Random Thoughts for a Sunday Evening

 

I

Lib Dems, lib Dems and Facebook

It's been a while since I've made myself listen to The World This Weekend but I learned something quite interesting from it today - albeit only after a bit of Googling as they didn't disclose it themselves.

The programme's main focus was on demands to regulate Facebook, particularly in light of the murder of Sir David Amess. 

I avoid Facebook like the plague.

Being politically-minded I now associate Facebook with Sir Nick Clegg, as he's become their Vice President for Global Affairs and Communications at Facebook since 2018.

The World This Weekend's sole defender of Facebook today was one Lord Allan, Facebook's Director of Policy in Europe until 2019. 

Like former Lib Dem leader/Deputy PM Sir Nick, Lord Allan is a former Lib Dem MP. So Facebook seems to like UK Liberal Democrats. 

And it gets spookier.

Lord Allan, it turns out from searching for him on the internet, was the MP for Sheffield Hallam from 1997-2005 before giving way to the one Nick Clegg, who remained MP for Sheffield Hallam from 2005-2017. 

What are the chances of that happening?

My random thought here is that maybe the American liberal Democrats at Facebook chose the UK's Liberal Democrats because of their party name, assuming because they call themselves 'Liberal Democrats' they must think like liberal Democrats in the US...and, if so, they should be careful when hiring from Russia and Japan or they might end up with Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Shinzo Abe, and they might un-ban former US president/possible future US president Donald Trump while Mark Zuckerberg isn't looking. 

II

The BBC and the word 'terrorist'

The estimable Scottish blogger Effie Deans has a thoughtful piece on her Lily of St. Leonard's blog about the murder of Sir David. It made me re-think a few things. and is well worth a read. 

If Sue's not seen it yet, it begins: 

Whenever there is a terrorist attack in somewhere like Israel, we are told by the BBC that it carried out by militants. It gives the impression that the far left from the 1980s stopped handing out newspapers to blow himself up. Only when a terrorist attack happens here in Britain will the BBC allow itself to describe it as such. IRA militants after all did not try to blow up Margaret Thatcher. If a word is useful then we must use it consistently. If something is terrorism call it terrorism, otherwise you are lying in which case how can you be trusted on anything.

It then moves on.

It's certainly true that the BBC will use the word 'terrorist' more about terrorist attacks in the UK than anywhere else and that it goes out of its way to avoid applying it to the like of Hamas or Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah.

But the BBC has used it in connection to radical Islamic terrorism in the UK through the most gritted of gritted teeth over the last couple of decades. 

They were very reluctant to begin with post 9/11, and particularly post 7/7 in London. 

All of us hereabouts observed that at the time. 

It made the BBC look terrible and absurd. 

I'm guessing they finally realised that they were dangerously adrift from the public mood, so they eventually eased the prohibition. 

And that's where we are now - with a word that should never had been banned being grudgingly allowed in the UK context - albeit still through gritted teeth on certain BBC reporters' parts - but still being banned [except in heavy inverted commas] when it comes to terrorism against, say, Israel.

III

Sunday, Flipping Sunday

The one Radio 4 programme I've tried to keep up with during my blogging slumbers is Radio 4's Sunday, what with it being the starting point of this very blog. 

It never really changes. 

Todays programme featured:  

[a] Takes on the murder of Sir David Amess which avoided the thorny issue of Islamic terrorism.

[b] An entirely one-sided 'woke' segment on Ethiopian demands for the return of some sacred plaques held by the British Museum where neither context nor the other other side of the argument was given. Presenter Emily Buchanan simply announced that the Ethiopians were demanding them back, said that we [the UK] ''looted'' it, and stated that ''lawyers'' said it was legally right to return them, and then interviewed an Ethiopian Orthodox priest who told listeners how precious these plaques were to the Ethiopians. When it's that one-sided it reeks of abetting a campaign.

