Things I don't want to see

Things I don’t want to see on TV (or read online or in the press.)

1) Do people really care what Boris Johnson did under the dinner table twenty years ago? Back then the killer look was an effective way of dealing with creepy things like that.

Norman Smith is in Manchester. He likes to use his own brand of flippancy to spin the news. He thinks Boris’s irrelevant, electioneering-motivated promises about 'busses' is sheer deflection from the far more serious matter of inappropriate thigh-squeezing. In the studio, Joanna Gosling jokes chummily, “He likes busses” 

If that ain’t Naga style editorialising I don’t know what is. 

Don’t you just hate it when people you quite like say really stupid things?

2) Take, for example, Brendan O’Neill. He’s written about Naga-gate over at the Spectator - You’ve probably read it by now. Everything he’s written is negated by his opening remark, which is that Trump’s abbreviated (quote-mined)  tweet was racist. Fortunately for my continuing sanity, most of the btl comments took him to task over this. 

To elucidate: Trump’s tweet was crude but he was trying to say to those dear ladies that they’re in no position to criticise. In playground language, “you can’t talk!” or, “If you can do any better, go ahead, let’s see you do it.” He sees their ‘holier than thou’ criticism of the US as disloyal and unAmerican. Simples.  And surely it’s not automatically racist to allude to someone’s geographical ‘ancestral’ origins nowadays, is it? 

3) Here’s another one. I really admire Rachel Riley for what she is doing to raise awareness of the alarming tsunami of antisemitism that’s sweeping the world. She’s putting her popularity, her beauty and intelligence to good use; making the best of her assets by devoting them to a worthwhile cause. 

However, I was disappointed to see that she too has used the Corbynista “all forms of racism” appendage in her anti-antisemitism speech at the Algemeiner  “J100 list” ceremony.

If you read her full speech you might notice that she alludes to people who have stood up against antisemitism, specifying: “Jews, Christians, Muslims. People of all faiths and people of none.” 

Fair enough if she’s praising religious and non-religious groups (including Muslims) who condemn hatred of Jews. But is she? it’s not clear whether she actually means ‘people who fight antisemitism’ or if she’s merely empathising with everyone who has suffered from ‘bigotry.’ 

Further on she declares her support for a bill in the UK Parliament to make online hate a criminal offence.

“….material that incites violence against women, against Muslims, indeed against any group they seek to target with their bile, to make them civilly and criminally liable for the content they recklessly allow to be published there.

This skates perilously near to blasphemy-law territory. I want her to at least acknowledge that much of the problem emanates from Islam. Rachel Riley came to the party surprisingly late in the day. She only noticed antisemitism after the “Enough is enough’ protests. So where was she during the 2014 anti-Israel crescendo? I may have got this wrong, but I can’t help being disappointed.

4) Criticism of the BBC. That’s another area that’s full of stupid stuff. Not only the ‘complaints from both sides’ meme - people saying the BBC is too right-wing - but eg., on rare occasions on our ‘sister’ blog when a commenter cites or links to an antisemitic website or makes a hideous, white-supremacist type of comment. The Biased-BBC comments field fills up fast, so the admin team (if there is such a thing) has its work cut out, but these things need to be flagged up so they could at least be challenged.

5) Last but not least, I’m puzzled by the fact that so many erudite and knowledgeable writers and bloggers who are brave enough to criticise Islam and the Islamisation of the West are terrified of being associated in any way with the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley Lennon. 

He’s working-class, and self-educated (to a pretty remarkable degree) on the subject of Islam. He’s reckless, impulsive and can be his own worst enemy, but I can’t quite work out whether he’s earned the disdain of people I admire merely because of class prejudice or for some other reason beyond my ken. After all, some of these people have been on ‘journeys’ themselves - commonly from the political left to the right rather than from skinhead to the Oxford Union if you see what I mean. But a journey is a journey. 

So, these are five examples of the things I don’t want to see on TV or read online. Maybe this post itself is something you don’t want to read either; but if you have been reading, 'thanks for your time' as they say on TV,  and be thankful that I’ve only got up to number five.

