SML debates BDS

A few lays ago I linked to Kevin Connolly on the PM programme suggesting to Eddie Mair that Boris should have been more tactful. He was referring to Boris’s disparaging comments about BDS, which got him into trouble with the P.A.

BBCWatch.

“Kevin Connolly later told Radio 4 listeners:
“You know, official visitors here; foreign embassies, international news organisations, us – everyone weighs their words on these matters with infinite, exquisite care – or at least we try to – because it is just so easy to give offence to one side or the other….”

Mustn’t offend the sensibilities of the Palestinian BDS campaigners. 

Kevin Connolly and the BBC may think BDS is a perfectly legitimate campaign. It seems that where Israel is concerned, the BBC deems this topic debatable. Last week’s Sunday Morning Live tackled cultural boycotts. In the current circumstances, I’d have thought that people might reconsider. Israel has considerable experience of dealing with Islamic-inspired terrorism so boycotting Israel seems like a particularly stupid idea. 

It was disappointing that Douglas Murray and Yasmin Alibhai Brown who had been opining  on Daesh in an earlier part of the programme were no longer on the panel when this topic came up. Douglas’s, and even YAB’s opinions would have been more interesting than the fools that were brought in to replace them; a pro BDS actress, and a Jeremy Corbyn-like BDS advocate, unfamiliar to me. 

The actress supports ‘cultural’ BDS because she wants to bring down ‘Israeli apartheid’. No-one asked her what she thought apartheid actually meant. She seemed to think that her Palestinian friend being unable to travel freely between Nazareth and Jerusalem constitutes apartheid. No, apartheid is not precautionary security measures. That’s inconvenience. It’s not apartheid. There is no apartheid in Israel, lady.

In any case, people who claim that the boycott worked in South Africa speak as though it brought about a fairy-tale ending.  Is present day South Africa a model that other countries aspire to? The boycott may have helped bring about the demise of a genuinely racist apartheid policy, but South Africa is no utopia and race relations there are not so wonderful these days.

Imagine how a Palestinian-majority Israel would look. And she’s aiming for that with her BDS?

The pro-boycott chap with the Jeremy Corbyn aura must have been an academic. He said he thought BDS was a good way of engaging with the Israeli academics he was boycotting. Then why boycott? Why not simply engage? Cut out the middle man. His dysfunctional cultural boycott looked like covert attention-seeking. 

Annoyingly, Sian didn’t want to let the argument deal directly with the specifics, as in the ethical and moral legitimacy of boycotting the one and only Jewish State. She wanted it to be a debate about the efficacy of cultural boycotts in general; but it was never going to be that, because these boycotters were indeed boycotting Israel in particular and no other country. Let’s face it folks, the truth is that boycotting Israel while not boycotting any of the vast array of genuinely abusive regimes in the world is plain racist.  

Did anyone catch George Osborne today announcing his plans to defeat cyber crime?

Israel happens to lead the world when it comes to cyber security and Osborne is asking for Israel’s help. I suppose the BDS idiots would rather boycott it. 

Do they actually realise that what happened in Paris last Friday wasn’t so very different to what Israel faces, day in and day out. We could all learn a lot from Israel but I suppose the idiots would rather boycott that too.

Sikhing the Truth

Today's Sunday Morning Live had a somewhat baffling segment which focused specifically on whether interfaith marriages should be allowed to take place in Sikh places of worship. 

Some traditionalist Sikh protestors here in the UK have started disrupting such weddings - actions that sound completely beyond the pale to me and which must be deeply upsetting for the marrying couple and their poor families. 

Jagmeet Singh, a supporter of the protests, appeared on the programme.

He argued that interfaith marriage per se is wholly acceptable to him, he has no problem with it, and that such couples, following their marriages, are also fully welcome to receive a blessing in a Sikh temple but that the traditional Sikh wedding rite itself ought to be reserved for Sikhs marrying Sikhs - a traditionalist position that didn't seem particularly surprising to me or that extreme (in religious terms) either, especially when put as gently as Jagmeet put it here.

He was, however, very much alone in that belief on SML, with all of the other four guests and presenter Sian Williams disagreeing with his socially conservative position on this matter, often vigorously taking him to task over it. Sian repeatedly repeating (at one stage) that love should be everything (as indeed it should). 

It was after that discussion closed, however, that things got out of hand as this young Sikh man stood up and interrupted Sian's introduction to the next feature - an interview with director David Puttnam. 

He was protesting about what he and many other UK Sikhs, it seems, see as the media's abject failure to report the killings of Sikhs in in Punjab by the Indian police. (Not killings by Muslims, as some have mistakenly assumed). 