[c] A strange piece about how cuddly toy deities might be ''the best way to help children understand faith and culture'', reporting on how a range of cuddly toys of deities like the Hindu god Ganesha is ''expanding to include all major faiths'', including Jesus and Buddha. I googled the company and checked their range of cuddly toys and found that the phrase Sunday kept using - ''all major faiths'' - wasn't quite true. You won't be surprised to hear that Islam was the exception and that the BBC skirted around the point like a cat trying to avoid its fated date with a cage during a trip to the vets. 

[d] A piece on a Jewish comedy Fringe event featuring...and here's the BBC angle...''the only Orthodox Jewish woman on the British comedy circuit''. There's always got to be a bit of identity politics and marking of identity politics milestones. 

[e] The inevitable book-plug for a friend of the programme, here Catholic author Peter Stanford. 

[f] A somewhat campaigning closing segment about aggrieved Muslim women being refused entry to pray within some mosques and how ''conservative'' attitudes in mosques need changing, followed by an interview with Sunday's favourite Muslim, the silky Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, who positioned himself somewhat vaguely on the matter, as is his way. At least Sunday raised the question of Deobandi influence.

I've been going on about the programme for over a  decade now, but there's now a small legion of people criticising Sunday every single week on Twitter and on blogs hereabouts. It's a growth industry that growing fast. The programme remains the ripest of ripe targets as far as BBC bias is concerned.

IV

Nancy wonders if it's just her

Following today's Sunday was - as ever - Sunday Worship. I was in the mood for hymns and heard it live. 

It provoked a murmur on Twitter when Annunziata Rees-Mogg [sister of Jacob] complained about it being about gender equality today when it should have been a Catholic service in honour of Sir David Amess.

Wouldn’t it have been nice if Sunday Worship on BBC Radio4 had been from a Catholic Church in memory of Sir David Amess? And perhaps a sermon about the value of public service rather than gender equality? Or maybe that’s just me.

Now, I have to say that - much as I can see where she's coming from -  I agreed with those of her critics who pointed out that these things are prepared weeks and months in advance. The BBC publishes the text and running order of the service in full before it's even broadcast. And this was coming live from Ely Cathedral. So this was a juggernaut that's being rolling for weeks ready for this morning, and the BBC couldn't just drop it and swap it with a different service. And, in the event, a pray for Sir David was said at the start before the feminist-influenced, all-women service about women in the Bible began.....though, amusingly, the male dean popped up at the end to read the blessing.

So Annunziata might have been better saying that, yes, the BBC couldn't reasonably have replaced this service at the last minute, but that it's still 'very BBC' that the identity-politics-obsessed BBC Radio 4 prepared yet another service with an 'identity politics' focus today, because Sunday Worship is doing that ever more often as the channel increasingly sinks into a smelly slough of 'woke'.

V

John Simpson says 'this can't go on'

Fantasies, born of childhood/adulthood reading of brave British men rescuing women in peril, have occasionally led me to dream that we British would somehow spring Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe from jail in Iran, literally leaving behind a Carry-On-style black fingernail card of 'two digits rampant' for old 'Smiler' Khamenei to splutter at as his beard caught on fire humorously.

Five years younger than the Supreme Leader of Iran, the BBC's World Affairs Editor John Simpson is unimpressed: 

The rejection of @FreeNazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe's appeal in Tehran is predictable but disgraceful. She is being held hostage for the repayment of a £400m debt the UK owes to Iran. Handing money to Iran is a big problem, given its support for terrorism; but this can't go on.

I do believe that the BBC's Mr Impartiality is demanding, ever so impartially, that the British Government cough up to the terroristic, hostage-holding Ayatollah. 

Hm. 

Sunday morning viewing

I couldn’t help spotting irony in kindly Sheikh Mogra’s contribution to the Sunday programme featuring the Pew report. 

In the context of the projected rise in Europe’s Muslim population (to 18% by 20150) the good Sheikh said it will work out fine if WE stop invading MUSLIM Countries. 

Who’s invading whom?

*****

I listen to Andrew Marr on Start the Week occasionally, and he always impresses with his grasp of the issues discussed, sometimes extremely complex ones, such as  this morning’s episode. Russia, religion and the Middle East.

Andrew Marr has many talents, but I don’t think presenting the Andrew Marr show is one of them.