Egg on face

Also appearing on the episode of Politics Live with James Cleverly, (Wed 6th March) was a youthful Corbynista named Lara McNeill with the typical Momentum style, back-of-the-throat delivery. Non-stop, strident and assertive.  Politics Live seems to include someone from Momentum or someone edgy from Novara Media in almost every episode, to drone on about austerity as if that policy was nothing to do with the profligacy of the ‘welfare state’ "no money left" Labour government.

I mention this chiefly because despite obviously spending a great deal of time on Twitter Lara McNeill still believed Rachel Riley really called Jeremy Corbyn a Nazi. (Until someone explained it to her during the programme) What does that say about her ability to comprehend the written word?

It’s a long story, but the saga concerning Owen Jones’s egg-throwing hypocrisy has left a trail of unfortunate misunderstandings and a possible court case pending. 

Rachel Riley, noticing his inconsistent approach to egg throwing - it’s fine to throw eggs at Nick Griffin the Nazi - but not ok to throw one at Corbyn the antisemite - reTweeted Owen’s own Tweet  

about the Nick Griffin incident back at him:

“Oh I think an egg was thrown at him actually.
I think sound life advice is, if you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi. Seems fair to me.”

She did this to remind him of his initial response to eggs, by reTweeting it and simply adding:

“Good Advice”. 

Anyone who can read should be able to see that Rachel Riley is clearly highlighting Owen Jones’s hypocrisy. Surely?

Wrong!! It’s Twitter!! People will not understand what you mean! People will read that and assume something entirely different. They will read that to mean Rachel Riley has actually called Jeremy Corbyn a Nazi!!!!

One who misunderstood it in such a way was Laura Murray, daughter of Trade Union Corbynista and member of Corbyn’s inner circle, Andrew Murray. 

From the Times (£)

“Andrew Murray, an influential aide in Mr Corbyn’s office, is a longstanding communist activist who became chief of staff to Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite trade union, in 2011. He is Britain’s most senior unelected union official.”

Daughter Laura was one of the first to leap to the conclusion that  Rachel Riley has called Corbyn a Nazi, and naturally barged straight ahead and Tweeted the accusation.  However, on realising her mistake she deleted not only the tweet but her whole Twitter account. 

To add insult to injury, Ms Murray has been appointed onto a Labour Party board and now has the power to determine the fate of members accused of antisemitism.  You know, making sure they're let off and stuff like that. Jeremy Corbyn, or whoever authorised that appointment has a lot to answer for. Grovelling apologies, anyone?

From Guido Fawkes

“Jeremy Corbyn’s adviser Laura Murray (daughter of literal communist Andrew Murray)
is being sued by Rachel Riley for libelling her yesterday on Twitter. Murray has today been moved by the Labour Party from being “Stakeholder manager to Leader of the Opposition” to providing support to the party’s complaints department. You couldn’t make it up… 

Nice for Jewish people to know that the complaints team is now advised by someone who lied about a Jewish woman on Twitter, and after thousands of retweets then decided to delete her entire Twitter account in shame. Looks like she will have a serious complaint in herself to be dealing with first…”

From the Jewish Chronicle:

Good advice. 🌹 pic.twitter.com/oqr0UNFrxU

— Rachel Riley (@RachelRileyRR) March 3, 2019

Nice getting to know who’s libelling you better. Laura Murray “Stakeholder manager to Leader of the Opposition at Labour Party”. Lovely. https://t.co/11cMoNCIIZ

— Rachel Riley (@RachelRileyRR) March 4, 2019

Missing story

I see staggering news that Countdown's Rachel Riley has been given extra security in the light of her stand against antisemitism, especially in Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party. I see that from countless news outlets online, including Sky News, The Guardian, the i, The Sun, The Times, The Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Express, The Daily Star, METRO, The Evening Standard, etc. For some reason though the BBC News website hasn't shown any interest in the story, so far. Why not?

My supernatural powers

The supernatural means by which I cause harm or destruction (I think I mentioned them in my previous) are manifesting indirectly, via the pen of Rod Liddle.

