occasion it is absolutely right. When a Conservative Home Secretary takes up a position to the left of the BBC, something has gone very badly awry with British politics.

Indeed. 

A missing detail

I'm seeing lots of underwhelmed, sceptical, even derisive comments on my social media feels about Priti Patel's deal with her French counterpart Gerald Darmanin to double the number of officers patrolling French beaches and to increase drone and radar surveillance in a declared attempt to stop illegal immigrants crossing the Channel. 

The BBC's report on the story is, of course, critical of Priti Patel too, but - being the BBC- their criticism comes from the opposite direction. 

Their online report quotes only one other person, a critic of Ms Patel: Bella Sankey, director of the pro-migrant charity Detention Action. 

Being sceptical of the BBC's bona fides, I looked her up. She was the Labour Party candidate in Arundel and South Downs in the 2019 general election. 

The BBC didn't mention that of course.

It's a very old story as far as BBC reporting goes. Not as old as Beowulf, but not far off.

Skewing the story. Setting the agenda

Talking of last night's Newsnight, it certainly went in hard against Priti Patel and the PM. 

This was its introduction:

Kirsty Wark: Our Home Secretary is an unintentional bully. So if she really the best person for the job? Should Boris Boris Johnson have shown her the door? I'll be asking a former Permanent Secretary, a professor of law, and a Tory MP.... 

Good evening. Today, Boris Johnson chose to ignore, in fact reject, the verdict of his independent advisor on ministerial standards on a bullying inquiry into Priti Patel. The result? No matter that the Home Secretary was deemed to have sworn and shouted at junior civil servants, and was concluded by the report to have broken the Ministerial Code, she is still in her job, while that advisor, Sir Alex Allan, has resigned. She survived because the report says the bullying could have been "unintentional" and Priti Patel wasn't ever given feedback about her behaviour at the time. Tonight that has been flatly contradicted by Sir Philip Rutnam, her former Permanent Secretary who resigned in February claiming he was forced out because he exposed her bullying behaviour. So should the Home Secretary still be in her job? Here's our Policy Editor Lewis Goodall.

Lewis continued in the same vein: 

Lewis Goodall: The gloomy corridors of power in Westminster are groaning with irony even more than usual. It's Anti-Bullying Week, which just so happens to coincide with a controversy over one of the most senior members of the Government allegedly engaging in bullying behaviour of her own. There had long been whispers that Priti Patel could be unpleasant to her civil servants across several departments. This culminated in the resignation of her Permanent Secretary, the Home Office's top official, Sir Philip Rutnam in February, accusing her of the same. The Prime Minister's Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Sir Alex Allan, was asked to look into the allegations. His conclusions have only just emerged. Allan says that Patel, in the way that she treated her civil servants, did break the Ministerial Code, the rule book for ministerial conduct - albeit, perhaps, unintentionally. "My advice is that the Home Secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect. Her approach, on occasions, has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals." Any breach of the Ministerial Code would typically lead to a ministerial resignation or dismissal. But Patel has been spared. 

Priti Patel: I'm sorry that my behaviour has upset people. And I've never intentionally set out to upset anyone. I work with thousands of brilliant civil servants every single day, and we work together, day in, day out, to deliver on the agenda of this government. 

This is because Boris Johnson said today that he does not agree with Sir Alex Allan's findings, that she has not engaged in bullying behaviour and, ergo, considers the matter closed. This morning, Sir Alex Allan promptly resigned in response. It is very unusual. In fact, I think this is unprecedented. Certainly it is unprecedented for the Prime Minister's Adviser on Ministerial Standards to resign. 

Catherine Haddon, Institute for Government: It is very unusual. In fact, I think this is unprecedented. It's certainly unprecedented for the Prime Minister's advisor on ministerial standards to resign. It's unprecedented for the Prime minister to say that he thinks his minister has not breached the code, when his adviser has said that, actually, he thinks there has been a breach going on here. 

It is especially embarrassing for the Prime Minister that the foreword to the Ministerial Code is written by, well, the Prime Minister himself. It says, there must be no bullying and no harassment. It is then followed a couple of pages later by point 1.2, which says that bullying will not be tolerated. But, for Patel's future, what matters is the politics and political support in the Tory Party. And there, unlike the rest of Westminster right now, she's home and dry. 

Andrew Bridgen MP: There's huge support on the Conservative backbenches for the work she's doing. She's a tough and forceful Secretary of State in a very difficult department. And she's delivering on our manifesto pledges. I think, as far as most of the backbenchers are concerned, and most of my constituents, we'd like to see more ministers like Priti Patel, not less. 

We should say that Sir Alex Allan's findings were not entirely uncritical of the civil service either. He said they were slow to respond to the Home Secretary and to do what she wanted. But for a minister to have been independently adjudged to have broken the civil service code, and for no consequences to follow from it, does mean that there are two much bigger questions now in play than that of Priti Patel's future. Firstly, what is to disincentivise a minister in the future from breaking the code? And, secondly, with Sir Alex Allan's resignation, what is left of the system to enforce it? 