I was just thinking, in view of Rob Burley’s wry Twittering, why not swap jobs? Burley presents the Andrew Marr Show and  Andrew Marr produces it. Win-win.

Further to Craig’s astute observations about the paper review 

“Andrew Marr was trying to conduct an interview with Nigel Farage during the paper review, challenging him about those Trump tweets, Britain First and his EU pension - something that would have been much better done as a proper interview not during a supposedly relaxed paper review with two others leaping in to 'help' in harrying the ‘interviewee’.”

(admittedly, Rob Burley would have had to undergo even more flak had Farage been invited as an interviewee proper.) 

Craig referred to Ayesha Hazarika’s (and Nigel Farage’s) verbal incontinence  as 'a shouty affair', but Ms Hazarika was the one  throwing out ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’ like there was no tomorrow. 

Isn’t it odd that certain female pundits (men don’t do this so much) show their disrespect, nay, disgust, by gurning and squirming during an opponent's  attempt to “finish their point”. Ayesha gurned like a demented Yasmin Alibhai Brown, and (Craig politely referred to it as a hubbub) she and Farage continually interrupted each other, effectively drowning each other out. Andrew Marr didn’t seem to have the will nor the way to put things back in order.

Presenters! Take back control!

I spotted that tell-tale  'at last we agree on something’ from Andrew Marr as he signed off Jacob Rees Mogg, and I do think Rob Burleys’s retort was a tad glib:

“Well you don't know anything about Andrew's views. Think it was a jocular end to the interview which shouldn't be taken seriously really.”  

As Tweeter  “Tesh” remarked, I can’t see him saying that to “a leftist”, even in jest.

Still on Sunday viewing, Alan Milburn has resigned from something or other...

but when did he quit producing “One Big Family” for the BBC?

Of Dubya and coffee

Let me take you (and me) back in time...

Waking up and smelling the coffee on Saturday 10 September, Radio 4 listeners would have been treated to a Prayer for the Day from our silky old friend, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain. (His prayers continued on Radio 4 for several days after).

He talked about 9/11 and, unusually for such an uncontroversial programme, used the opportunity to criticise George Dubya Bush for using the phrase 'war on terror'. It was, he said,  "controversial...especially for many Muslims, which has also had great cost to diverse individuals and communities." He then prayed to his God.

Well, it comes to something when even Prayer for the Day is used for political purposes by an Islamist!

What next? Tweet of the Day on the nightingale by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?:

The nightingale's melodious song has infiltrated the heart of poets and Islamic scholars for many centuries. Its song, contrary to what is said in the decadent West, is not to do with courtship or territorial marking. The nightingale is simply singing what every true believer knows in his heart: "Death to America! Death to Israel!"

A few hours later came The Muhammadan Bean: The Secret History of Islam and Coffee, presented by journalist Abdul-Rehman Malik. 

Being a tea-drinker, I wasn't inclined to listen to it.

Abdul-Rehman's Twitter feed is interesting but much as you'd expect - left-leaning party-politically, strongly pro-Sadiq Khan in the London mayoral election, anti-Prevent,  backing criticism of Maajid Nawaz for trying to engage with Tommy Robinson, supportive of an anti-Israel activist, etc.

His personal page says that his:

“Pause for Thought” radio column airs regularly on BBC Radio 2’s weekday morning programme. 

Well fancy that!

I supposed I ought to listen to his coffee programme, as it would be wrong to just derisively imply that someone's a typical BBC choice without listening to their programme first. After all, it could be completely free of proselytising.... 

Could I be bothered though? Wouldn't I much prefer to have a cup of tea and do something else instead? 

Oh, the dilemmas of a blogger!

Well, I listened, and what happened?

