We should have known better

“How do you balance the rights of people convicted of Islamist terrorism with the rights of us all to walk safely on the streets?  

wonders Justin Webb.) Today Programme (at 7:32 am)

“The balance at the moment to most people feels wrong and the government is proposing emergency legislation including extending the sentences of people currently in prison rather than applying those rules only to those convicted in the future. Lady Chakrabarti is on the line.  Baroness Chakrabarti is the shadow attorney general. Good morning.”

I won't transcribe the rest of the interview verbatim because lengthy transcripts can be a bit meh, and anyway Shami is a hesitant, stuttering, stammering nightmare for a verbatim transcriber. Justin suggests that the new legislation will mean indefinite detention for future jihadis convicted of terrorism.

Baroness Chakrabarti says she isn’t quite sure but she doesn’t think that is what they're saying.

“I may of, I may of - misunderstood…..”I might be wrong about that, forgive me  …“my understanding is that  the government is saying that automatic early release should be replaced with discretionary release in the hands of the parole board…..”This seems quite sensible to me”

It’s her hesitancy that I’d like to get across, because to my jaded ears all this hesitancy and stuttering sounds like gratuitous ‘even-handedness’. As if she’s trying to be fair to the Islamists and Jihadis in a weird attempt to look ‘not right-wing’. 

What is this? Don’t tell me Shami “forgive me” Chakrabarti is afraid of appearing Islamophobic to the hard-lefty Momentomistas? She continues with something like this:

“I think, I think that we need to understand, that what we call Terror Offences could be a very wide range of offences, staring with um, um putting a few pounds in a collection box for an organisation that you say you thought was charitable but actually, um, was thought by others to be a, a, a terrorist organisation overseas, it could include, again at a lower end, accessing materials, um, that are literature, for example. Then of course, you get into offences that are preparing for a-a-a substantive acts of violence and terrorism all the way into um being actively involved in a plot -  it’s a broad range of offences; there are also people who may be a danger who’ve been convicted of things that aren’t even terror offences, but are thought of as, as, as a risk, and there are and there are people who are not even convicted of anything…

“So you're saying that…” interjects Justin.

“…..potentially unjust but also difficult, difficult to do,” 

she continues, and she goes on to explain how overcrowded our prisons are and how people get radicalised while they’re inside.

Of course, she’s right about the government’s sabre-rattling, all talk and no ‘do’ approach, and the fact is that our prisons are in a sorry state. (Overcrowded, underfunded and worst of all run by violent Islamist inmates who intimidate prisoners and staff alike - even some of the prison imams are terrified of them.)

However, I’m going to say that at the heart of our current problems is Islamisation in general. It’s like the innate problem with nice stuff. Everyone wants a bit of it, but in the process of acquiring it, it ceases to be nice. It’s like tourism, ruining the very paradise that makes people want to go there. That’s Britain, that is. A country that used to be known for tolerance and prosperity, but its popularity as a destination is the very cause of its downfall. In the true spirit of ‘you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone’ we shouldn’t have imported so many Muslims all in one go. We should have known that the choice was to absorb or to be absorbed. We seem to have chosen the latter. Oh woe.

"Terrorists who will soon be freed from jail" (The Telegraph)

This brings me to Melanie Phillips. Recently Melanie Phillips got herself into trouble for writing an article that failed to exonerate ‘moderate Muslims’ enough to avoid falling foul of the knee-jerk McCarthyite witch-hunters who constantly lie in wait to catch out and condemn unwary Islamophobes with their pants down. Woe betides anyone who carelessly commits Islamophobia.

In today's article by Melanie Phillips in The Times:  Britain is losing the fight against extremism The authorities are wrong to think that the power of reason is enough to rehabilitate fanatics she shows signs that ‘lessons have been learned.’ 

The following ‘terms and conditions’ type paragraph from the piece that I’ve reproduced below is a little longer than the one-line qualifier she included in her earlier piece, (Of course, true prejudice against Muslims should be condemned, just like prejudice against Hindus, Sikhs or anyone else.) This morning the aforementioned qualifier goes:

“Within the Muslim world there are different interpretations of Islam, some of which are peaceful and apolitical. And it should never be forgotten that Muslims are the most numerous victims of Islamist extremism. In Britain, many are cultural Muslims with scant interest in religion at all.

Nevertheless, she still bravely risks being dismissed as a ‘phobe with a fairly hard-hitting piece, although in truth it’s little more ‘phobic than other pieces on the same topic in the same newspaper. Of course, Nazir Afzal can hardly be dismissed as an Islamophobe, can he?  Streatham terror attack: extremists can be deradicalised but it takes resources  

Then, why not take another look at Ian Acheson’s article. London Bridge attack: I told ministers we were treating terrorist prisoners with jaw-dropping naivety. Did they listen? Another villain who’s been banging his head against a brick wall for yonks.

I’m afraid we’re all banging our heads against brick walls.  Or maybe it’s just me. I’ve written about this over and over again. It doesn’t make any difference - this is seriously deja vu all over again. (Have you heard the one about John Reid, as Home Secretary, telling a former Christian prison chaplain to “ ‘eff off”?  The chaplain had organised a personal meeting with Reid to complain about having been hounded out of his post by bullying prison Imams. 

“eff off indeed!  Well, I’ve mentioned it on this blog before and you can tell how long ago this happened (around 2006)

So, why do we allow extreme pressure from the left in general (and especially from Baroness Chakrabarti and her ilk, and from all and sundry in the media) to hobble our freedom to say what we think, and to censor us so very egregiously? Perhaps the imaginary (or real) unhinged-and-volatile masses who are always poised, ready and waiting for some tenuous excuse to go-on-the-rampage, is the reason. Or the imminent ‘backlash’ against the Muslim community that somehow never seems to happen. Is that it?

Perhaps these are the obstacles that persuade the most eloquent voices to condemn or to distance themselves from ‘persona non grata’ or ‘non-person’ Tommy Robinson, who knows a thing or two about prisons and radicalisation. After all, they're saying virtually the same things, albeit with different ways of saying them. Melanie Phillips delivers her message with refined and carefully considered language, whereas Tommy Robinson (otherwise known as S Y-L ) drops his ’t’s and gets all het-up and swears a lot. It’s only the swearing that made me think twice about putting his video up rather than linking to it here. 