Sian got cross with him, telling him he'd be removed from the studio if he continued being so disrespectful - as, indeed, he then apparently was (removed from the studio, that is).

I have to say on watching I could see that Jagmeet was completely out of order here from the BBC's perspective and that Sian was only doing her job in trying to shut him up. [An interview with David Puttnam was being introduced after all, and that should never be interrupted (not even for the four-minute warning of a nuclear strike)].

Her tone, however, did take me aback a little, sounding (I thought) somewhat as if she was telling off a naughty child.

It also crossed my mind that had he been a protesting Muslim she wouldn't have dared speak to him like that. (Of course, I  might be wrong about that).

Unfortunately for Sian though, it looks as if the whole Sikh community of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was watching and has now taken to Twitter to denounce her (though, as ever, that could just be a Twitter illusion). 

Minute after minute tweets have been pouring in ever since this morning's programme calling her rude and unprofessional. She's been on the receiving end of an absolute onslaught today...

...which can't have been pleasant - though I have to say, from what I've seen, that Sikh tweeters are hugely less sweary and personally abusive than many other vocal Twitter 'communities'. (They are 'respectfully aggrieved', so to speak). 

Quite a few British Sikhs have long felt the BBC to be biased against them and, as I've said before (more than once), I can see why at times and it doesn't look as if this morning's Sunday Morning Live will have helped in that respect. 

Still, though Jagmeet was put in a five-against-one situation throughout, that's not what was being complained about here. 

All the Twitter complaints focus on Sian's 'rudeness' to him over his anti-Indian-authorities protest. 

I can see why they felt she was rude but, unlike them, I can also see why Sian felt she had to be 'rude' to him.

More 'Sunday Masochism Live'

Both Sue and I have said uncomplimentary things about BBC One's Sunday Morning Live. 

Under the title Sunday Masochism Live,  Sue described a classic edition from June this year, punctuated with comments like "Chaos ensues. All hell breaks loose" and "Shouting ensues. All hell breaks loose again":

First we have the permanently startled looking Sian Williams who’s supposed to keep order. The guests inflicted upon her by the BBC speed-dial department don’t make matters easy. They tend to favour verbally incontinent Muslims like Ajmal Masroor, who can’t bear to listen to anyone but themselves,  and who often keep going without even bothering to do that. 

In the middle sat Sian wearing a skimpy skirt made out of a scarf perilously held together by a short frontal zip. The strain of keeping it in place must have added to the general stress.

Today, from left to right, we had John Gaunt, who isn’t the least bit gaunt...

I wrote something similar in October last year under the title Bun-fight at the BBC Corral:

Sunday Morning Live has always had a tendency to crams its panels with shouty know-nothings, flame-throwers, wingnuts, moonbats and gobshites - and, frankly, I'm only entering into the spirit of the programme by sinking to such levels of abuse here. This particular set of guests was a model panel in that respect - a cast-iron guarantee of a bun fight.

This morning's edition was another classic. Sian looked permanently startled again. The BBC speed-dial department inflicted upon her yet another collection of shouty know-nothings, flame-throwers, wingnuts, moonbats and gobshites (and Rosie Millard, who's none of the above). Chaos, shouting and one almighty bun-fight ensued. All hell broke loose. Sian begged for order. All hell broke loose again.

All that was missing from the spectacle was Wolf, Jet and Saracen from Gladiators coming on to clobber Gaunty and Darcus Howe with some outsized cotton buds and, for a final treat, the release into the BBC studio of half a dozen hungry and bad-tempered lions.

*****

Anyhow, the opening question today asked: "Is Britain racist?" in advance of a BBC Three documentary starting tomorrow asking the same question - as part of BBC Three's 'race season'. (And you can't get more 'BBC' than that!)

Sian's framing of the discussion - and the chosen clip from the documentary showing a hijab-wearing Muslim girl complaining about racism - focused particularly on "anti-Muslim racism". (And you can't get more 'BBC' than that!)

Sian and the makers of Sunday Morning Live seem to believe there's such a thing as "anti-Muslim racism". Others strongly disagree (and this is the kind of discussion you're most unlikely to hear on Newsnight or Today):

Today's panel consisted of three regulars on these types of programme - shock jock Jon Gaunt, veteran race-bater Darcus Howe and Muslim convert/occasional BBC presenter Myriam Francois-Cerrah - along with former BBC arts correspondent Rosie Millard. 

It was balanced between Gaunty and Rosie, who think we're less racist these days and Darcus and Myriam who think we're more racist (though she seemed mainly bothered about how Muslims are treated). 

Darcus and Gaunty got into several loud slanging matches. 