He begins by telling us that he's of Pakistani heritage and is now describing how he's long been "hooked" on the "intoxicating...wine of Islam". (I much prefer the intoxicating wine of Asda). Coffee-drinking spread from Ethiopia to Yemen. Mystical Sufi Muslims then spread it further. Coffee houses eventually became stylish meeting places (like Starbucks?), and coffee as "a culture, an art and a cultural force" peaked in the Ottoman Empire, arriving in Constantinople in 1544 via Syrian merchants from Greater Syria. They achieved a global monopoly on coffee. Exports of coffee seeds and plants from Yemen was punishable by death. The likes of the Dutch East India Company eventually got round that. Pope Clement VIII in 1600 is said to have liked the Satanic Mohammedan brew so much that he said he wanted to baptise it. It came to London in 1652 (Cromwell's time) when Pasqua Rosée, the Greek servant of a British Levant merchant, established the first coffee house there. By 1659 two more opened up. By 1663 (post-Restoration) there were 82 coffee houses within the old walls of the city. By the turn of the century there were 3,000. Etc. 

As they say on BBC Two: QI. Well done Abdul-Rehman! 

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra on Turkey joining the EU

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra from the Muslim Council of Britain was the paper reviewer on this morning's BBC Breakfast. Here he is discussing Turkey, the EU and racism:

Sally Nugent: In the Observer, you've picked a story about the referendum, Vote Leave campaign. 

Ibrahim Mogra: I mean, the nation has to have this debate. We need to have the referendum and the people will speak for themselves as to which way we should go. But I'm just very, very concerned about the fear-mongering and the headlines that suggest we'll be flooded by Turks coming into this country. Let's put everything into perspective.... 

Roger Johnson: That's if Turkey joins the EU, and that's a huge 'if' anyway, isn't it? 

Ibrahim Mogra: It is a huge 'if' but it's a very exciting 'if' for me, because it's very rich for us as Western nations to have Turkey as part of NATO, to defend our borders, to defend us against any potential attacks or threats and the like, and at the same time we're very reluctant to even consider having them as part of the EU. I think having Turkey within the EU would be a wonderful thing I believe. We already have significant contributions from our Turkish communities within the United Kingdom, hard working people, and dare I say Turkish places are very, very popular with British people to go and have a meal. And how many of us regularly holiday in Turkey? We see Turkey is a very, very safe place... 

Roger Johnson: Although the numbers are going down. People are more wary about travelling to Turkey. 

Ibrahim Mogra: I think the recent terrorism that has peaked in Turkey has been a major reason why maybe numbers have fallen. But prior to that it's been one of the most favourite destinations. We've holidayed in Turkey several times ourselves. You feel very safe going out at night. No fear of being mugged. So to suggest that Turkish people inherently when they come to Britain will be more prone to criminality, etc, I think it not only borders racism, but I think it is quite racist suggestions. Turks have proved to be hard-working contributors to our country and our society. And, of course, there's always going to be movement from one country to another. So why should it be any different if Turkey does join the EU? I think it would be great.

"The BBC is too Christian", says BBC

Here's something  from The Sunday Times's Social Affairs Editor Nicholas Hellen - an article called BBC says it is too Christian and must diversify:

The BBC is too Christian in its religious output, according to an internal review, and should increase its Muslim, Hindu and Sikh programming. 

Lord Hall, the director-general, is considering findings that show there is a disproportionate amount of programming by the corporation on Christian matters compared with other faiths. 

Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC’s head of religion and ethics, told a Commons meeting on religious literacy he had written a report for Hall that would answer criticisms from non-Christian faiths that they were underserved.

The paper quotes Mr. Ahmed, the BBC's Muslim head of religion and ethics, saying:

We do look at the number of hours we produce, and measure that against the religious make-up of society. We also carry out checks to give us a better understanding of how we represent the different faiths across the various BBC channels and services. 

Christianity remains the cornerstone of our output and there are more hours dedicated to it than there are to other faiths. Our output in this area is not static, though. It has evolved over the years and we regularly assess it.

(I thought they didn't believe in measuring things like that? That it isn't useful to do so? Well, that's certainly what they keep saying about their EU referendum coverage.)

And it also quotes some helpful suggestions from our old friend, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra (who, curiously, doesn't have any suggestions that involve a religion he doesn't share):

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the BBC might televise Friday prayers from a mosque, cover Eid and show children attending madrasahs after school for Koranic instruction. But he added: “We would not wish Christians to have any less exposure.”