I don’t mind swearing one little bit, but that might be because I’m not as well brought up as you are.

Hmm. You’re not going to de-radicalise anyone by pulling your punches. I don’t know exactly what I mean by that, but I ain’t bothered. I’m saying it anyway. We should have known better.

Forgive and forget

The BBC has (long) forsaken its loyal admirers in pursuit of its irredeemably unrequited love for woke youth. Ain’t gonna happen.

Not for the first time - I’ve said it before and I’m still saying it - ‘just like Marks and Sparks.’ And look what’s happening to that! Soon the Beeb will just have to rely on ‘food’. (Which, in a way, it already does)

I wonder what would happen if we were paid for blogging? I wonder how that would affect our output?  (I mean apart from my monthly stipend from Mossad) 

The fambley might appreciate it - it might even ameliorate some of the resentment one gets for time-wasting. Which is, after all, what I‘ve been doing for the last twelvty years.  Saying the same old stuff.  This must be what your careworn school-teacher, wedded to a wretched curriculum, feels like - oh dear, another new year - ‘nother new intake - here we go again, again.


I wouldn’t want to do this for a wage. That would oblige me to up-my-game. As it is, I’ll stick to the level of game to which I’ve become accustomed and the level of game that entitles me to make relatively trivial and bitchy observations.

(Hailstones now! Bloody global warming!)

Did anybody catch an interview with some chap recently - d’you know, I can’t actually remember who it was, but whoever-he-was kept saying ‘Look!” He peppered every utterance with the word ‘look’ - so much so that I began counting instead of listening to what he was trying to say (if anything.) 

Commanding one to ‘look’ every few seconds is quite patronising. It’s a kind of plea that implies one’s audience is incapable or unwilling to see reason - unlike Mr Reasonable who's 'splaining it to us.


A similar category of plea/command was evident in last night’s Question Time. It came in the form of a repetitive verbal-tic. An unintentionally revealing verbal-tic at that. Can you guess what it is yet? 

From Shami, the one who should be ashamed of herself for what she did. You know, the thing that no-one from the Beeb’s over-stuffed stable of aggressive, adversarial, 'devil’s advocate' interviewers has ever held her to account for.  

If she said it once she said it a hundred times. “Forgive me, but…” That’s it! She peppered her every utterance with it.

No, actually. I won't,  if that’s all the same to you. Whitewashing the antisemitism in the Labour Party is one thing. Taking a Baroness-ship is another. But continuing to show her annoying little face without an apology or a ‘sorry I got it all wrong” is really beyond the pale and quite unforgivable. The BBC is equally remiss for letting her come onto Q.T. and various other BBC political platforms as if nothing had happened. Her appearance is at once shamefaced and smug. How can you emote self-pity and self-righteousness all at the same time?

She’s got forked earlobes. I might as well mention that while I’m about it. Forked earlobes and, forgive me, a little ‘tache.

Pheeww! (OPEN THREAD)

A few observations, but please make allowances for someone who only managed about four hours sleep. 

Thank you for a lively open thread.  (You may use this as a new one if you like)

The magic has deserted the grandpa. The full pronunciation of ‘Party’ has resumed; Jeremy's ’T’ has been restored to its rightful place. He probably deduced that pandering to glottal-stopping troops was a waste of time if they’re going to just turn on him and kick him when he’s down.

Although I wouldn’t class Lisa Nandy and Lucy Powell as particularly disloyal, or Corbynista troops -  not by a long chalk - but don’t forget, they would have stood by him if Labour hadn’t been thoroughly trounced.  

Both of them publicly turned on him this morning, albeit in measured tones.  Lucy Powell said he could have shown some contrition and taken responsibility for Labour’s failure. He didn’t. He was irritable and he doubled down on the weaknesses in his campaign with remarkably stubborn intransigence. Sulky and, what’s the opposite of magnanimous? Mean-spirited?

I was sorry that Caroline Flint lost her seat. She was magnanimous. That's the way to do it.

What will happen next?

Where will all the antisemitism go? It’s out of the bottle and it can’t go back.

Let’s see how the BBC will adjust. Will they pretend they weren't institutionally hostile to the Tories all along?

Look at "ex-BBC" Paul Mason! I think he's completely lost touch with reality. Yet the BBC once employed him as a BBC economics expert. Look at shifty Shami Chakrabarti. She's been interviewed by the BBC's finest a few times since 'the whitewash'. Yet she wasn't even challenged on the fiasco of a report that earned her a peerage.

 But, hey. Pheewwww!

Disaster Sunday

I think Andrew Marr has gawn off his trolley. Where are the mental health services when you need them? It started badly, with the Guardian's Helen Pidd preemptively admonishing us to insist that the London Bridge ‘incident’ shouldn’t be politicised - as if terrorism in the name of Allah isn’t inherently political.

    

In his “Making us feel proud” post, Craig transcribes Marr’s weirdly ambiguous intro, which lays itself open to being taken out of context, fiddled with and misconstrued for our entertainment. 

If I were as badly behaved as the media and took things out of context and fiddled with their intended messages, I’d seriously query why a lethal act of terrorism should make us feel proud of where we live. Of course, we know what he meant. He was proud of the ‘have a go’ British public who tackled the soldier of Allah with a tusk and a fire extinguisher. Not that that's anything to do with where we live.

I think everyone in their right mind would agree that this was a car crash of an interview. In fact, the whole programme was a disaster. I’d say Andrew Marr emerged from the car crash with the more serious injuries.

As far as Boris is concerned, he might try pitting the efficacy and wisdom of attacking one's opponent against enthusiastically promoting the merits of one's own policies.  As far as I’m concerned, both party leaders are wrong on this. 

The Labour Party wastes considerable energy slagging off ‘Tory Toffs’, which just shoves the politics of envy into the spotlight. Not a good look. Yes, we know all about the class war, which nowadays comes across as dated and uninspired; concentrating on their fantastical spending spree, that’s where most Labour votes will come from, sad to say.