One of the oddest moments came when Sian Williams asked:

Is it not significant though that the two people who are white are saying that Britain isn't racist and the two that come from different communities are not?

Well, Myriam Francois-Cerrah may come from a "different community" but she's not one bit less white than either Jon Gaunt or Rosie Millard (having been born in London of French and Irish descent):

Odd.

*****

Still, I think I may have changed my mind a bit about this show in that at least it tries to feature people from beyond the cosy BBC consensus, expressing views BBC staff (and the Twitterati) might feel uncomfortable hearing (rather as Sian seemed to be discomforted when Jon repeatedly brought up Rotherham and Muslim grooming gangs).

Having sharply contrasted view can generate light as well as heat - as last week's edition on the role of charities (starring one David Vance) proved.

***********

Rude interruption / Update (by Sue)

Sunday Morning Live!   

What were they thinking, bringing in Darcus Howe! ??

Darcus Howe AND John Gaunt! 

John Gaunt, eat your heart out! 

Oh how one misses Joan Rivers, and John Gaunt, you are no Joan Rivers.

Oh, and by the way. Are we racist? No, and don’t mention antisemitism. 

***********

Even ruder interruption / Update (by Craig)

Yes, that's a must-watch video to anyone who hasn't seen or heard it. 

Jon (whose podcasts are great fun) was strangely cautious in the face of Darcus's usual emotive bullying today. 

You've got to take The Joan Approach with someone as selfish and shameless as Darcus - especially as (despite his advanced years and all the accumulated wisdom you'd hope he'd have learned by now) he still keeps on ruthlessly playing the 'racism' card (coupled with the 'wounded soldier' card) against people who aren't racists. 

He never seems to grow wiser, does he?

And, no, there wasn't any mention of antisemitism. 

Myriam mentioned that recent report about the rise in anti-Muslim attacks in London without mentioning (just as the BBC notoriously failed to mention too) that the same report showed a much steeper surge in antisemitic attacks in the city.

No one picked up on that. Certainly not Sian (who likes correcting people's 'facts' - as David Vance discovered last week, especially on her pet subject of mental health). And not even His Gauntship.

"That carnival, of course, is a celebration of multicultural Britain. And the UK is set to become even more diverse now..."

Going back to the start of today's Sunday Morning Live...

We were greeting by some lively performers before Sian Williams appeared applauding them and saying, enthusiastically: 

Oh, a bit of Brazil to brighten Sunday Morning Live! Good morning, I'm Sian Williams with the Paradiso School of Samba practising for the Notting Hill Carnival tomorrow. We'll have more from them later on in the programme. 

That carnival, of course, is a celebration of multicultural Britain. And the UK is set to become even more diverse now became immigration has hit record levels, Now there are more than eight million people in the UK who are foreign-born.

So has immigration made us the nation we are or eroded British values?

Show and then enthuse about something that's bright and fun, assert it's "a celebration of multicultural Britain", link it to the UK becoming "even more diverse" because of mass immigration and then pose the 'big question'. All rather 'leading', I'd say (as in 'a leading question').

Sian's first question to her panel was:

Some politicians have suggested we should be celebrating record immigration figures. What are your thoughts?

Thus it began.

Fortunately the panel was a genuinely varied one, comprising the ubiquitous Bonnie Greer, The Moral Maze's Claire Fox, Alp Mehmet of Migration Watch and David Goodhart, director of the left-leaning think tank Demos. Bonnie and Claire are relaxed about mass immigration; David and Alp aren't - all in different ways. 

(Having David Goodhart and Alp Mehmet on the programme lifted it well above the usual standard for SML. The programme's penchant for loud-mouthed flame-throwers - rather than quietly-spoken, fair-minded types - is well known. Well to me anyhow).

Sian's questions weren't wholly lacking in attempts at impartiality. She took up some points and passed them on, and interrupted both sides. 

However, she definitely interrupted the anti-mass immigration side much more vigorously and sharply. David Goodhart had barely begun listing some of the downsides of mass immigration when she interrupted to say, "Although they pay more in taxes than they take in benefits." (Unfortunately for her, David Goodhart then convincingly showed her contention to be dubious at best). And Mr Mehmet of Migration Watch's first contribution received five interruptions (some of them expressed with surprising warmth by the BBC's Sian)....

....and she pursued the "or eroded British values?" part of the 'big question' by trying to steer the discussion towards dismissing the idea of British values.

Still, mustn't carp too much. This was a very decent discussion by a well-chosen panel. If only the lead-in hadn't have been quite so heavily loaded.

Ban the bomb!