Sir David Normington: We have always relied on the Ministerial Code being upheld by the Prime Minister of the day. I mean, the system does make the Prime Minister judge and jury. But in the past, prime ministers have always acted when there has been a breach of the Ministerial Code. And that's why, in a sense, this is a much more serious moment than previous ones, because the Prime Minister seems to have gone against what would have happened in the past. 

In this year, so many iron laws on politics have been broken in Westminster. One where the metal has softened most of all is the question of when ministers or political figures should resign. With the Ministerial Code's power now seemingly weakened, we are no further forward with the answer. 

In the subsequent two-against-one interview (two against Ms Patel, one for Ms Patel, with the one for Ms Patel getting interrupted a lot - the same old story!), Conservative MP Keiran Mullan observed that Lewis Goodall's report had "brushed aside" as a minor side issue something he considered "equally damning": Sir Alex Allan's criticisms of the Civil Service for its "lack of leadership" and its "lack of willingness to support Ms Patel. 

He certainly wasn't wrong about Lewis brushing it aside. I've highlighted in yellow the bit where Lewis did just that.

If you recall, Sir Alex had some remarkable things to say about the Civil Service: 

The home secretary says that she puts great store by professional, open relationships. She is action orientated and can be direct. The home secretary has also become - justifiably in many instances - frustrated by the Home Office leadership's lack of responsiveness and the lack of support she felt in the Department for International Development (Dfid) three years ago. 

The Civil Service itself needs to reflect on its role during this period. The Home Office was not as flexible as it could have been in responding to the home secretary's requests and direction. She has - legitimately - not always felt supported by the department. In addition, no feedback was given to the home secretary of the impact of her behaviour, which meant she was unaware of issues that she could otherwise have addressed. 

This conclusion needs to be seen in context. There is no evidence that she was aware of the impact of her behaviour, and no feedback was given to her at the time. The high pressure and demands of the role, in the Home Office, coupled with the need for more supportive leadership from top of the department has clearly been a contributory factor. In particular, I note the finding of different and more positive behaviour since these issues were raised with her.

This highlights how the BBC can set and shape the agenda. 

If Newsnight only wants to focus on questioning and criticising the behaviour of Priti Patel and Boris Johnson and chooses to put to one side Sir Alex's damning criticisms of the Civil Service for poor leadership, a lack of responsiveness and and unwillingness to support a senior cabinet minister - something that surely matters massively in a democracy and is a huge story in its own right - then the focus on Priti Patel and Boris Johnson's failing will be all Newsnight viewers are going to hear about and think about. 

It fatally skews the story though, doesn't it? 

The full story?

 

Before I went to bed last night I noticed that the BBC News website was leading with the summary of a draft report looking into allegations of bullying by Priti Patel. 

At the time the BBC was alone in making this the main story, with neither Sky not ITV making it their lead story. 

The curious thing, however, was that, whether it was the ITV News website or The Daily Telegraph, or the Sky News website or The Times, they all - to varying degrees - reported that the civil servants involved in the affair were also apportioned some share of the blame, not just Priti Patel. 

Naturally, the right-leaning newspapers made more of the criticisms of civil servants than either ITV or Sky, but at least ITV and Sky reported that the findings aren't apparently all black-and-white. 

Yet, as of 10pm last night, the BBC News website's main story was exclusively about how Ms Patel was said to be in the wrong

And it was the same on TV...

The story led BBC One's News at Ten but neither ITV nor Sky. And the BBC didn't mention the criticisms of the Civil Service at all. 

ITV's News at Ten, in contrast, did mention that the report found that Ms Patel "lacked support" from civil servants and even Sky News reported that civil servants were "found to be working against their boss".

Why did the BBC omit this part of the story?

Here's a theory: Priti Patel was probably always set to be next in the BBC's firing line after Dominic Cummings's scalp had been taken.

Here's a transcript on last night's BBC One coverage of the story:

Newsreader: Tonight at Ten - a draft report into claims that the Home Secretary Priti Patel bullied staff concluded in the summer that she had broken rules on ministerial behaviour. An inquiry was launched in March after the most senior official at the Home Office resigned, alleging that staff felt Ms Patel "created fear" in the department. 

Laura Kuenssberg: She always denied doing anything wrong, but after months of investigation into one of the most senior members of the government, tomorrow the Prime Minister Boris Johnson is poised to give his verdict.