Once again Rod has written a piece after my own heart. Following his preamble about Diane Abbott, which I must have accidentally transmitted to him brain-to-brain during the fallout from last week’s Question Time, he dived (dove(?)) straight in with a litany of stuff about Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad.

It’s obvious that I transmitted this to Rod Liddle in the form of demonic telepathic messages, or why else would his piece deal with matters I’ve thought about, nay, mentioned myself?

One of which is Tom Watson’s attempted intervention in the Malaysian government’s ban on Israeli swimmers coming into the county to compete in a Paralympics event they’re hosting, as well as the antisemitic nature of Malaysia in general. (I must say Tom Watson is looking a little perkier in the illustration above Rod’s piece than in the pre-weight-loss image HuffPo chose to use.) 

[Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad] “has described Jews as ‘hook-nosed’ and commented that they understand money instinctively, meanwhile denying that six million Jewish people were killed in the Holocaust and insisting that Israel should have no right to exist. Nor does he have much time for the concept of anti-Semitism, per se. He told a BBC journalist: ‘Anti-Semitic is a term that is invented to prevent people from criticising the Jews for doing wrong things.’ He said Jews, you will note — not Israel. 

(I was curious as to how the BBC journalist in question responded to that idea.)

But then the country, with its Muslim majority population, is steeped in anti-Semitism.”

Readers! That’s the content of my telepathic message, ‘word-for-word’!! It’s so comforting to know that one’s demonic, supernatural powers are still in good order. 

The below the line responses to Rod’s piece are nearly all sympathetic. What a turnaround from  - well, not so very long ago - when the space below any article about Jews or antisemitism would be chock-a-block with ignorant comments from bigots and racists. And I do mean in the Spectator (and the Times and Telegraph) as well as their ancestral home, the Guardian, where that sort of antisemite permanently squats.

It’s due to attractive people speaking out that people are beginning to wake up and smell the coffee.

Rachel Riley has also been writing in the Spectator. Her beauty and intelligence give her a huge advantage. People will sit up and take notice of what she has to say, so lucky, lucky, lucky her. But not lucky enough to be immune from the tsunamis of antisemitic bile for which social media is renowned.

In the name of Labour, I’ve been called a hypocrite, lying propagandist, teeth, tits and ass, clothes-horse dolly-bird, weaponiser of anti-Semitism, fascist, right–wing extremist, Nazi sympathiser, Twitter-cancer, thick, Tory, brainwashed, an anti-Semite, white-supremacist, Zio-political trollster, not a real Jew, a child bully, bonkers mad conspiracy theorist, a paedo-protector minion puppet whom my dead grandfather would be disgusted by.

I read the transcript of the HoC debate “That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day 2019”,  a motion brought by Ian Austin MP.

There were some moving speeches, but to me, the occasion was somewhat marred by the obligatory ‘inclusiveness’ that political correctness has forced into this commemoration. Yes, there have been other genocides, but the Holocaust was unique. It was preceded by an unstoppable tide of antisemitism, which polluted and overwhelmed civilised society. A prolonged process of demonisation and delegitimisation, all based on lies and conspiracy theories, which culminated in an industrialised programme of extermination. 

No. Don’t dilute the memory with “and other atrocities”. The Jewish Holocaust was unique and deserves its own dedicated commemoration.  And antisemitism is not the same as Islamophobia.

The BBC hasn’t been helpful. Over the years it has added to the palpable hostility one can detect in the atmosphere. (Supernatural powers not necessary.)

Ways to Change the World

This is about ITV and Channel Four. Turn away now if you’re exclusively interested in bias on the actual BBC.

Did anyone see Rachel Riley and Krishnan Guru-Murthy: the Podcast  “Ways to Change the World” ?

She’s clever and pretty and she’s not afraid to swear at George Galloway on Twitter. What’s not to like?

 The first thing that struck me here was that she was extraordinarily late in the day in becoming - may I use the word ‘woke’? (i.e., alert to injustice in society, especially racism.) I mean, how disappointing was it to discover that she has existed (I assume) within the Metropolitan bubble for at least ten years, yet until the Jewish community got its act together and took some concerted, high profile action, she knew zilch about the media’s relentless bias against Israel or the antisemitism in the Labour party?