This morning's Sunday Morning Live began with the legacy of the atomic bombs dropped over Japan in 1945. Its first question was, "Do nuclear weapons keep us safe?"

Sometimes you do have to laugh (really you do), because the opening report took us to Westminster Cathedral to, in Sian Williams's words, "hear" some "views" - all of which opposed the UK's retention of nuclear weapons. 

Among those giving their "views" was CND vice-president Mgr Bruce Kent, who I've not seen for years. 

For some strange reason I felt a bit nostalgic at that point, and he looks in good health, but I sniggered when he said "We should insist that the Soviet Union, China and America start serious negotiations aimed at abolition". 

Ah, he still thinks the Soviet Union exists! - especially funny as we now know, from the post-Soviet Russian archive, that CND was absolutely riddled with Soviet infiltrators; and, funny too, in that SML chose to end his contribution to the sound of guitars playing hopeful-sounding music. 

That said, the following discussion featured an interesting and unusual spread of views - on the pro-retention side, a Daily Mail journalist and the Big Issue founder; on the pro-abolition side, a Hindu organisation leader and a feminist/Guardian columnist...

...Fancy the Hindu spokeslady opposing the bomb, despite India having the bomb (which says good things about Hinduism and India)!...

...and fancy John Bird of the Big Issue strongly advancing a pro-retention argument for the UK from the unusual standpoint that the British Empire was evil and that nuclear-armed China wants to be the new British Empire and we need to defend ourselves against that new British Empire!

A former UK diplomat then appeared...tilting the balance firmly back toward BBC bias...saying that only about 150 nuclear weapons are needed to keep the peace, that "all the intelligence tells us that Iran doesn't have the intention to acquire nuclear weapons", and that the UK should give up its nuclear weapons (i.e. scrap Trident).

Sunday Morning Live really is 'quintessentially BBC' (i.e. biased), isn't it? 

Mind your Bees and Queues

The morning's Sunday Morning Live, inevitably, discussed the migrant crisis, asking the question "Should Britain be a safe haven for migrants?" 

Sian Williams, just as inevitably, began by focusing on the issue everyone (at the BBC) seems to think is the most important aspect of all: whether David Cameron was wrong to use the word "swarm".

Three out of her four guests agreed it was wrong to use such language; one said it wasn't such a big deal (and got loudly talked over for his pains). 

The panel consisted of the Independent's Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (the one doing most of the loud talking-over), left-wing former Anglican bishop Stephen Lowe, left-leaning former Independent columnist Christina Patterson and Pastor Clement Okusi, lead pastor of Potters House Church, Croydon.

Despite initial appearances to the contrary and a bit of heat (with Pastor Clement trying to pursue a less predictable path and Yasmin yabbering over everyone else as usual), the panel converged on the value of EU-wide controlled mass migration and on the shamefulness of Britain's commitment to refugees. 

As a commenter at Biased BBC anticipated before watching it, "So that's no real debate at all then, just all shades of the same argument" (a very accurate prediction, I think).

Tommy Sandhu then read out some viewer messages, some of which sounded pretty extreme, before featuring a viewer on video who then strongly denounced those kind of people (with those kind of views) as "sociopaths". Sian then invited Christina Patterson to agree with the video guy about such people becoming "sociopaths", which Christina duly did. 

And so on and so forth.

That was not a balanced panel or a balanced discussion. 

The BBC is really not helping itself with this kind of thing - as the public vote would have shown if the programme still dared to put its questions to the audience (which it doesn't).

Sunday Masochism Live

Radio 4’s Sunday programme was but an amuse bouche served before the meal proper, which was Sunday Morning Live; quite a meal it was too. It was roughly to do with Ramadan and I.S.

First we have the permanently startled looking Sian Williams who’s supposed to keep order. The guests inflicted upon her by the BBC speed-dial department don’t make matters easy. They tend to favour verbally incontinent Muslims like Ajmal Masroor, who can’t bear to listen to anyone but themselves,  and who often keep going without even bothering to do that.

In the middle sat Sian wearing a skimpy skirt made out of a scarf perilously held together by a short frontal zip. The strain of keeping it in place must have added to the general stress. 

Today, from left to right, we had John Gaunt, who isn’t the least bit gaunt, in fact he’s built on a different scale to many of us. He has invented a word, ‘unequivicedly’, which is  similar to ‘undoubtably’, but a tiny bit more emphatic. 

Sian invented ‘commonalist’ for ‘columnist’, probably because of the skirt.

Next to Gaunt was Dr Saleyha Ahsan whom Sian introduced as an A & E doctor and a former army captain.  