Newsreader: Good evening. A draft report into claims that the Home Secretary Priti Patel had bullied staff concluded this summer that she had broken rules on ministerial behaviour. The Cabinet Office began an inquiry into her conduct after the most senior official at the Home Office, Sir Philip Rutnam, resigned in February. He alleged that staff felt she "created fear" in the department, and is suing the Home Office for unfair dismissal. Tonight Labour is demanding that the report be made public. A decision on Priti Patel's future will be made public tomorrow. Our political editor Laura Kuenssberg reports. 

Laura Kuenssberg: She's the most powerful woman in the Cabinet, long-standing Brexiteer backer of Boris Johnson, in charge of the police, immigration, one of the most important jobs in the government, but since February there's been a shadow hanging over Priti Patel because of this Dramatic claims made by the man who was her most senior official:

Sir Philip Rutnam: I have received allegations that her conduct has included shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands, behaviour that created fear and needed some bravery to call out. 

Laura Kuenssberg: He quit, but she wanted to stay, so the government launched an investigation into what really happened. And now, months on, perhaps it's starting to become clear. One source told me the draft report, concluded way back in the summer, says Priti Patel had not met the requirements of the ministerial code to treat civil servants with consideration and respect, and they said the investigation had found some evidence of bullying even if it was not intentional. Another source said the report was unambiguous that Priti Patel had broken the code, the rules that are meant to govern how ministers behave. Yet, for her part here at the Home Office, Priti Patel has always firmly denied doing anything wrong. 

Reporter: Are you a workplace bully, Home Secretary? 

Laura Kuenssberg: The reports looked at her behaviour in three different departments and one government source told me it doesn't always give a flattering picture of what Priti Patel encountered. The man who until recently was by the Prime Minister's side confirmed the findings have been in Boris Johnson's intray for a while, but implied that if Priti Patel was found to have broken the rules she might not have to quit. 

Sir Mark Sedwill: The Prime Minister wanted his advice and the Prime Minister needs to reflect and make a decision, that as I understand it is still in train. 

Laura Kuenssberg: The expectation here tonight is that there might be some kind of reprimand for Ms Patel, but it's certainly not likely that she will be sacked and Tory MPs are already rallying before the Prime Minister's decision is even public. 

Sir Iain Duncan Smith: I worked with Priti Patel for a number of years and I've always found her strong, robust, but never in any way anywhere near bullying or even threatening any of her staff and most of the staff got on with her incredibly well. 

Laura Kuenssberg: Yet convention matters. There isn't a single example of a minister who has broken the rules who has stayed on. 

Dave Penman, FDA union: What message does it send if the master says actually, although I said there will be no bullying, what I actually meant was a little bit of bullying is OK and it's not a breach of the ministerial code that requires a resignation. That's not the sort of message I think the Prime Minister, who is also the Minister for the Civil Service, wants to send to those thousands of civil servants. 

Laura Kuenssberg: Priti Patel had to leave government in dramatic circumstances before, almost exactly three years ago departing as soon as she arrived home from a foreign trip after it emerged she had held unauthorised meetings with Israeli politicians. There may well not be an exit for her this time, but there's still a political drama. Sophie, let's be really clear about two things tonight. Number one, Priti Patel has always and repeatedly denied she did anything wrong. But number two, there is no precedent for a minister who has been found to have broken the code, the ministerial Charter, if you like, that's meant to govern how ministers behave, staying on their job if they have actually been found to have transgressed in any way. But after many, many months of all of this it's clear that this is reaching a crescendo, but it also seems tonight that the Prime Minister is very determined to try to stand by her. There's been a not very subtle attempt by Tory MPs all over social media tonight, posting so much about how they think she's the right person for the job, praising her to the skies. But we will know more tomorrow when we actually see the statements that emerge. After many months of being a problem for the government he will try to draw a line under it but I expect the Prime Minister still to try to hang on to her, there may well be questions how he can do so.

UPDATE (13:30): Within the last couple of hours, Laura K has tweeted, almost as a thread afterthought "Worth saying the report also makes unusual criticism of Home Office, says Patel didn't always receive support she should have from her officials". 

She was some 15 hours behind everyone else, but she's arrived at last!

UPDATE (13:30): Sometimes you're much better reading what things actually say rather than have the BBC interpret them for you. Here's the summary in full. I've coloured in blue the bits that are helpful to Priti Patel and in red the bits that are unhelpful to Priti Patel:

The Ministerial Code says "ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the civil service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect. I believe civil servants - particularly senior civil servants - should be expected to handle robust criticism but should not have to face behaviour that goes beyond that. The home secretary says that she puts great store by professional, open relationships. She is action orientated and can be direct. The home secretary has also become - justifiably in many instances - frustrated by the Home Office leadership's lack of responsiveness and the lack of support she felt in the Department for International Development (Dfid) three years ago. The evidence is that this has manifested itself in forceful expression, including some occasions of shouting and swearing. This may not be done intentionally to cause upset, but that has been the effect on some individuals. The Ministerial Code says that "harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code". Definitions of harassment concern comments or actions relating to personal characteristics and there is no evidence from the Cabinet Office's work of any such behaviour by the Home Secretary. The definition of bullying adopted by the Civil Service accepts that legitimate, reasonable and constructive criticism of a worker's performance will not amount to bullying. It defines bullying as intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down. Instances of the behaviour reported to the Cabinet Office would meet such a definition. The Civil Service itself needs to reflect on its role during this period. The Home Office was not as flexible as it could have been in responding to the home secretary's requests and direction. She has - legitimately - not always felt supported by the department. In addition, no feedback was given to the home secretary of the impact of her behaviour, which meant she was unaware of issues that she could otherwise have addressed. My advice is that the home secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect. Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals. To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code, even if unintentionally. This conclusion needs to be seen in context. There is no evidence that she was aware of the impact of her behaviour, and no feedback was given to her at the time. The high pressure and demands of the role, in the Home Office, coupled with the need for more supportive leadership from top of the department has clearly been a contributory factor. In particular, I note the finding of different and more positive behaviour since these issues were raised with her.

Questions and Answers

I came a cropper yesterday on the Priti Patel/Sir Philip Rutnam story, but I'm returning to the fray today regardless.

The BBC's involvement in the story intrigues me, because they have been absolutely at the heart of it.

Here's what we know: Sir Philip's resignation was choreographed in tandem with the BBC. On resigning, he contacted the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg. BBC cameras and the BBC's political editor were then present to film his resignation speech. A BBC staffer even held an umbrella over Sir Philip's head to protect him from the rain.

Today, the BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw entered the fray, unhelpfully for Priti Patel, piling on more pressure with 'breaking' news. BBC News "has been told", he said, that Priti was formally complained about while serving as a minister in the Department for Work and Pensions. The complaint "is believed to have been made by a member of her private office".

So what's going on here? And what's the BBC's role in all of this? 

The BBC are obviously being used - by Sir Philip for starters, and also by that person who "told" them about the DWP complaint - but is that in any way wrong if it's a neutral journalistic scoop? After all, who'd look a gift horse in the gob?

Is being fed stories like this, even if the feeding is very obviously being done by people on a mission to bring down Priti Patel, actually part and parcel of proper, decent journalism?

Or is it not neutral journalism at all? Might not the BBC itself be on a similar mission?

********

Meanwhile, Charlie's comment at the top of the latest Open Thread prompted me to check out who the BBC has invited on to discuss this story since it first broke yesterday morning. 

Using TV Eyes to track them down, but only checking Radio 4's politics programmes and the BBC News Channel, here are the results. 

The colour coding is simple: Those in red were pro-Sir Philip/anti-Priti. Those in blue were pro-Priti/anti-Sir Philip. Those in green were neither one nor the other. 

Broadcasting House - Lord Kerslake

The World This Weekend - Jonathan Powell; Lord Butler

PM - Dave Penman; Yvette Cooper; Crispin Blunt

BBC News Channel - Lord Kerslake; Owen Jones; Cindy Yu; Sir Anthony Seldon; Yvette Cooper; Sebastian Payne

Of course, the Government isn't putting up people to speak on its behalf, but - still - this is quite an unbalanced list, don't you think?

Sides

It's turning into quite the day for culture warriors. (What's new?)

My Twitter feed (which I keep as wide-ranging as possible) has divided very sharply.

If you believe one camp, Sir Philip Rutnam represented the rotten heart of the Civil Service, presiding over disaster after disaster at the departments he ran. If you believe the opposing camp, he was the epitome of a decent public servant, a kind man of scrupulous integrity.

One camp says that Sir Philip was bullied, the other that Priti Patel is the one really being bullied.

One camp says his exit's an excellent thing, a win for a government seeking to drain the swamp, while the other says it's a bad thing and that it will actually harm the government, especially Priti Patel.

Basically, one side says 'Priti bad, Sir Philip good' and the other side 'Priti good, Sir Philip bad'.

Everyone said what I expected them to say, on either side, until I came to Spiked's Tom Slater, who - breaking the template of all my expectations -  tweeted:

I worked with Sir Philip Rutnam for 40 years. He was always impeccably neutral, diligent, intelligent, kind and of course loving. He was a giant among functionaries. No one had a bad word to say about him, nor could anyone resist his charms. Patel should be ashamed of herself.

I don't know either of them, so I'll just say that I'm inclining towards reserving judgement, with my natural pro-Priti instincts being balanced by Tom from Spiked's testimonial in favour of Sir Philip.