It might be necessary for the Conservatives to slag off Labour’s economic naivety, its racism, hypocrisy and downright nastiness, but arguably that would be would be best left to others. It doesn’t sit well with Boris somehow. I imagine he’s been advised to treat the public as a bit thick and is primarily trying to hammer home the folly of falling for Labour’s bribery and corruption, but we need to hear much more of the Conservative Party’s positives from Boris. What are they, apart from getting something done?

I wonder how Andrew Marr is feeling this afternoon? And the producers of the show? Do they think it went well? Do they think it was effective or even wise to let Marr talk over the PM, prevent him from speaking and to reiterate accusations about ‘ten years’ over and over? It reached new levels of appalling. The complaints will be pouring in to BBC HQ - how will they respond? Will they respond?

Why didn’t Marr mention anything about “ten years ago” - or even ten months ago - to the smug little Baroness? Yes, she was there to discuss the question of sentencing, but the elephant in the room was so pungent that even if Marr couldn’t see it he must have caught a whiff of the stench. Baroness Whitewash, what did you think of the Chief Rabbi’s intervention in the 'non-existent' antisemitism question?

I bet you a fiver she got the BBC to sign a ‘don’t mention the war’ clause before agreeing to appear. 

IAASAC (It’s all a smear against Corbyn)

Have you tried to follow the BBC’s heavily over-promoted series “Line of Duty”? I found it unwatchable due to the unconvincing plot, unsympathetic characters, stilted acting and those interminable acronyms. (‘Tell us what you really think”, I hear you say.)

If you’re into acronyms, I give you CAABU (Council for Arab-British Understanding) and CEPR (Council for European Palestinian Relations.) (The latter set doubles up as “Centre for Economic Policy Research.”) 

The first two acronyms stand for lobbying groups that act on behalf of Arab causes. They lay on parliamentary jaunts to various trouble spots in the Middle East. Ostensibly sightseeing and information-gathering trips. The sights they’re shown are selectively orchestrated in order to persuade our MPs to take on the anti-Israel crusade and bring it on back home. 

If you care to tap CAABU into ITBB’s search engine, it will bring up many pages of tagged posts dating back to the era of lengthy and somewhat convoluted articles, which probably bored the pants off you. 

"Caabu works with politicians, conducting in-depth parliamentary briefings and situation up-dates on the Middle East, in addition to taking politicians to the region. Caabu organises public and private meetings to raise awareness and tackle important issues in the Arab world. Caabu has also taken on a strong educational and media role. In 1967 a public opinion poll showed that 98% of the British people knew little or nothing about the Arab world and negative stereotypes about the region and Arabs were commonplace in the media. [...] Challenging anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia, has remained at the heart of Caabu’s work not least with the rise of hate crimes, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment.

Caabu is a non-profit organisation funded by donations and membership fees."

"The CEPR focuses on taking parliamentary delegations to the Middle East while meeting with Hamas leadership in the area. In 2010 the CEPR was involved in taking a large number of European parliamentarians to the Gaza Strip and Egypt on the anniversary of 'Operation Cast Lead’. The delegation, the biggest ever to Gaza, was led by British Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman and included over 50 parliamentarians 13 European countries. The visit included meetings with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas,[2] Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Secretary General of the Arab League Amr Moussa."

 Craig has buried his important post ‘Huge news’ underneath (his own) avalanche but it’s still gasping for air and I’m having a go at reviving it; flask of brandy at the ready.

Brought to you by Hamas

“Well, whatever else you might say about the Guido Fawkes website it can still do some decent digging.
Today's Guido exclusive lays out the evidence that Jeremy Corbyn faked the figures to avoid declaring his wreath-laying trip to Tunisia.
Guido also notes that his trip was funded by the Council for European Palestinian Relations.
What Guido doesn't mention though is who the CEPR are. They are Hamas's representative in Europe.
This strikes me as a huge story. Wonder if the BBC will think so too?”

Well, obviously not. It’s all very well for the magic grandpa to be mired in that boring old, yawn-inducing, yesterday’s old-hat dodgy MPs expenses story - but having your hols subsidised by Hamas? That’s another thing altogether. It should be huge. 

Yes, we know gramps calls Hamas his friends, and we can see that the term ‘friend’ could be interpreted in a million multifaceted gradations of grey, but Hamas is a terrorist organisation dedicated to the eradication of Israel even if it has to pay-to-slay every Jew, one by one. Funded by us.

When Craig posted the front page of the Times on this blog last night at about 10:30pm, I searched the BBC’s website for their usual display of forthcoming newspaper front pages. Oddly, at the time, there was no sign of the Times at all, only the Telegraph and a few of the tabloids. I’m assuming Craig took the image off Twitter. (?) However, it did pop up on the website eventually in all its glory.

 Having minimised the topic during the Marr show, (since it was splashed all over the front of The Times, the way Andrew Marr and the reviewers all but ignored the subject was more conspicuous than ever) later in the day the BBC found an agreeable (to them) angle on the story. They made a great big deal out of a ‘Muslim and Jewish women’s conference', thereby equating antisemitism with Islamophobia, a concept is so far from reality that it’s an absolute disgrace that the BBC is still trying it on. 

The BBC has also been treating us to snippets from  Shami Chakrabarti’s cringe-worthy performance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge show. 

Sky seems able to secure far more relevant interviewees than Marr manages to tempt onto the set these days - despite the fact that Ridge is such a hopeless interviewer. Her questioning is flabby, superficial and altogether unconvincing, and what’s with that squinting, screwing up the eyes thing? Intermittent short-sightedness? Or is it meant to indicate scrutiny? Deep, probing scrutiny?

Anyway, for your un-enjoyment, here’s Shami equating antisemitism with Islamophobia and “all racism” and begging us not to “personalise” it.

Shami Chakrabarti says she spoke to Shadow Business Secretary Rebecca Long Bailey last night and "so far our impression is that Theresa May has not moved an inch on her red lines" #Ridge.

Get live updates on today's political stories here: https://t.co/q2DW9wNbzD pic.twitter.com/J4M03Cmrud

— Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) April 7, 2019

Corbynistas everywhere are fighting back. In the tradition of “It’s all a smear against Corbyn", they’re saying that the whole thing has been dredged up simply to deflect from the fact that “Labour is leading in the polls”.