Dr Ahsan said “I’m an A & E doctor. Y’know, I spend my time fixing people. I have nothink in common with the people that pick up a gun and shoot - and murder people. Why do I then... have to....”     wave my hands around all the time? is what she might have been about to ask. I for one would like to know. 

On Sian’s left, but to our right, was a Christian lady called Andrea who wasn’t going to get much of a look in, and to the extreme right was our old friend Ajmal.

"Are we ignorant about Islam?" flashed across the screen. 

Yup. We are, and so is everyone else, especially Islamic State, infidels, moderate Muslims, extreme Muslims and, really, everyone but Ajmal Masroor. Luckily he was there to enlighten us.

Andrea wants to go the the Koran .”They justify this by the text, they do this for Allah...” 

People were looking daggers at her. “The text of the Koran actually permits them to do it” she continued. “Jihad is one of the five pillars!” 

Chaos ensues. All hell breaks loose.

“Hold on Hold on!” “You’ve just shown the depth of ignorance that even remains within our civilised discourse. There’s no Jihad in the five pillars. Let me finish. No no hold on”.

Shouting ensues. All hell breaks loose again.

Ajmal told us what the five pillars are, one for each finger - the thumb being ‘testification of God’ - and he added that Islam was tolerant, that hijabs are cultural not Islamic, and he recounted that his nephew said “Uncle, I don’t want to be an Muslim any more. People in the playground are calling me terrorist.”  

I was hoping someone might ask Uncle Ajmal what would happen if his nephew did stop being a Muslim, but no-one did. 

“If our ignorance about Islam is terrorising young Muslims and stopping them identifying as Muslims, that’s why we need to know about Islam”, said Ajmal.

John Gaunt doesn’t need to know anything about Islam, but  Ajmal said we all need to know about our neighbours. Everyone started saying “I respect your views”, before laying into each other. Their voices rose to high-pitched shrieks.

Sian has a giant pair of specs. She isn’t sure whether to use them or not. She peers through them without putting them on.

The funniest thing is that they’ve done away with the poll. The audience always got it wrong, so they’ve acquired a large TV screen for displaying emails instead, and someone behind the scenes picks out some suitably balanced interjections from the general unintelligentsia. 

Forums for dummies. Islam for dummies. TV for dummies equals morbid fascination.

The rest of the episode continued in similar fashion, with some different guests and a cute Sudanese refugee with a large prayer bump on his forehead and soulful piano music playing in the background. Amnesty International said we should take them all.

The whole thing is even more unedifying that The Big Questions, and that’s saying something.

More trouble with polls

One more thing about this morning's Sunday Morning Live....

The one  regularly enjoyable thing about previous series of the programme was the weekly poll - which almost always 'went the wrong way' for the BBC, very amusingly. 

Just one example from last year. Sunday Morning Live asked the question, "Is immigration good for Britain?" The result , announced at the end of the show, was 11% saying 'yes' and 89% saying 'no'. One of the guests nearly fainted.

And it kept on happening: 

• "Does the English Defence League represent a view that needs to be heard?", asked SML. 95% replied 'Yes', 5% replied 'No'.
•  "Do Muslim veils deepen divisions?", asked SML. 95% replied 'Yes', 5% replied 'No'.
• "Should Britain take in Syrian refugees?", asked SML. 13%  said 'Yes', 87% said 'No'.

No wonder they've dropped this feature now!

They've replaced it instead with a man showing us a selection of email, Twitter and Facebook comments after every main section.

On the "Should we be ashamed of British history?" question, Tommy Sandhu (the man in question) read out four of them:

• Certainly proud of English history. Magna Carta for instance.
• We should be proud of what this little island has done. We didn't get everything right, but no country ever does.
• It's hard to be proud of our British history when the media focuses on our war victories rather than science and technology breakthroughs. 
• Let's try being proud of our country for a change. Mistakes have been made but we cannot apologise for the sins of our fathers.

This was how those comments were framed; 

Sian Williams: Let's get an update from Tommy about being British and British history. Tommy?

Tommy Sandhu: Thanks Sian, yes, there is a real sense that people want to feel proud but maybe they're struggling to feel that way.

The pro-immigration BBC

From former BBC director of News Helen Boaden to John Humphrys and Nick Robinson, prominent BBC figures have recently been keen to 'fess up to the BBC having had a pro-immigration bias in the past.

For the present day BBC, of course, the words "in the past" give them the chance to put the issue behind them and move on, but what if the BBC is still pushing a pro-immigration message because of having (as Helen Boaden put it) a "deep liberal bias"?  

This morning's Sunday Morning Live asked the question, "Is the UK too hostile to immigration?"....which is a very particular way of framing the issue for starters. They could have asked, "Should the UK be tougher on immigration?", but they didn't. If you were marking the programme for impartiality, that would be a tick in the 'Pro-immigration' column. 