For those who are interested, here's BBC Newsnight policy editor Lewis Goodall and his take on things. He's strongly leaning to the side that thinks this is very bad for Priti Patel:

1. Can’t recall a resignation of a senior official quite like this. Potentially most serious is the oblique reference Rutnam makes towards the treatment of other staff...court case has the potential to be an embarrassing and long running sore for Patel and the govt.
2. Patel isn’t the first politician (not Home Secretary) to have had difficulties with Rutnam. That doesn’t mean, of course, that we were bound to end up here. Things appear to have stepped up several notches with the incumbent.
3. Sedwill will also have to oversee a replacement as Permanent Secretary. Patel will have to do her best to try and secure a replacement to her liking. For that person will be very powerful. One thing is for sure, she can’t afford to lose another Perm Sec/more officials.
4. Am struggling to understand the dual view, held by a some, who maintain a) Ruttnam’s resignation doesn’t matter because the public isn’t paying attention but b) think it’s a strategic triumph because it signals to the public Patel is super tough on Home Office issues.
5. Am told that Rutnam is not typical Home Office. More of an economist, in some ways not a natural fit there. But also, that there’s no way he would be bringing an action like this if he doesn’t think he’ll win. Depending on the details which emerge, could be devastating for Patel.
6. Source also tells me that though though some in Home Office were wary of Rutnam, this whole thing (and the way Home Sec has handled it) has potential to unite the dept against her. With little Spad support (denuded by Number 10) next few months promises to be v tricky for her. 

Update: Please see the comments below for proof of where I went embarrassingly wrong here! To quote Wallis Simpson: D'oh!

The will to live

Am I the only one who’s starting to think of death as a blessed relief? No. I’ve heard others saying something similar.

Two of the most depressing things I’ve seen recently. (In the interest of balance and fairness, the Guardian is in our sidebar.)

“We should completely close the borders … enough is enough”

This audience member says the number of people ’flooding in’ to the UK is costing public services too much. #bbcqt pic.twitter.com/T5EshhWqQu

— BBC Question Time (@bbcquestiontime) February 20, 2020

One. Owen Jones, supposedly railing against ‘hate’ The BBC normalised racism last night, pure and simple

‘Yet Question Time then saw fit to clip the 82 seconds of hate, accompanied by a succinct summary of the audience member’s rant. Lies and hatred, uncorrected and unchallenged, rippled across social media from the account of the BBC’s self-described “flagship political debate programme”

this, followed by a rant against the BBC for ‘allowing it’, a spittle-flecked reference to ”racist thug and convicted fraudster” Tommy Robinson and, in conclusion, something about a prime minister with a history of racism. All in all, an unadulterated outpouring of hate. Pure and simple. (oh for a  soupçon of self-awareness) 

and

Two: Marina Hyde, in the same publication, writing about Priti Patel’s ‘perma smirk’. It takes one to know one I suppose, but Marina’s perma-expression is more of a sneer than a smirk.

Those two examples of ‘left’ (for virtue) against ‘right’ (for vice) featured high in yesterday’s Guardian’s ‘most popular’ rankings. Incidentally, Matthew Parris has also had a go at Patel in the Times. I’m no particular fan of Priti Patel, and I know nothing of bullying within the Department for International Development, (how could I?) but I do know that her off-piste dealings with Israel showed a spark of independence and imagination that I admired at the time. Parris described this as ‘a monumental error”.  Typical.

Then there’s that intellectual giant and philosophical lyricist “Dave” whose brilliance and originality Is being so much admired.

The general downgrading of everything was encapsulated in a snippet on the Today programme within a conversation between Mishal Husain and Chris Mason (why?) extolling the virtues of regional accents.  There’s regional accents and there’s lazy, dumbed down, ungrammatical, illiterate patois.

Slightly consoling though, is the knowledge that Douglas Murray has written (in the Speccie) about the Beeb’s dumbed-down arts coverage How low can the BBC go? and Richard Morrison (in the Times)  The arts world is tolerant, as long as you’re left wing and anti-Brexit about the arts community’s wokeness and the new totalitarianism of the left. At least there are masses of appreciative responses.

They could almost restore the will to live.

BBC sort-of apologises on behalf of Andrew Marr

BBC Sort-of Apology time!

The Andrew Marr Show, BBC One, 13 October 2019

21 October 2019

Summary of complaint

We received complaints from people who felt that Andrew Marr suggested Priti Patel was laughing during their interview.

---

Our response

Guests who appear on the Andrew Marr show expect robust interviewing that includes back and forth between themselves and Mr Marr.

Andrew Marr commented on Priti Patel laughing after he glanced up while reading a list of business leaders concerned about the impact of Brexit on their industries. He thought he saw the Home Secretary smile but now accepts this was in fact her natural expression and wasn’t indicating amusement at his line of questioning.

There was no intention to cause offence and we are sorry if viewers felt this to be the case.

I did smile at the Summary, as if it's in the eye of the beholder whether Andrew actually suggested she was laughing when he said "I can't see why you're laughing" to her. 

And I see the apology isn't to Priti Patel herself but to "viewers" who "felt" there was an intention to cause offence.