I suspect Shaykh Mogra isn't going to be waiting too long for such things.

The imam returns

BBC Breakfast's favourite imam, Ibrahim Mogra (Assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain), was doing the paper review again this morning.

His first choice of story probably won't surprise you...(it certainly didn't surprise me. He always seems to begin with a 'Muslim story')....yes, he went straight for the "extremely worrying" Independent on Sunday story about alleged British government collusion in rendition and torture at "notorious" Guantanamo Bay.

The PM needs to respond seriously to the charges, he said, "because this is just one other bit of ammunition that can be put into the hands of evil and violent extremists who say, 'We've always told you: the West is against Islam; the West is against Muslims; see how they treat our brothers in Guantanamo Bay'. That doesn't help our cause".

The imam's description of the claims in the article as "facts" may not have helped 'our cause' either.

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra v bigoted British people

The paper reviewer on BBC Breakfast this morning was Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra. 

He was captioned 'Iman and Scholar' rather than 'Assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain'.

BBC Breakfast invited him to discuss the aftermath of Paris, especially its impact on British Muslims. The silky shaykh duly engaged in his usual slipping and sliding, inevitably shifting the focus onto the suffering of Muslims and the failings of Western foreign policy. 

Towards the end, however, even the BBC's Roger Johnson sounded rather uneasy about Shaykh Ibrahim's sincerity...

...and that came after the following question and answer, where Ibrahim Mogra characteristically side-stepped what seemed to me to be an attempt (on the BBC presenter's part) to get him to speak about the suffering of the people of Paris and moved straight back to his preferred theme of the plight of Muslims instead:

Roger Johnson: But give us a snapshot of how Muslims are talking to you about what happened in Paris.

Ibrahim Mogra: Well, there is solidarity with the Muslims.

Anyhow, for your interest, here are some extracts this morning's BBC Breakfast paper reviews:

*****

Naga Munchetty: Ibrahim Mogra, imam and scholar is here to tell us what's caught his eye. Good morning.

Ibrahim Mogra: Morning.

Naga Munchetty: Before we start...we will go through the front pages, but you can imagine what's on them now is what happens with Syria, what happens in the battle against Islamic State - all of this, of course, just over a week on from Paris. Can you just give us your thoughts on how you feel...if you feel...the world has changed now in terms of interactions between groups and attitudes amongst people when it comes to Islamic State and how this has reflected on the Muslim community.

Ibrahim Mogra: It's been devastating for us on many fronts. I mean, as human beings we feel the pain of loss of innocent lives. And then to know that it's co-religionists, fellow Muslims, who have been responsible for these horrendous murders and killings. It's even more painful that they've falsely then claimed to have been doing it in God's name.

Naga Munchetty: Hmm.

Ibrahim Mogra: Far from it. This is the work of Satan. They're doing the Devil's bidding. So we distance ourselves from their evil actions. And sadly many of our innocent British Muslim citizens who go about their daily lives are now the target of bigoted people's inability to make a distinction between the 3 million plus law-abiding Muslim citizens of our country and maybe a handful...of course a handful too many...who have perpetrated these crimes.

Roger Johnson: Have you heard...sorry to labour the point, but as you mention it...have you noticed a noticeable increase in hostility towards your community in the last week?

Ibrahim Mogra: Right. I...to be fair, there is a mixture. I think the British public has been wonderful. And we saw that in the aftermath of the London bombings and how people really rallied around and stood with us in solidarity and made that distinction between us and these evil terrorists. And I think the same is happening. And this is one of the, if you like...I hesitate to use this phrase...but the silver lining on this dark cloud that looms over us - that each time these terrorists have perpetrated an act of terrorism it has actually brought us closer together, despite our diversities. So there's a lot of solidarity with Muslims. But at the same time we hear more and more cases of, for example, Muslims who are visibly Muslim, particularly women who wear the head scarf, have been spat at, have had bottles thrown at them. One's been pushing in front of a moving tube train, etc. So we need to be alert to these things and stand up against these bigoted people, otherwise we will be driving more and more people into the hands of the ISIS and terrorist recruiters.