Then came the opening report showing two immigrant footballers playing for a local football club, making their case for why immigration is a good thing, recounting stories of racism and condemning the media for spreading negative messages about immigrants. If you were marking the programme for impartiality, that would be a second tick in the 'Pro-immigration' column.

Still, at least you can rely on SML to feature a lively discussion between its four studio guests, some speaking for the question, some speaking against it, can't you?

...except, astonishingly, all four guests - yes, all four guests (Dr Lez Henry, Charlie Wolf, Michelle Dewberry and my old hero Bill Oddie) - agreed with each other that we are too hostile to immigration and criticised politicians and the media for stirring up anti-immigration feelings. 

Lez Henry blamed "politicking" for creating a moral panic. Charlie Wolf said that immigration is economically beneficial and that immigrants blossom in their new countries (to that country's benefit). Michelle Dewberry blamed "punchy headlines" and "catchy stories" (about things like benefit tourism) for infuriating people, stories she didn't believe were entirely true. Bill Oddie said that people who think immigration should be reduced are "not terribly well-informed" and that Britain's culture has "burgeoned" because of immigration.  He also [in an extraordinary outburst of anti-British self-loathing that seemed to take even Sian Williams by surprise] expressed his complete and utter loathing for Britain and British "chauvinism". ("I'm not proud to be British. In fact I'm often ashamed to be British. We're a terrible race"). Lez Henry then talked about slavery, and his parents being "enticed" to Britain. 

Both Charlie and Michelle did (eventually) express reservations about uncontrolled immigration though and the need for a little more tightening-up, but none demurred from the programme's central thrust - that we're too hostile to immigration.

If you were marking the programme for impartiality, all of this would be a third obvious tick in the 'Pro-immigration' column. 

The debate paused at that point to go across to a second presenter, Amy Garcia, at the Leeds Museum for Black History Month. 

In the programme's introduction, Amy said this "fits in really well with one of today's debates. My Leeds, My Culture celebrates the positive contribution that people of African descent have brought to the city" which, if you were marking the programme for impartiality, would be a fourth tick in the 'Pro-immigration' column. 

Amy talked to a population geographer and an ethnic minority immigration officer. The professor said that immigrants make "an enormous contribution" to the NHS and in building industry, and that we'd be a lot worse off without them. He criticised, at Amy's invitation, the government's controls on student visas. The immigration officer said immigrants face "a very harsh" life in the UK. "Life is very hard for them", she said. If you were marking the programme for impartiality, would be a fifth tick in the 'Pro-immigration' column. 

The discussion then continued in the studio, much as before. [Lez wanted the "indigenous people" to be "educated" into seeing the benefits of immigration.] 

Now, if all of this isn't damning enough of BBC bias, then please read the list below of all the questions put by main presenter Sian Williams during this discussion. If they don't amount to absolute cast-iron proof of BBC pro-immigration bias here then I'm a Dutchman. (And I'm not a Dutchman, en ik vertel de waarheid over dat!).

- Lez, if I could start with you. We heard Reginald, who's from Zimbabwe there, saying he's got racist messages, his car tyres have been slashed. Is this something that you are hearing yourself? Do you think the rhetoric around immigration has become more hostile? 

- So, Charlie, it's the idea of 'the other' that people are suspicious of and that's why perhaps there's a more hostile reception...?

- That being said, and you both have parents who came here, why then do twice as many people in the UK say there are too many immigrants compared to places like Germany and the Netherlands, who have a lot more? Is it the case, do you think, Michelle that we are a less welcoming country and, if so, why?

- So it's the media's fault, is it?

- Is there a danger, Bill, that as soon as you start talking about immigration - and two-thirds of the public want immigration reduced, according to the British Social Attitudes survey - as soon as you start having an open discussion about it those who want to see immigration reduced are deemed racist?

- Why do you live here then? [to Bill Oddie]

- Well, you can leave Bill!

- But it's true, if you don't like where we are then go to somewhere where...

- So integration has worked?

- Integration has worked as far as you're concerned. Why then is...?

- It's a better life, Charlie?

- I heard, though, Michael Heseltine, the ex-Tory minister, saying on a programme yesterday that it feels like the same sort of febrile atmosphere around immigration as during Enoch Powell's day, when he was talking about the rivers of blood. Is that something you're feeling as well?

- There is a points system at the moment that works, isn't there? A points system...Therefore, if you're more skilled you're more likely to be able to find a place here. Michelle, do you think it should go further than that?

- [interrupting] Is there a drain on the NHS because of immigration? 