Don't mention it

Shall we mention Shami Chakrabarti now? Andrew Marr completely forgot to mention antisemitism. It must have just slipped his mind. 

At first Shami did that eyes-to-the-sky thing that Diane Abbott does. It’s her ‘thinking’ expression. They’re waiting for inspiration from above. But she soon settled in and got into her stride. 

Labour's Baroness Chakrabarti says the internet can not continue to be an "ungoverned space" after the Christchurch attacks #Marr https://t.co/xw1VqvY3E7 pic.twitter.com/6iXpC9oxwj

— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 17, 2019

Labour's Baroness Chakrabarti says Jeremy Corbyn has shown more leadership on #Brexit than Theresa May #Marr https://t.co/lJpkUkMdDC pic.twitter.com/8qoPdOF6ln

— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 17, 2019

"Aspects of it have left many British Muslims feeling othered and spied upon"

Speaking about Islamophobia in Britain, Shadow Attorney General Shami Chakrabarti says aspects of the government's terrorism-prevention programme Prevent needs to be "reviewed and reformed" #Marr pic.twitter.com/6CdaU72Y5k

— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 17, 2019

I didn’t see the Newsnight that caused the controversy, so here it is in case you didn’t see it either.

Oh. I now see that the offending passage was the contribution from the leader of “Generation Identity”.

This person was declaring his group’s fundamental opposition to the use of violence at all times and in all circumstances, as well as its opposition to Islam, which they believe is incompatible with western countries.

I daresay they’re antisemitic as well, I don’t know. Didn’t the terrorist say his role-model was Oswald Moseley?

Perhaps it was mainly the insensitivity of the particular timing of Newsnight’s airing, “the same day as the atrocity” but these are the views that Shami and her co-Islamophiles think should be no-platformed.

I did see Jeremy Corbyn on the Sophy Ridge programme.  My mind had drifted off, but my ears pricked up when I caught him uttering the phrase “5 Pillarz”. He wasn’t advertising that particular website though  - it was the name he’s given to some new fangled Labour policy related to Brexit.

Andrew didn't intend anything more

Continuing with Newswatch...

And Andrew Marr got it in the neck for his "Don't try and patronise me" outburst at Shami Chakrabarti on last Sunday's Andrew Marr show. Apparently "many" people had objected to his behaviour. Including Patrick Edwards: 

I think she was going to go on to explain that as a democrat she accepted the will of the people and would therefore support Britain leaving the EU. Before she could say all of this, Andrew Marr interrupted her saying, "don't patronise me, I'm as much of a democrat as you are". He said it in such an aggressive tone, I was shocked. You could see Baroness Chakrabarti was really taken aback too but, somehow, she recovered her composure and the interview carried on. My feeling is that Marr would never have spoken to her in this way if she'd been a man. Any man would have punched him or walked off the set. Hopefully, Andrew will reflect that he went too far and apologise for his outburst on this Sunday's show. In this era of #MeToo and calls for gender equality, I think he was way offbeam.

Now, I have to say that though I'm a man I would not have punched him or walked off the set, despite Patrick's confident assertion that "any man" would have done such things.

Still, will there be an apology? Well, Samira said "there was no apology from BBC News when we asked them for their response". (Well, blow me down with a wren's feather!)

This was the BBC's statement (short and not-so-sweet I'd say!):

Andrew didn't intend anything more than robust questioning and contacted Shami Chakrabarti afterwards to make this clear.  

Hmm.

Another Tale of Two Andrews

Being called 'Andrew' and working at the BBC probably hasn't been much fun recently. Our two favourite BBC 'Andrews' have been in the firing line yet again this weekend. (Maybe they should change their names to 'Jeremy'?).

Andrew Neil is still under fire from that nice, sensible Carole Catwalladr and her furry followers. Here she is again, surely dispelling, beyond the last vestige of the slightest shadow of a sliver of doubt, any idea that she's remotely like a 'mad cat woman' (as Andrew the First so memorably described her):

No, there's definitely nothing of the 'mad cat woman/crazy cat lady' there, is there? 

(I hear the phrase 'beyond satire' purring in my ear and feel inclined to stroke it).

Meanwhile, further fuelling claims of BBC 'misogyny' from Jeremy Corbyn supporters, Andrew the Second, Andrew Marr, lost his temper with Baroness Chakrabarti of Kennington in the London Borough of Lambeth (better known as Shami) yesterday.

"Don't try and patronise me", he snapped. 

It was a very odd moment, and it even made the home page of the BBC News website. 

I saw it before before seeing all the fuss about it kicked off and wondered 'What's that all about?'. After all, Shami used to be a regular on Andrew Marr's sofa, reviewing the papers on 17 occasions before getting her peerage and joining Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet (with three further appearances since). 

So why did Andrew Marr get so angry at her? Was it because she was proving a particularly useless guest, or was it something more personal? 

Whatever it was, it's certainly got the Corbynistas baying for his blood again. 

(If you're wondering, Rob Burley has noticeably been curiously shy in replying to their questions about this.)

*******

P.S. Talking of 'Andrews'...the leader of the another faction of the left wing of the Beeb-bashing movement, the Chief Adonista himself, Lord Andrew Adonis, looks to have been back-pedalling furiously today after applying his usual tactics against another leading hardline Brexiteer media outlet, the FT (yes, 👀), and appearing to come sharply unstuck in the process!!

Did Lionel Barber encourage m'lord to think about m'lud? 

Tea with Shami

If you follow this blog, or just check in now and then, you might have noticed our erratic blogging patterns. Sometimes Craig will deliver a mighty avalanche, boosting page views by a massive per cent - then nothing for days. I’m far less productive; even when I’m at my most voluble my output is measly to zero.  Last week, for example, I wasn’t able to get to the keyboard at all. And it was a week chock full of essential, crucial, key,  burning, bias-related material. But I’ll just have to let it go.

One retrospective observation though. Mishal Husain’s memorable interview with Shami Chakrabarti. I mean, Ms Husain is always the team member who gets herself lumbered with this kind of topic and is criticised (by the likes of me) as she can’t conceal her natural rapport with, I don’t know what to call it - the Muslim point of view. So it was a surprise to hear Husain’s relatively sympathetic conversation with Margaret Hodge followed by her more adversarial approach to her interview with Shami Chakrabarti.