But there you go.  Her personality + brains + beauty are invaluable assets for publicly raising awareness; and who knew the glamorous mathematician from Countdown possesses a fully functioning Jewdar? 

What we did hear, loud and clear, was Krishnan G-M’s appalling ignorance. Of course, one expects him to take a pro-Palestinian / anti-Israel stance in accord with Channel Four’s remit, but publicly displaying (and hence perpetuating) his core ignorance of the topic under discussion is (should be) a huge embarrassment to himself.

He tries to expound on the ‘difference’ between anti-Zionism and antisemitism and pretends to be playing Devil’s advocate. But Rachel Riley, as a beginner  - a newcomer to the subject - is ill-equipped to make the strong rebuttal that this particularly foolish “Devil” deserves. 

“I’m having to have so much knowledge that I didn’t have before, to combat it” she declares.

She insists that Israel is necessary as ‘somewhere for Jews to go’ should the need arise, to which Guru-Murthy counters that the Palestinians shouldn’t have had to be “displaced” for this to happen.

“As you know, people on the there side will say it is not racist to say Israel shouldn’t exist because all I’m saying is …. they (are saying)…it was wrong to displace the Palestinians; we should go back to a pre 1948 situation and that means the modern state of Israel doesn’t exist, that doesn’t make me….I’m not hating a people, I’m not hating Jews, I’m just saying that state, you know, is an unjust state … let’s go back to before it existed.”

In the eyes of this particular devil’s advocate, Israel’s Jews are simply interlopers in “Palestinian Land” - and violent and aggressive with it.  Perhaps the Naz Shah remedy would satisfy Mr G-M. Of course, nowadays even the United States is beginning to look a lot less like the safe haven for Jews it might once have been. Antisemitism is rife on campus, and now in congress too.  

It’s pretty shocking that Krishnan Guru-Murphy invites a guest to discuss a frought topic on film and doesn’t even bother to gen up beforehand.

Sarah Baxter has written about this in the Sunday Times. (£)

Riley was inspired to speak out on Twitter after the Jewish community protested against Labour anti-semitism outside parliament last spring. “Jews complaining about anti-semitism in 2018?” she wondered. “This is a bit odd.” 

As she explained on a Channel 4 podcast last week: “There were moments when my mouth was on the floor about Holocaust denial.” With a Jewish mother — and, she laughed, a “Manchester United father” — she was horrified by the level of abuse she received from Corbyn supporters.
“This is what Jeremy Corbyn is inspiring,” she said. “You can’t say anything against [him] without getting shot down.” The hard-left fan site Skwawkbox falsely repeated smears accusing Riley of “meeting” Jacob Rees-Mogg for talks about her “potential political future”, a piece of nonsense designed to discredit her.

By her enemies you shall know her. Riley also attracted the wrath of George Galloway, leader of the so-called Respect Party, after he was kicked out of Labour. He was incensed by her attack on the intellectual guru of the far left, Noam Chomsky, who had previously defended a French Holocaust denier. “Dumbfounding,” Galloway tweeted. “She calls Chomsky . . . an anti-semite and slanders half the Labour Party as the same.”
To which Riley replied with a simple four-letter expletive: “F*** off George Galloway.” If only Corbyn would do the same.”

Ms Baxter also mentioned Fiona Bruce’s debut Q.T. 

Personally, I thought Fi was pretty ineffectual as a chairperson. Rather than facilitating free and fair debate, I thought she took a bit of a liberty in exploiting her position. Rather than letting the panellists get on with it, she kind of ‘joined in’ and took on the argument with each panellist herself. Some would call her approach ‘interventionist’. 

I don’t know if that’s what’s required of a chairperson. I’d prefer the chair to be a non-interventionist with the ability to allocate time between members of the panel fairly, sensitively and intelligently. 

Several commenters online remarked that Melanie Phillips wasn’t given much space. However, she made good use of the window she was given, slapping down the obnoxious comedian, Nish Kumar. No-one knows why he was there. Since this was meant to be a ‘fresh look’ at the programme, how about abandoning the role of rogue, comedy guest altogether.?