- So we should pick and choose who comes here is your view?

- Interesting, Charlie, it's not a soft and easy ride for immigrants was the theme that was coming out there [during Amy Garcia's segment]. There is talk as well about restricting their benefits. This isn't an easy place for them to live. So why is there this level of...Well, we're saying 'hostility', which is what some of you...

- So it's a lack of integration? Bill was saying earlier that there is quite a lot of integration. 

- Well, let's ask Charlie and Michelle. Why do you think...(two thirds of people think there's too much immigration)?

- Lez, there is a story in the papers today that there is one council - I think it's Newham - which is being offered some money to have street parties so that immigrants can feel like they are welcomed and part of the community. It sounds such a small thing - a couple of hundred quid. Is that something that might help? What do you think might change people's minds?

- Michelle, do you see anything changing in the next few years? I mean, if all the facts and figures are out there - and recent government social trends suggest that over the past decade immigration has actually given more to Britain than taken away - even when you have all those facts and figures do you think it's going to change people's minds?

- While we're still in the European Union, that's the free movement of people and it's a legal right for people to...

If you were marking the programme for impartiality, would be a clear sixth tick in the 'Pro-immigration' column. 

Except for her joky exchanges with Bill Oddie, those questions clearly bring out a strong pro-immigration bias on Sian's part (which many might well generalise to the BBC as a whole). She barely bothered to try to make even the most token effort to put the opposing point of view, did she?

Blatant bias. 

This being Sunday Morning Live though, the online vote came down heavily against the programme's (loaded) question: 73% said 'No, the UK isn't too hostile to immigration' while a mere 27% agreed with everyone who appeared on Sunday Morning Live that, yes, we are too hostile to immigration - despite all the overwhelming efforts of the 'Yes' campaign run by the SML team. 

Sian asked if Charlie was surprised. Charlie said UKIP ares being tactically astute in spotting this trend. "Well, they're all talking about immigration politically now...", began Sian. 

"We're friendlier than people give us credit for, Lucy?", asked Sian (in a forlorn tone of voice - and, no, I don't think I'm imagining that. Watch and see for yourselves) - the Lucy in question being Lucy Siegle of the Observer, who had joined the panel later on (along with George Moonbat of the Grauniad). Observerista Lucy felt that the public aren't  as "anti as they suggest". Add a seventh and final tick.

And that was that. 

Now, I do think I've become something of a 'BBC bias wet' over the past couple of years - a BBC bias Hezza! - but this Sunday Morning Live was about as shamelessly biased as anything I've seen on the BBC for a long time. I hesitate to use the words, but 'pure propaganda' springs to mind.

Maybe all BBC bias-related sites and campaigners should focus on this one programme and use it to prove that Helen, John and Nick are completely wrong in consigning this sort of pro-immigration BBC bias to the past. It remains alive and kicking very, very hard.

Bunfight at the BBC Corral

I've not watched Sunday Morning Live for a while but, after a brief flowering under Samira Ahmed, it now seems to have reverted to type. 

I arrived just in time for the debate about whether Pope Francis is a revolutionary or not [a typical BBC question] and thought, "Hmm, I might stick around and watch this." 

Then I then saw the panel and thought, "Oh no! Not Bonnie Greer, Kate Smurthwaite and Nick Ferrari (much as I like Nick Ferrari)!" 

I then knew what was coming. And it came...

A couple of nice liberal Catholics, Mark Dowd and Paul Vallely, duly appeared to say nice things about that nice Pope Francis but got shouted down by a pair of left-wing feminists, Bonnie Greer and Kate Smurthwaite. The latter made almost identical points to each other, except that Kate was far more abusive about the way she put them, and ganged up on anyone and everyone who dared disagree with their derogatory views of the Catholic Church, shouting and pulling faces at their opponents in the process [very adult!]...which, of course, was Nick Ferrari's cue to enter the fray and try to fan the flames even more. 

All the programme was missing at this point was a few lions to enter the studio and eat Mark Dowd. I bet the SML production team are kicking themselves for not having thought of that.

Sunday Morning Live has always had a tendency to crams its panels with shouty know-nothings, flame-throwers, wingnuts, moonbats and gobshites - and, frankly, I'm only entering into the spirit of the programme by sinking to such levels of abuse here. This particular set of guests was a model panel in that respect - a cast-iron guarantee of a bun fight. 

The consensus on Twitter seems to be that it was a "silly, ignorant, cliched" debate between "uninformed" people with "nothing to contribute"....except heat.

All course, it's all about raising our blood pressure and entertaining us on a Sunday morning. Bread and circuses (well, circuses anyhow). It's good for ratings. Plus it keeps the viewers awake. 