Shami sees everything in terms of ‘herself’ and has effectively turned herself into a laughing stock - not that this is any laughing matter. Anyway, we’re all invited round Shami’s for a cup of tea.

Where are they now?

Shami Chakrabarti.

Her omnipresent appearances on Question Time and her sanctimonious manner were more than infuriating, but I feel for Baroness Chakrabarti at this difficult time. 

I mean her embarrassed silence - (well, I hope that’s what it is.) 

Imagine how you’d feel if you’d been elevated to a position above and beyond your merit solely because of an inquiry you undertook at the behest of the leader of Her Majesty’s disLoyal opposition with the sole purpose of exonerating the Labour Party from potentially vote-damaging allegations of racism.

  

You’d feel pretty rotten, would you not, following the deluge of incriminating evidence exposing your cobbled-together inquiry as the load of distemper it obviously is?

Who wouldn’t be thinking of a way of stepping quietly out of the limelight if they’d concocted a self-serving autobiographical essay rather than a systematically evidenced inquiry, which looks more cringeworthy with every passing revelation?

********

Chas Newkey-Burden

Well, he zapped his website Oy Va Goy with nary a why nor wherefore a year or two ago. Something must have spooked him because the Israelophile of yore has reappeared as something of an Israelophobe. Which is a shame, because he once wrote a powerful article effectively demolishing the “they of all people” meme, which antisemites often drag out when accusing Israelis of committing Nazi-like genocide against Palestinians. 

It could be that he decided Benjamin Netanyahu was too right-wing. Or he might have had some other kind of epiphany. Anyway, his affection for all things Israel evaporated like a puff of wind. I’m only bringing this up because his Twitter reincarnation (allthatchas) shows that his new allegiance is to veganism, supporting animal rights and defending Jeremy Corbyn. As a couple of H/P. commenters note, he always was ‘a bit of a strange one’ and “I was wary of him”. Quite so.

*******

I have a long memory. Stuff sticks in my mind from years ago, like someone suffering from senile dementia; and I often forget what I went upstairs for. Next, I’ll be looking everywhere for my specs when they’re on my head. (Apart from the fact that I never do that because Specsavers told me it ruins them. I’m very obedient like that, if you must know.)

Hate Jews? Then it’s Labour for you.

News comes and goes. As it whizzes past, the odd fragment sticks, but most of it drains away. One begins to see news in terms of a perpetual spin-cycle; wheels on fire / rolling down the road. The antisemitism in the Labour Party keeps on rolling down the road. With each revolution of the wheel it disappears from view but it always resurfaces, a little flattened, further along.

When Jeremy Corbyn and his chums commissioned Shami Chakrabarti’s infamous report into antisemitism in the Labour party they made a canny choice. At one time Chakrabarti was vaguely admired by many, including gullible members of the beleaguered Jewish community. Everyone - ok, not everyone actually - regarded the former director of Liberty as stalwart campaigner against all evil and defender of the oppressed. 

Of course back in the olden days (circa 2009 - 2012) she was regarded by ever-skeptical bloggers and Biased-BBC contributors - me too - as a virtue signalling self-promoting lightweight; the thinking person’s idea of a Stephen Fry, if you like. 

That infamous JewishTV clip exposes something. No need to call in the body language experts! Everyone recognises squirming when they see it. 

Chakrabarti’s report into antisemitism in Labour was going to bring about a fundamental spring clean. Zero tolerance of “all forms” of racism!  Out with the old in with the new. 

What we got was a hastily cobbled together, disappointing, sham investigation, which began with a predetermined agenda and ended with nothing but a whitewash. The biggest surprise of all was that hardly anybody saw it coming.

Shami, defender of human rights, spokesperson for the oppressed, high flying lawyer and independent investigator who only ‘joined the party in order to gain members' "trust and confidence” apparently ignored the submissions she’d initially invited, (requested, even) letting down and humiliating contributors who felt they had wasted time and energy compiling them.  Instead, she presented an essay on the fascinating topic of her own feelings rather than the promised rigorous report. And for her trouble, a peerage and an official  position of power and influence in the labour Party. 

A bit of a fuss, a few uncomfortable moments in front of the media, and Baroness Chakrabarti in her ermine cloak melted into the background, and despite those mysterious ‘recommendations’  the antisemitism in the Labour Party smoulders away, embers glowing ever brighter as the Momentum builds.

Now, let’s peek at the BBC and beat our heads against a brick wall. 

Laid low for the last week or so by a virus initially picked up by a family member at the health centre - not there for a flu jab exactly, which would have been hilarious (if you find that sort of thing as hilarious as I did before I caught it.)

The spy v spy incident. At first the news showed us a blurry video of a couple walking along the street. A man, Sergei Skripal, accompanied by a blonde-haired woman; also a still shot of a smiling brunette, his daughter Yulia. Oddly, no-one queried the discrepancy for days. News is often like that. Questions that seem obvious are mysteriously ignored. 

The poison is now (I think) known to be a nerve agent, a material so difficult to procure that only a government agency could be responsible for deploying it. 

The BBC brought in defender of Putin and arch weirdo Annie Machon to opine on the matter. 

If you’re not familiar with Annie you haven’t been paying attention. You remember David Shayler? Well, Annie’s his ex. That is, before he became a transvestite. Annie, bless her, thinks the Duke of Edinburgh orchestrated Princess Diana’s assassination to dodge the embarrassment of a Royal Muslim baby. (Jo Marney flashes up in one's head) Also, Mossad. Imagine Prince Phillip in cahoots with Mossad. Mohamad al-Fayed believes it; there must be something in it. Don’t forget, Prince William is off to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, according to the BBC. And he might  throw in a courtesy call to the Zionist entity, by the way. 

If it’s not Putin’s nerve agent, it’s must be that of the Russian Mafia. Real life McMafia. 

The adaptation of (the BBC’s) Misha Glenny’s book (adapted for TV by screenwriters *Hoss Amini and James Watkins) couldn’t have been more apposite, could it? Well, some people are saying that the actual book didn’t have such a negative - or hardly any at all - focus on those racketeering Israelis. There’s a petition that we should all sign, pleading with the BBC to be a bit less biased against Israel. It makes you weary just thinking about it.