Still it's a sort-of apology, and that's better than nothing. Probably.

'I can't see why you're laughing'-gate

Is Andrew laughing now?

I see that 'I can't see why you're laughing'-gate has gathered momentum throughout the day as more and more people react against Andrew Marr's unjust telling off of Priti Patel for "laughing". 

As I wrote this morning, she wasn't laughing. 

I watched and re-watched it before posting that, and she just wasn't doing what Andrew accused her of.

So what was she doing that so irked Andrew Marr into verbally manslapping a woman of colour? 

Well, as I also wrote this morning, she was just doing that thing she often does with her face while not talking. Is it a smirk, as her opponents claim, or a nervous thing, or just something she's always done and the natural resting place of her face while listening and politely engaging with people? 

(Whatever it is, I like it. I think it makes her look cute...Should I say that? Probably not.)

Still, it roused Andrew Marr to enough anger to say what he said to her in such a sharp, condemnatory tone. 

Others on Twitter are saying that it showed gross bias on Mr Marr's part in that she was the only one he seriously interrupted and was huffy towards. 

Well, yes, Priti Patel most certainly did get the toughest treatment today. Neither Becky Long-Bailey nor Nikki Sturgeon received such forceful treatment.

But, as ever, such things need to be balanced over time. Just because Priti Patel got the toughest treatment today doesn't prove bias.

Anyhow, I see that both Andrew and Rob Burley are (so far) maintaining radio silence on Twitter about it. Are they both thinking that Andrew got it badly wrong?

I hope so (as he did), and that they'll apologise to her.

It's the right thing for them to do.

No laughing matter

When not talking Priti Patel often wears an expression that some people think looks like a smirk. Those who don't like her often fling the word "smug" at her because of it. She was wearing it again while Andrew Marr was asking her a long question this morning. And he told her off for it mid-question:

Let's hear from those businesses directly then because a whole bunch of them...and I'll read them out: The Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the people who make and sell cars, the Chemical Industries Association, the Food and Drink Federation, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Aerospace Trade Industry body, a lot of people who are actually at the forefront of trying to make this country earn its place in the world sent a letter to the Government which I'll now read out part of to you, and they say that this proposal is "a serious risk to manufacturing competeness and will result in huge new costs and disruption to UK firms." I can't see why you're laughing. "It's got the potential to risk consumer and food safety and confidence, access to overseas markets for UK exporters and vital future investment in innovation in this country." That is a really serious challenge to this plan, is it not? 

She wasn't laughing though. 

Anyhow, it's won Andrew plenty of plaudits from the sort of people who usually spend their Sunday mornings slagging him off for being a Tory stooge:

• On #Marr Marr read out the concerns of No Deal to Pritti Patel & she started laughing. Marr was incensed & said why are you laughing.
• Andrew Marr reprimanded Priti Patel for smirking - or as he put it "I don't know what your laughing about" - when he started to ask about the predicted negative effects of No Deal Brexit. He's right - her smug gloating is most inappropriate.
• "I can't see why you're laughing" says #Marr to a smirking, intellectually challenged Priti Patel (whilst he was reading the genuine concerns of businesses). Brilliant.
• "I don't see why you're laughing". Nice one, Andrew.
• Well done #marr! Priti Patel with that arrogant smile told "I don't know why you're laughing" when listening to business leaders fears.

Update - Guido Fawkes isn't impressed:

Marr Falsely Attacks Patel for Laughing at Industry Warning https://t.co/MaLybwVbOZ pic.twitter.com/4xaiHTeuDS

— Guido Fawkes (@GuidoFawkes) October 13, 2019

A senior lecturer tweets

I know there are hundreds if not thousands of such foolish things every day but some just catch the attention more than others. 

Here, for example, is a tweet about tomorrow's Marr show line-up (Nicola Sturgeon, Priti Patel, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Meera Syal, Kate Proctor of the Guardian, Rachel Watson of the Scottish Daily Mail and the BBC's Sarah Smith):

To talk to idiots like Priti Patel is a waste of money, time and resources. BBC Politics should not waste its limited resources on disseminating nonsense.

And what kind of person condemns the BBC for interviewing the Home Secretary? Answer:  A Senior Lecturer at the University of Glasgow.

I really do worry for university students these days.

Harping on

On an old theme, probably harped by bards these days, today's Dateline London on the BBC News Channel was one of those editions where a right-leaning, pro-Brexit guest is let in and allowed to counter the programme's' usual, sometimes suffocating left-liberal, anti-Brexit bias. 

Today it was blog favourite Alex Deane. 

Alex - as ever on Dateline the doughty Christian in the lion's den - not only didn't get eaten but repeatedly bopped the three opposing lions on the nose as well. 

Our Alex, in a good way, never disappoints. 

One of those ravenous lions was another of our blog favourites, Nabila Ramdani. She never disappoints either - though in a less good way. 