*****

Ibrahim Mogra: Where do we go from here? Well, we know where we've been before. The question is do we want to go back there again. And there is a big call once again to use bombers in Syria and, of course, we're already bombing in Iraq. We've done that before in Afghanistan, we've done that before in Iraq, and more than a decade later we know exactly where we are. Those places are still really in turmoil. So is bombing the right strategy? There is a lot of anger, for example, with regards to drone attacks. Drone attacks cannot be as precise as you want, and this horrible phrase 'collateral damage' is something that we, perhaps, sitting here can afford to use but for the people on the ground...the terrorists themselves have said, 'You kill one through a drone attack, you are creating a hundred others who will replace that one person you've killed'. And then whether we are willing to put boots on the ground, to use an American phrase, whether we will commit our troops to fight on the ground, because following a bombing campaign there's got to be something else done there. ....

*****

Ibrahim Mogra: It's something strikingly different between Muslims and Christians. For example, many of my Christian clergy friends without any hesitation will say they doubted the existence of God and they questioned 'Where was God'?, etc. It's very different for us as Muslims. We have kind of this absolute faith in the presence of God, in good times, in bad times. For Christians...I guess many have said to me it's a sign of their faith if you like to be able to question this.

*****

Ibrahim Mogra: Yes, we're really up against it because I've had young people say to me, "Shaykh Ibrahim, forget all the fatwas, all the rulings that you're giving us from your theological arguments. What do we do when we see innocent people also being killed?" So, in a way, the more force and violent means that we are using to tackle this problem the more we are alienating younger people. And just to add to this complex issue is the fact that we are beginning to see society turning on Muslims who've made this country their own and now are being seen as a threat or as an enemy within. And this can further alienate them and disenfranchise them.

Roger Johnson: Interesting point. And for those not watching an hour ago, we talked at great length about the experience of the Muslim community in the last week and as you say...backlash is too strong a word, but the way in which reactions have come your way, Just, if you can...you kind of touched on it...but give us a snapshot of how Muslims are talking to you about what happened in Paris.

Ibrahim Mogra: Well, there is solidarity with the Muslims, People I hope are finally able to hear our loud condemnation. We have condemned terrorism over and over again, despite the fact that many young people are saying to us "Why are you apologising for things we haven't done? Why are you taking responsibility for something that we haven't done?", but we do it as our religious duty. It is our obligation to condemn these things. At the same time we find alongside the solidarity of the British communities there are numbers of bigoted British people who are targeting innocent Muslims on our streets, on public transport, and that is totally unacceptable. This is yet another way in which these young people will feel that if they're not welcome here, if they're not trusted here, then they might as well go over there and fight.

Naga Munchetty: Again though, as you've said, it's a handful, and a tiny numbers of Muslims who have claimed it's in the name of Islam that they are committing these atrocities and again it's a handful of Britons who are turning on..,and not reflecting the bigger picture that actually there has been a show of solidarity and community in the wake of Paris.

Ibrahim Mogra: It's always a handful of people who spoil it for the rest. In all walks of life we find...I mean if you look at our football stadiums, it's always only a handful who give football a bad name.

Roger Johnson: Ibrahim, can I just pick you up on one word you used before? You said, "It's our duty to condemn it." You're not saying...you're not saying you're only doing it because it's your duty? You're saying it because it's a genuine heartfelt condemnation?

Ibrahim Mogra: Oh absolutely. Absolutely. As human beings...I mean before I'm a Muslim I'm first a human being, and I feel for the loss of life. And at the same time it's a duty to God. The Koran calls on Muslims to speak out against injustice, even if it's against ourselves, our parents and our relatives. So we do it not because there's an expectation from the government or an expectation from the British public or the world that Muslims will condemn this. We do it without being called upon.

Someone's opinion

Should BBC presenters challenge their paper reviewers if they say something partisan (or false)? Or should they let them speak and allow heir viewers to judge for themselves?

I was wondering about that question during this morning's paper reviews on BBC One's Breakfast, featuring Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain as their guest reviewer.