Stop the BBC's anti Israel bias, their Royal Charter mandates impartiality not bias Dear BBC, please stop it this minute! There. That should do it. 

Here’s an excerpt from a comment about McMafia by one critic of the BBC:

I read the book too - which unlike the BBC series does NOT place Jews and Israel at the center of all pan-national organized crime. Really, the BBC should have checked stats published by the CIA and FBI for accuracy.

Here’s another:

“….there’s film and drama...as long as it's anti-Israel, and depicts Jews as the 'other' or inherently violent and evil - BBC2 broadcast *Hossein Amini's anti-Semitic film 'Drive' on Erev Yom HaShoah 2018. Heaven help us. Which brings us to the BBC's glossy, glamorous £30m, anti-Semitism 101 in eight hour-long parts, otherwise known as 'McMafia'. 'McMafia''s lead protagonists are an immoral, neurotic, alcoholic, greedy, flashy, violent Jewish criminal family called….Godman? 

……..with the BBC's blessing and £30m of our money McMafia the tv series allowed Glenny to publicly vent his anti-Semitic, anti-Israel spleen (read it for yourself via his Twitter feed). […] 

Glenny, together with Iranian-born scriptwriter/creator/Exec Producer *Hossein Amini (of 'Drive' fame) were allowed to concoct a storyline that puts Israel, Israelis and Jews at the snakehead of ALL global criminal activity....good grief, the BBC even signed off on an advertising/social media campaign that uses blood libel images straight out of Der Sturmer - Alex Godman's hands dripping with blood (aka the Jew has the blood of Jesus on his hands), the Jew controls the money at your local ATM, the Jew comprises 90% of the piechart of all pan-national criminal activity. These campaigns are also being used by the BBC's distribution partner Amazon Prime which last September signed a $multi-million deal with the Corporation and with the show's production company Cuba Pictures (part-owned by BBC Worldwide) to broadcast Glenny & Amini's McAnti-Semitism to every country around the world, except the US and Canada (all BBC/AMC territory so no need) and China, where Amazon is banned. Strangely, Jews in the UK are shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Meh, it's such a terrible drama no-one will watch it." 

Whether or not these comments are accurate, they are worth considering. Even if the series’s many critics found the drama unconvincing and badly acted, it did a jolly good job of reinforcing the Beeb’s general message, which is that Israelis are corrupt and inherently evil.

Nothing about antisemitism seems to shock anyone out of their collective stupor these days. No matter how extreme, explicit and stark raving bonkers, the BBC, the Labour Party or the press barely acknowledge the problem.  It kind of washes over their heads, flows straight towards the plug-hole and goes down with but a faint gurgle. 

Back to the perplexing matter of Alexa’s sinister cackle, not to mention footage of those amusing, nerve-agent detectorists grappling with the tricky problem of tying ends of string together to secure the scene-of-the-crime tent, a task made nigh impossible by those luminous green protective space-suits, backs bulked out by breathing apparatus like lumpy poisonous frogs. Did you see the one nearest the camera doing a little boogie? What? It amused me, anyway.

David Collier’s detailed and deeply worrying investigation into left-wing antisemitism and of course in the Labour Party, made a slight ripple.  It's in two parts: one here and two here.

If you haven’t heard of this study, you might at least have heard something about the closed Facebook group called Palestine Live, which brims with the kind of antisemitic hate-speech that ought to send shivers down the spine of anyone who still wonders how Hitler managed to get away with what he eventually got away with. (Which group members believe to be not very much, or nothing at all - but nevertheless cynically exploited by the Zionists) 

The kind of language you can see here could only be unleashed in a protected group, where antisemites can let it all hang out. “Is this group safe?” asked Jackie Walker suspiciously. As hindsight shows, obviously not safe enough.

The group comprises many unsurprising members, including Jenny Tonge, David Ward and - you know - Ken O’Keefe (remember him? ) Even O’Keefe, the unhinged 9/11 'trufer' and arch antisemite has been brought in by the BBC, and implicitly lauded as a hero by Sarah Montague in not one but two episodes of HARDTalk, following the BBC’s dreadfully poor reporting of the Mavi Marmara affair.

 O’Keefe is plainly so rabid, so extreme, so hate-filled that he has even antagonised other members of Palestine Live. As with Annie Machon, I’m not advocating out-and-out ‘no-platforming’, only that  undue credibility must never be given to unhinged individuals, whether knowingly, for the ratings, or through ignorance and shoddy research.

Now we learn that Jeremy Corbyn was a one-time member. Not “was” a member, he claims. He merely “found himself” a member. He found himself a member through no fault of his own, as you do. 

Of course Jeremy did step away from this group on being elected Leader of the Labour Party, which, as a defence, plainly works both ways.  He must have realised membership of that group would prove unhelpful, so the  “innocent face” ploy might not wash.  

Oh, and guess who else was on the list? Well, you already know. The BBC”s very own ‘gone native’ impartial reporter, based in Ramul-lah, Yolande Knell.  As Craig says, she was a passive member rather than an ‘active’ participant, but at least one of her FOOCs was very much to the group’s liking. And another beauty, Paul Mason.The mind boggles, bigly.

People are still wondering whether the BBC is ignorant or malevolent. Not mutually exclusive.

The media has, rather remarkably, picked up on David Collier’s study, by the way; even the BBC, but as the news rolls down the road and is subsumed by the ongoing antics of Trump v Kim Jong Un and Spy v Spy, one doughty Twitterer has taken the matter up and is still shaking it all about. Yes, ((Dan Hodges))), like a terrier, is tweeting away about it for all he’s worth. Good for him. He has influence, so let’s hope he can make something stick. 

I was waiting to see something about it on one of Rob Burley’s new babies. The Daily Politics for example. Get Dan Hodges on, or even David Collier. Get one of the Labour Party’s non-Corbynista members on and make them squirm. Get Paul Mason. Let’s see what Elleanne Green has to say for herself. Get them on. Make a fuss. Let’s see Evan Davis or Emily Maitlis interrogate someone from Momentum about the matter. Ask them if they know much about the history of Nazi Germany. It might not seem all that important to inhabitants of the media/ London-centric bubble, but the atmosphere is becoming eerily Hitlerian.