Our Nabs went off on not just one but on several. Yes, the new Boris Johnson-led government, according to Our Nabs, is sinister, far-right, extreme, freaky, etc, etc. 

And she really, really, really had it in for Priti Patel. (Hmm. Wonder why? Is it cos Priti is right-wing and pro-Israel, or is it cos Priti is Hindu?). 

All of this said, I'm pleased to be able to say something wholly positive. Carrie Gracie is much, much better at chairing the programme than once-nice Gavin Esler. He was Change UK's spokesman on the BBC long before he left the BBC or before Change UK was even formed.

Colluding with a foreign government

The Priti Patel affair has left a nasty stench. Before they lost interest in it, fickle as usual, the BBC spent a few days frantically rationalising their own hysteria.  The gravity of Priti Patel’s misdemeanour was protested "too much" and amplified, as if this particular breach of ministerial code was unique and unforgivable and that’s all there was to it. 

Christian Fraser, talking to Katty Kay, spent quite a while explaining that this fuss has nothing to do with the fact, you understand, that the country in question was you-knew-where. This seemed a little outside their "Beyond 100 days" Trump-bashing remit. 

Had the country in question been, say, Uganda, Bolivia, Timbuctoo, Honolulu, Namibia or Kathmandu, the response would have been just the same, you’d better believe it. That was the gist - but is anyone at the BBC aware of the torrent of antisemitic bile that has been unleashed?

The Guardian’s live, minute-by-minute updates tracking the progress of Priti Patel’s plane journey home were pure “The Day Today”. They weren’t actually trying to be funny of course.

Melanie Phillips has another “must read” piece on this fiasco. Do click on the link and read it.

This piece by Seth Frantzen "ANATOMY OF A SCANDAL: THOUGHTS ON THE PRITI PATEL RESIGNATION AND ISRAEL" covers the whole event in some detail and contains some pertinent links to Twitter etc.  It made me wonder  who ‘leaked’ to James Landale and what was their intent?

“In a piece at Tablet Eylon Aslan-Levy asserts that “there isn’t an antisemitic undertone to the reporting. But the press spin of secret meetings, with questions about wealthy Jewish lobbyists helping Israel gain underhand influence over British policy, runs the risk of pushing some worrying buttons.” He goes on, “if the news cycle in Britain decides to drag this story on rather than jump to the next manufactured crisis, Britain’s Jewish community will be unnerved by what a bored punditocracy could do with such fecund material for a conspiracy.” Tom Gross has asserted in i24 that the ousting might be due to “undercurrents of anti-semitism.”

I’d really like to know who alerted James Landale to this business in the first place, and why. I’m not blaming the messenger you understand. Just curious. Was it someone in the FCO? Someone who knew it was the sort of thing the BBC would appreciate. “I saw this, and I thought of you”

“colluding with a foreign government”, Lord Falconer called it on the Today Programme aided and abetted by Nick Robinson. Compared with Robinson's recent hostile interview with  Tzipi Hotovely, he seemed quite benign here. He may have asked the right questions, but without much conviction, and he allowed Falconer to perpetuate some unpleasant antisemitic tropes, unchallenged.

From BBC Watch:

One of those items included a discussion (from 02:13:45 here) between presenter Nick Robinson, Conservative MP Crispin Blunt and former Labour politician Lord Falconer who accused Priti Patel of “colluding with a foreign government” and looking “like she’s much more the emissary of the Israeli government than a member of the British government”. 

When Robinson asked “if she’d told the Foreign Office would that have made it OK?”, Falconer painted a garish caricature of the actual story that went completely unchallenged by Robinson. 

Falconer: “I doubt it because the whole feel of the thing is that she – without officials, without telling anybody – which I think is one element only, was talking to them and instead of saying look I come with the British government’s view, I come with my own view. Let’s work out – the Israeli government and Miss Patel – how we can get assets out of the British government to help Israel. That does not look to me like the activity of a British government minister.” [emphasis added] 

Later on in the conversation (02:16:57) Nick Robinson posed the following question:
Robinson: “Isn’t part of a subtext here, Charlie Falconer, that some people dislike the fact that Priti Patel is pro-Israel? Maybe the Foreign Office dislikes that and that this is a particular case rather than a general one? You’ve even accused her of trying to raise money for a leadership bid.” 

Falconer: “Well I don’t know whether she’s doing that or not but I mean it obviously positions her well with those who are very pro-Israel, who would like to see a pro-Israel leader of either the Tory or the Labour party.” 

Clearly understanding Falconer’s insinuation, Robinson then made an observation that – in light of the BBC’s ‘Jewish lobby’ record – is worthy of note. 

Robinson: “I’ve got to put it to you, you know, there’ll be some people in the Jewish community listening to that and saying that’s the sort of paranoia about the Jewish community that is unacceptable.” 