The shaykh was talking about an article in The Observer which warns us about what we'd lose if we left the EU (and which was read from at some length). He ended his commentary by saying this: 

My personal view is that I think a united Europe is a stronger Europe. I think we'll be more prosperous. We've seen the Irish and Portuguese examples of how they've managed to use EU money to modernise their countries. I was so delighted when I visited the Republic and saw how they had really managed to tap into the EU resources to take their country forward. So I think there is merit in supporting one another. Clearly some countries have to carry a bigger share of that burden, but then that's our duty to those who may have less and less capabilities. In the end, we all benefit.

I have to say that I was expecting the presenters to point out that their have also been some dramatic downsides to the economies of Ireland and Portugal in recent years, and that Greece, Spain, Italy, etc, aren't exactly proof either that EU membership always helps your economy in the long run. 

Yet no such intervention came. Should it have done?

Incidentally, Breakfast didn't show the front page of The Sunday Times this morning:

Will that story get much coverage on the BBC in the coming couple of years?

(The BBC itself famously receives some funding from the EU).

The Pollyanna of the MCB

Using the blurb on the Sunday website, here's what was on the menu on this week's Sunday, hosted by Edward Stourton: 

- We discuss the religious implications in the upcoming Syrian elections with Seyed Ali Alavi, Middle Easter [sic] Politics Analyst from SOAS.

- It's been more than ten years since the launch of the Street Pastors. Trevor Barnes has been out on a night patrol in Brixton with the founder of the movement - Rev Les Isaac.

- The stoning of a pregnant woman outside a court in Lahore this week has led to renewed concerns about the passive acceptance of this extreme action in Pakistan. Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra explains the religious law that allows stoning.

- This week the Church of England announced three pilot schemes in an attempt to 'compete' Wonga out of business. Kevin Bocquet visits a scheme at St Andrews Church in Liverpool and asks can the church really be a serious competitor?

- Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill will have its first reading in the House of Lords on the 5th June. Rabbi Jonathan Romain and Peter Williams, Executive Officer Right to Life, discuss.

- Three new musical settings of the "Stabat Mater" - the 13th Century Catholic hymn reflecting on Mary's suffering at the crucifixion - are about to receive their world premiere. We speak to the man who commissioned them: John Studzinski.

- Edward talks, to Gabriel Wani, the brother in law of Meriam Yahia Ibrahim, jailed for apostasy in Sudan, and asks, how she is coping following the birth of her daughter in jail this week.

I've not got much to say about any of this, other than to note that Sunday's 'Wonga' fixation continues unabated and that the 'assisted dying' discussion was balanced - though Ed Stourton did ask the anti-'assisted dying' guy from Catholic Voices to admit that he was "on the wrong side of history".

The interview with Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, however, calls for more attention though. 

Shaykh Mogra is one of Sunday's go-to 'Muslim Community spokesmen'. Sue calls him "the BBC’s favourite kindly moderate Muslim" and "the Pollyanna of the MCB".

The Sunday blurb promised that he would "explain the religious law that allows stoning". Of course, being Shaykh Mogra, he did no such thing. He tried to explain it away instead. 

Such practices are "unIslamic", he said. "This has nothing to do with Islam whatsoever", he reiterated before citing Mohammed telling his followers to "treat women well". He blamed it instead on "patriarchal societies", "religious misinterpretation" and "pure ignorance". "The Koran calls on us to respect human life", he continued. 

Now, Ed Stourton did ask him about sharia law and the sharia principles often cited as justifications for such extreme acts of punishment. "This incident has no relation with those concepts", asserted Shaykh Mogra. 

Ed then asked him about the lack of denunciations for this barbarity from Islamic scholars in Pakistan. The Pollyanna of the MCB said, oh no, Pakistan's Islamic scholars are just as disgusted as he is about it. It must be the media's fault for not reporting them. Oh, and such crimes against women go on in India and in Britain too. 

Ed did ask him some good questions but he didn't press him anywhere near hard enough. Indeed, Ed's showed something of a passive acceptance for his slippery, Pollyannaish answers.