A Gov’ment in waiting

“Let us do more to end the oppression of the Palestinian people. The 60 year occupation - gabble gabble gabble -  two state solution. ...the values we share are not served by building walls.”

Says Jeremessiah  Corbyn.

Or to be more precise, here’s a more accurate transcription from the Spectator:

“And let’s give real support to end the oppression of the Palestinian people, the 50-year occupation and illegal settlement expansion and move to a genuine two-state solution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Britain’s voice needs to be heard independently in the world. We must be a candid friend to the United States, now more than ever.
The values we share are not served by building walls, banning immigrants on the basis of religion, polluting the planet, or pandering to racism.” 

I knew the way the BBC has been behaving was reminding me of something. Yes, of course! It’s like the Arab Spring all over again. 

“The Labour Party is the gov’ment in waiting!" "Feel the euphoria!" "Jeremy Corbyn is the next PM.”

Recently I’ve held back a bit on the anti-Jew stuff that emanates from the BBC. I’m not sure that everyone is as interested in the topic as I am. The BBC certainly hasn’t featured antisemitism in the Labour Party (there isn’t any, you know) as much as, say, Sky. Sky featured it prominently all day yesterday. 

On the occasions the BBC has mentioned it, presenters like Jo Coburn and Emily Maitlis have been ever so gentle on their interviewees.

I’m not keen on rabidly adversarial interviewing. Repeated interruptions can all too easily make one sympathise with the victim. The aggressive, intrusive interviewing style has become so commonplace that pleas from interviewees are becoming almost routine: ‘Let me make my point’ or ‘if you could just let me finish one sentence’ they say, sometimes preemptively. I mean before an interruption has even occurred.

There much to be said for allowing a speaker enough rope to hang him/herself, which is fine if the interviewer or presenter is capable of making the occasional informed and intelligent interjection. That’s a long way from constantly interrupting and challenging every word.    Meritless (that’s my autocorrect but I’ll leave it in) let Shami Chakrabarti get away with a complete load of bollocks yesterday. As if it isn’t bad enough watching the baroness’s smug little countenance and listening to her pedestrian insights, we were invited to ’read my report’ as if her wretched report into antisemitism in the Labour party (there isn’t any) was some kind of definitive  decree and not a superficial, narcissistic whitewash.

“You have to prepare for the worst” Shami Chakrabarti says senior civil servants stress-test threats to the economy all the time #newsnight pic.twitter.com/B26sZsVsed

— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) September 26, 2017

 Take Len McCluskey. He was allowed to state that he hadn’t seen any antisemitism (ever) in the Labour Party. 

Len McCluskey tells @maitlis that Labour’s anti-Semitism row was “mood music” created by people trying to undermine Jeremy Corbyn #newsnight pic.twitter.com/38Ri6Nc41v

— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) September 26, 2017

(Yet it transpires (allegedly) that he actually attended the controversial ‘fringe’ event that everyone but him acknowledges was unspeakably offensive.) 

More of the BBC’s favourite socialist filmmaker here:

Possibly fearing a reputation of last year’s embarrassment, Corbyn didn’t attend Labour Friends of Israel’s ‘final night’ event. He sent Emily Thornberry along instead.  She apologised, and lied, stating that Jeremessiah was too busy preparing for the Big Speech next day. Only he wasn’t.

Here is Karen Pollock in the Times (£) 

“We have elected Labour politicians suggesting that antisemitism has been “weaponised” – a suggestion that it is being used to promote some other agenda. 

And we even have activists handing out material at the Labour party conference quoting Reinhard Heydrich, one of the leading architects of the Final Solution. 

How many times do we need to explain the hurt and offence that it causes when people question the truth of the Holocaust? How many times do we need to explain that there are survivors – who lost their homes, communities and entire families - still among us, who register these comments with disbelief? 

How many times do we have to defend basic truths that should be considered sacrosanct?”

Some people do recognise what is going on. 

Labour council leader Warren Morgan for one. He wrote to the Labour Party general secretary:

Dear Iain,
I hope that you and the entire Labour team here in Brighton and Hove are enjoying your stay and that the facilities offered by the Brighton Centre are everything that you would expect from us. As a city we very much appreciate the business that Conference brings to our hotels, restaurants and shops. 

I am however very concerned at the anti-semitism being aired publicly in fringe meetings and on the floor of Conference. We have a significant Jewish community in Brighton and Hove, and I met with them only last week to discuss the anti-semitism already on our streets, causing them fear and alarm. We have the prominent activist and suspended Labour Party member Tony Greenstein here, who indeed was present at the fringe meeting where it was suggested that Holocaust denial should be allowed. His expulsion, in my view, is long overdue. 

As the Labour leader of Brighton and Hove City Council I will undoubtedly face questions as to why we allow any event where anti-semitic views are freely expressed to happen in the city, particularly on council premises. As a Labour Party member I expect the enquiry announced today to take firm action; as Leader I will need reassurances that there will be no repeat of the behaviour and actions we have seen this week before any further bookings from the Party are taken. 

I must apply the same standards to Labour as I would to any other Party Conference or political event; whilst none of us can control what is said at meetings we do not run, I have to make the strongest possible representation on behalf of the residents of the city who are Jewish. We are a City of Sanctuary and I have to speak up against any form of racism as and when it is given a platform in the city.
Best wishes,

Finally, here is (Jewish vice president of the NUS) Izzy Lenga’s Tweet:

I didnt think it was possible, but I feel a whole lot more unsafe, uncomfortable & upset as a Jew on #lab17 floor right now than I do at NUS

— Izzy Lenga (@izzyjengalenga) September 26, 2017

Biting the hand that fed you

Amusingly for someone who's been on the Andrew Marr show 11 times in the past five years alone (18 times in total since the programme began), Baroness Chakrabarti even complained about the Andrew Marr show's choice of guests:

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: I think sometimes we haven't had the fairest or the most balanced treatment in the media, including in the broadcast media...
ANDREW MARR (interrupting): As you know, the left has always said it's the media...
SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: No, no...
ANDREW MARR: ...for hundreds of years.
SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: I'm not blaming the media. I'm just saying that the disunity has been the focus...I mean, even on your programme last week, a few days before a by-election in two Brexit seats, there wasn't a single person on the programme speaking for the leadership...
ANDREW MARR (interrupting): There was a well-represented Labour MP on the paper review, who was...
SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: And you had Lord Mandelson...
ANDREW MARR (interrupting): Yeah, we're allowed to have Lord Mandelson, aren't we?
SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: You are allowed to have whoever you like, but  it wasn't, if I may say so, you know, the fairest balance a few days before a by-election in two Labour Brexit seats.