Then it was onto, "Let's talk about climate change and its effect on the planet, well-documented" [as Sian put it.] 

Naomi Klein - who's hardly been off the BBC this week - replaced Bonnie Greer on the panel for thsi one [an understandable swap]. Naomi and Mark got things off to a quiet start, agreeing with each other about how we are to blame for ruining the planet, so thank goodness for Nick and Kate who soon entered with their buns. Then it all kicked off. [Did I see a hopeful Paul Mason prick up his ears, and pop his head round the studio door?] Nick assumed the role of the evil 'climate denier' and the rest [including presenter Sian Williams] ganged up on him. Kate Smurthwaite almost burst in the process - which, had she actually done so, would have been great for ratings!  

Except for the Jim Davidson interview and the baboons (real ones, not the panel) - oh, and someone (not a porn star) called Bobby Friction - Sunday Morning Live was a classic of its kind and the questions were classic BBC ones: Should we (ie the rich and wicked West) have intervened in Africa earlier to stop Ebola? Is the Pope a revolutionary? Are we stewards of the planet, and what does that mean for climate change?

If I could only rant a little harder about the programme maybe I might get an invite to appear on it soon. 

A bang or a whimper

No sooner was The Big Questions getting into its stride under the masterful chairpersonship of Nicky Campbell than the series ended. I’m not even joking now. 

Don’t let’s forget that not so long ago that programme was such a shambles that watching it turned you into a voyeur, like when you stumble upon Jeremy Vine (update: I think I meant Kyle) and are momentarily transfixed.

However, it’s gone and now there’s Sunday Morning Live. 

I don’t know why we lost Samira Ahmed, who was rather good, and got instead Sian Williams who sports the roundest face ever to be televised.

Like TBQs SML has three topics and a panel, but even so the format is weak and wibbly wobbly. The discussion is less interesting and more superficial than TBQs, and were it not for the audience’s vote, which always goes resoundingly and gratifyingly against the panel’s moral guidance, the outcome would be completely inconclusive. 

The roundness of Sian’s countenance gave “Are British Muslims complacent about extremism?” a distinctly comical air. Also comical were the passers-by who scampered incongruously back and forth outside, visible through a window behind Sian. They had an air of  “thank God we’re not stuck indoors with you and Yasmin Alibhai Brown.”

Since her infamous spat with Rod Liddle, to whom and of whom she proclaimed her loathing, thrice, on air, Yasmin Alibhai Brown seems to have been granted yet more airtime. It looks like she’s been bestowed ‘freedom of the BBC’  for gallant services to the ratings. Grazing rights, maybe and a big symbolic key?

She explained with deep frown, jabbing hands and much sorrow, that she had failed to secure funding for her ‘idea’, which was to examine the brains of extremist Muslims in prison. Muslim parents are confused, she added.

Sian was also confused, and turned to Daniel Johnson, addressing him as Leo and asking if he agreed that we fail to understand Muslim youth and that is why they’re turning to radicalism? He thinks the Muslim community has to take responsibility, specifically in ‘our’ mosques. Has everyone except me got a Mosque now?

Leo McKinstry was more forthright.  

Here’s where I get disrespectful. Look away now if you’re easily offended, but I’m sure the sofa was silently pumping air into the two panellists sitting at Sian’s right. The pressure is probably calibrated so that at the end of the programme they are fully inflated, whereupon depending on the vote they either tragically burst, or deflate, noisily phutting around the ceiling. We don’t get to see this because the Sunday Politics comes on.

I normally support Camilla Batmanghelidjh. I like the way she endeavours to understand antisocial and destructive behaviour rather than dishing out Sharia-like punishments willy-nilly, but today something seemed to have gone awry. Every time the camera went to her she and her outfit had expanded; her head-to-toe Carmen Miranda costume covered everything including most of both her hands. Only her glasses had nothing to do with fruit. Specsavers, have you no imagination?

I was surprised to hear that Camilla only saw the good side of Islam, the side that gives structure to the lives of disenfranchised Muslim youth, when ‘normative’ Islam is the antithesis of everything she espouses (understanding, creativity, self expression, humanity etc etc.) 

It must be those blinkers that the BBC hands out before participants go on air. Does she genuinely think Islam is the one and only religion that is getting kids off drugs? WTF? (as they say on the interweb.)

Who wants to know what Jimmy Osmond thinks about anything, let alone Mormon-ophobia, an imaginary phenomenon known only to him.

As Sian calls time on the vote (although you will still be charged) you just know the public will ignore the panel and vote overwhelmingly YES, the Muslims ARE complacent, which they duly did.