Foreign affairs

The BBC is reporting more and more Muslim-related news, so they must be aware that something’s up.  Al Qaeda is flourishing in Iraq, Prince Charles has noticed that Muslim extremists are persecuting Christians in the Middle East (who knew he was so observant) Marks and Sparks has made some impracticable concessions to “Muslims” and Anjem Choudary has been “given a platform” on the Today programme.

Remember the ‘yes/no” game? You know, someone asked a load of quick-fire questions and if the contestant said ‘yes’ or ‘no’ a gong banged and the contestant had his head chopped off. Not really, but it was almost impossible to win. Such fun for the audience. 

I think that was what John Humphrys was trying to do the other day when he failed to trick Anjem Choudary into saying  ‘condemn’ and ‘condone’ on the Today programme. Chouders knew he must not do so. They wasted a hell of a lot of airtime on this futile panto, when Humph should have been asking some penetrating questions that could easily have led to  Choudary hoisting himself on his own foreign policytard.

Instead Humph was trounced, and all because of a childish Paxo-tactic, forcing the issue into the siding of terminal futility.

What’s more, Humph must have known Choudary would never cave in, owing to the fact that he had demonstrated the same intransigence and stated his position clearly and unequivocally on another BBC’s platform - Hardtalk with Stephen Sackur  in May; only the particular atrocity he refused to condone or condemn at that time was different, namely the “London bombings”. 

Humphrys’s fruitless pursuit of something that was never gonna happen wasted precious air time; time in which anyone with an ounce of gumption would have probed the precise nature of “the Muslims’ “  objections to “the government’s foreign policy”. 

‘Foreign policy’ is blurted out tediously and predictably by angry Muslims because they know that citing it always seems to floor their BBC interlocutors or at the very least it put them on the back foot. Humphrys sank into defensive mode, started spluttering and all was lost.

Apologists for Islam use foreign policy blindly and uncomprehendingly to justify doing what the hell they like. Foreign policy, foreign policy, foreign policy. There! All they have to do is wait for the gong denoting victory.

It’s time the BBC’s ‘heroes of the devil’s advocate’ started deconstructing it rather than swallowing it whole. It should not be beyond the wit of a jobbing devil’s advocate to demolish this meaningless excuse of a grievance by thrashing out the specifics robustly and in detail. There are so many flaws and illogicalities to pick from that flinging a couple back should be a doddle.  

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, the BBC’s favourite kindly moderate Muslim gave the self same excuse to Ed Stourton on Sunday. Foreign policy. 

“Rather than talking about the causes [the West killing Muslims] we seem to be talking about the symptoms of this difficulty.” says Mogra in silky tones. “Muslims see these things [the West killing Muslims] on the internet, and they get angry.”  (I paraphrase)

“We’ll talk about foreign policy later” Ed assured us, “But right now we’re talking about the mosques.” 

“There is no radicalisation in mosques. Move along now, nothing to see here.”   says the good Shaykh.

Dr Brooke Rogers from King’s College agrees.  Back to foreign policy. At last Dr Rogers addresses the issue:

“When you actually engage with individuals who are expressing this anger and these grievances against foreign policy, if you start drilling down to the policy issues themselves they actually struggle to name the leaders in the conflicts and they are very very weak in their understanding of the history of the conflict as well.” states she, boldly.

“Interesting Ibrahim Mogra, essentially the foreign policy question is a vehicle for something else.”  ventures Ed.

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. But “no,”  purrs Mogra. “When Muslims see pictures on the TV where there’s drones killing hundreds and thousands of innocent Muslims it’s bound to anger them....”   WTF? questions the listener.

“Do forgive me. I’m very sorry, but now we must ask some passers by where they think Jesus would be born if he were born today.” interrupted Ed with an abruptness that could genuinely be described as spooky. 

This is a major issue of our times and yet what does Ed Stourton do? Cut it off just when it’s getting to the nub of the matter. Cut it off just so they could broadcast some inane vox-pops?

Did someone in the edit suite (is there one?) pull the plug, or was it down to Ed’s discretion? Was the interview pre-recorded?  The mind boggles.