The other Labour LP in question, by the way, was Caroline Flint - a second Blairite - so Shami did have a point - if also a lot of cheek! 

Another question

Good grief! Even Dan Hodges is having a pop at The Andrew Marr Show this morning:

Here are some of the answers he's received so far:

• "I'm calling for..." said 4 times in a 2 minute slot, tells you all. She should not be discussing the papers, BBC. 
• Very easily. The BBC. Always available to self-publicists wishing to overturn democratic ballots. This is what we do.
• Anyone might suspect that the BBC has an agenda.
• To be fair, paper review segments often do this. I agree it's bad practice.
• I think you find it's called "bias" You weren't expecting impartiality were you?

**********

Update: Talking of Dan Hodges, his running Twitter commentary on Baroness Chakrabarti's performances on this morning's Andrew Marr show was worth the Twitter fee in its own right:

• Shami Chakrabarti. Just the person to reach out to the lost working-class voters of Copeland.
• At what point is Shami Chakrabarti going to mention the responsibility of the Labour leader for the performance of the Labour party?
• "Time to unite", says Shami Chakrabarti. Two minutes after attacking Peter Mandelson.
• Now Shami Chakrabarti is saying Storm Doris was a factor.
• Remember folks, this is the woman who produced the "independent" report on labour anti-semitism...
• There is no single-individual - not even Corbyn - who is a better symbol of what is wrong with the Labour party than Shami Chakrabarti.
• Shami Chakrabarti literally blamed everyone in the Labour party for the Copeland defeat except the leader of the Labour Party.

Watching her performance did make me wonder how on earth she ever managed to win a case as a lawyer.

John Humphrys isn’t all bad

Who was it that said John Humphrys  is not all bad? I know I read it somewhere recently.

Hmm. I tapped “John Humphrys’ into the search engine over at Biased-BBC to see if Alan had said it, but the first thing that came up was from September 2011 by someone called Sue.  (!)   (It made quite a good read, if I say so myself).

Anyway, I think I recall complaining about his hectoring style, which emerges on days when he’d obviously got out of bed on the wrong side. You know, when he comes across all bullying and irritable, and interrupts people he dislikes, so that they can’t finish important points.

Well, this morning he was the model of a very modern gentleman. He was even-handed and rather patient, although Shami Chakrabarti, shadow Attorney General or whatever her title is these days, might beg to differ.
The case for insisting that parliament is given a vote on the government’s Brexit strategy is pretty weak in my ill-informed opinion, and I think that her claim that the Labour Party doesn’t wish to ‘imperil’ Britain’s chances of getting a good deal while arguing that there should be transparency and that parliament should have the chance to ‘vote’ on tactics does amount to dancing on the head of a pin. 

If I’m quoting Michael Howard a lot, it’s because I think he was right and Shami was wrong, and I also think she knew she was wrong. 

Her faltering protests “It could be included in the bill” was the desperate cry of a drowning shadow Attorney General grasping at straws; one who jolly well knew she was on a sticky wicket (but who was never going to back down).

Not that I would have particularly chosen to trust Theresa May to handle things on my behalf, but negotiating is just like poker, isn’t it? Don’t show your hand. Keep your cards close to your chest. Poker Face. Lady Gaga wrote a song about it. Bluff, counter-bluff, don’t blink first and all that. And, if we’re forced to reveal our hand in the open and transparent fashion that certain MPs think we should (though they will keep dancing on a pin to deny that is what they’re asking for) then all 27 countries need to do the same. 

John Humphrys was a little ratty with Shami, and I kind of sensed his response to Michael Howard was more respectful, (with good reason, if it was) but he did listen to both sides, and put the gist of each of their arguments to the other in a professional manner.

The BBC forbids its staff to make value judgements, but some of them just have judgemental voices. I'm no fan of Mishal Husain, as you might imagine. When she is dealing with the Israel/Palestine conflict or anything related to Islam, the tone of her voice gives away more than she might wish. If she’s taking someone to task on any topic at all, she comes across all schoolmarmish and harsh. 

Not so this morning. She sounded positively syrupy while indulging in a little light banter with a couple of wimmin, discussing shoes. Emma the podiatrist and Emma the designer.

The ‘news of the day’ concerns The Women’s Dress Code and the sexism of being told to keep up appearances in the workplace. In particular, being compelled to wear high heeled shoes, hence the podiatrist. "Wearing very high-healed shoes cripples you," is what the BBC wanted to hear, so that they could be even more indignant at wimmin being forced to wear them.  But the podiatrist was in two minds. It all depends, she said. People with the right architecture (Doric columns are handy) can wear them with impunity. 

Perhaps the designer was there to make darkly meaningful remarks about Donald Trump, whose ‘wimmin' were wearing very high heels at the inauguration. (Does Donald Trump force his womenfolk to wear them in the workplace?) To augment this confusing innuendo, she said the protesting wimmin wore trainers or bovver boots.

Her own high heels are good high heels because they don't force the toes against the sides. I’m not sure what her point was. Was she for or against? No-one knows, especially not her.

Personally I’m in the “Steel toe-caps for receptionists” movement. Surely it’s people like the confused designer who profit most from the fashion victim industry. It’s in their interest to keep wimmin wearing their stuff, even if it’s uncomfortable. They are always telling us to do all sorts of unnatural things to our persons to ‘look good’. You can’t just blame men. 

I don’t think Mishal Husain was listening very attentively to either contributor or she would have called them out for being silly.  John Humphrys would have done a better job.

Emma Supple is a consultant podiatrist in College of Podiatry, Emma Hope is a shoe designer and here is a Doric column.