Falconer: “It’s nothing to do with paranoia about any particular country or any particular group. You do not want a prime minister who is in hock to the United States of America. You do not want a prime minister who is in hock to any particular group.” 

“In hock” is defined as meaning “owing money to a person or organisation, or forced to do things for them because they have lent you money or have helped you”.
The conversation then moved on, with Robinson posing no further challenge to Falconer’s barely veiled promotion of the type of age-old tropes concerning scheming “pro-Israel” groups, governments, power and money that, until now, the BBC had over the last couple of years appeared to try to expunge from its content.  

The Secret Life of the FCO

I watched “The secret Life of 4-year-olds” last night. God know why. Mainly because the remote was out of reach and I couldn’t be bothered to get it. It’s supposed to be at once amusing and entertaining, but with a psychological edge. Info-tainment, I think they call it.

In fact it’s voyeuristic, pseudo scientific and pretty sadistic. Two psychologists secretly observe the children's reactions to a series of cruel stunts they’ve dreamt up,  then they (the experts) make simplistic and patronising observations about, e.g., a child’s inability to deal with disappointment. The kind of disappointment that no four year old would normally face, like being on a losing team. What fun.

I’m only writing this because it reminds me of the way team “politicians” and team ”journalists” have been behaving. 

61-year-old Theresa arguably means well, but she has completely messed up. She has woven a tangled web. No-one wants to play with her. Several team members have been very naughty, and won’t do as they’re told. It’s a shambles.

Most of the journalists are from the reception class. They don’t mean well, and haven’t learned to share yet, as they are still in a world of their own. They egg each other on with malicious gossip, and their immaturity means they are sometimes cruel and tribal.

Which brings me to last night’s Newsnight and the Priti Patel / Boris experiment. Can the BBC bring down the tories? 

Nick Watt, the ‘expert’  has all but abandoned his role as psychological analyst. He has been sucked in to the action and his eyes gleam with joyful malice as he talks with Evan.

Evan Davis got quite emotional. Nadhim Zahawi had to step in quickly to remind Evan that Israel was not an enemy state before poor Evan completely blew his top, but Evan is adamant. He thinks the issue is not necessarily about ministerial protocols, but about “misleading” the public, (oh, the irony) and he’s putting the blame for this squarely on Priti Patel. 

But here’s something revelatory that Evan should read. Breaking News:

First, long before James Landale’s scoop, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle was tipped off that there would soon be an announcement of cooperation between the UK and Israel over aid in Africa - that we would divert some of our aid money to the Israelis to fund some of their aid work there.

"It is a truism that with most scandals, the real fallout comes from the cover up."

Number Ten Knew About The Meetings!         Investigate that, James Landale. 

The secret life of the FCO, anyone?  

Protocols

Many of his colleagues are patting James Landale on the back for exposing a breach of ministerial code which seems to have prompted the imminent sacking of another member of the Conservative government. Well done James! And you did so with such relish!  

But as well as drawing attention to a violation of procedure, this investigative triumph has unleashed a Pandora’s box of bile.

Patel and Erdan

While Jeremy Corbyn hangs out at the Finsbury Park Mosque with his friends, prominent members of Hamas, James Landale’s ever-expanding revelations are currently facilitating an outpouring of  unadulterated, ignorance-fuelled hatred. Check out the comments section in the Indy for starters. 

Corbyn and Kozbar

I’m not saying that ministers should be allowed to ‘get away with’ breaches of protocol if it suits 'my' agenda. But unless we can be sure that Priti Patel’s breach is unique and unprecedented I’ll reserve judgement, and until I can be certain that all violations of protocol are consistently rooted out, quashed and tried by media whenever and wherever they have happened, I’ll keep quiet.

Priti pickle

Criticism of Priti Patel for her ‘holiday’ was all over the BBC yesterday, even partially eclipsing other  sensational news, and I couldn’t help wondering, like esteemed commenter “deegee”…..

……whether the BBC was being more antisemitic than was absolutely necessary. 

Needless to say, Tweets praising the merits of James Landale's investigative journalism  have attracted a predictable type of fly.

However, it seems that esteemed commenter “Pounce” has the low-down on the matter.

It truly was a matter of ministerial code. But did James Landale need to actually slavver over it?

Update.

Labour seems to think the way to get Jeremy Corbyn into Number Ten is to knock the Tory cabinet down one by one like skittles.

“Did she have any meetings on the Palestinian side because she of course will appreciate the importance, as a Middle East minister, of a wholly balanced approach to the ME peace process, not a one-sided one. 

[…] and if we had a PM who wasn’t so weak both (Priti+Boris) of them would have been sacked.

I’d love to know how many times a call for the “Israeli side to be heard” have been uttered by Ben Bradshaw when a member of his own party has brought up some Palestinian grievance or other in the house.