Corbynist-Kernow

I was just about to switch off the TV when this came up. Sunday Politics South West.

Would you believe that antisemitism problems have penetrated the Cornwall branch of the Labour Party? 

Having lived most of my life ‘undercover’ if you know what I mean, I’ve found myself within earshot of low-level antisemitism from the mouths of people who would have been mortified if they’d realised they were offending an actual Jew and even more surprised to discover that the friend they’d been interacting with quite happily for years was secretly a hook-nosed, money-worshipping, miserly, horned individual with a rudimentary tail and a plan to take over the world.

The most overt antisemitism occurred ‘out of county’ and could pop up unexpectedly in whatever location I happened to be in at the time. (All over the place, that’s me.) In fact when we first returned to Cornwall, (where I grew up) the place seemed so remote from metropolitan politics that the identity thing never seemed an issue. 

However, now that full-on Marxism has taken hold of Labour, we have to acknowledge that the virus of antisemitism is part of the package. When you see messages like ‘Oh Jeremy Corbyn' inscribed in the sand on some of Cornwall’s magnificent beaches, it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Cllr Tim Dwelly seems like a good man. He resigned from Labour because of this scandal and stands as an independent. And here in the regional edition of Sunday Politics, we see the prospective Labour Party parliamentary candidate (Jennifer Forbes PPC) trying to defend dear leader by suggesting we look at “Jeremy’s history”. Of course, the examples of Jeremy's history she specifies include “Signing EDMs in parliament to support Jewish people” and not his ‘history’ of commemorating the graves of terrorists, inviting Raed Salah to tea on the terrace of the HoC, supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, advocating the RoR for the 5 million Palestinian refugees and so on.

Cornwall is currently embroiled in a row about plans to build thousands of new houses in the county, some of which are apparently set aside to accommodate Manchester’s (and other cities’) overspill.

 The councillors have a lot on their plate.

Don’t go there!

Blimey, they’ve sure got it in for Carl Benjamin. Look at "Cornwall Live". If I'd known that Sargon and Milo were going to be on Lemon Quay I'd have stayed away even more than I already did.

Woman paints vagina in protest of Carl Benjamin’s 'I wouldn't even rape you' tweet

(Not her own vagina, disappointingly)

It was even worse on the local Sunday Politics.  I haven’t had a chance to watch it all yet, but from what I saw at the beginning of the programme, it’s getting beyond ridiculous.

Douglas Murray and Sara Khan on 'The Sunday Politics'

Today's The Sunday Politics included a discussion between Douglas Murray and Sara Khan. It was so interesting and important that a full transcript seemed appropriate.

For the 'BBC bias' angle, please look at Jo Coburn's rather heavy-handed and one-sided contributions and then weigh them against the programme editor's decision to stage this vital discussion with these particular guests in the first place. 

Jo Coburn: The revelation that the Manchester suicide bomber, 22-year-old Salman Abedi, was born in this country has raised fresh concerns about the effectiveness of the UK's counter-extremism policy. In a moment we'll be talking to two people who've spent their careers investigating radicalisation in the UK: Douglas Murray, of the Henry Jackson Society, and Sara Khan, author of The Battle for British Islam and CEO of the counter-extremism organisation Inspire. We asked both for a personal take on how to confront the problem of Islamist extremism. First up, here's Douglas Murray:

Douglas Murray: Even after all these dead, all this mourning and defiance, still we learn no lessons. We remain stuck in the John Lennon response to terrorism - they blow us up, we sing Imagine. Our politicians still refuse to accurately identify the sources of the problem, and polite society remains silent or dumb. This country gave asylum to the Libyan parents of Salman Abedi. Their son repaid that generosity by killing 22 British people, one for each year of life this country had given him. We need to think far more deeply about all this. Eastern Europe doesn't have an Islamic terrorism problem because it doesn't have much Islam. France has the worst problem because it has the most Islam. Are we ever going to draw any lessons from this? Apparently not. For the time being, the game is to be as inoffensive as possible. The rot isn't just within the Muslim communities. Consider all those retired British officials and others who shill, and are in the pay of the Saudis and other foreign states, even while they pump the extreme versions of Islam into our country. Our enemies are serious. It is high time we became serious too. 

Jo Coburn: Douglas Murray there. And now for Sara Khan's view: 

Sara Khan: Islamist extremism is flourishing in our country. We're failing to defeat it, so what can we do about it? Whenever I say we must counter those Muslim organisations who are promoting hatred, discrimination, and sometimes even violence, I'm often either ignored by some politicians out of a misplaced fear of cultural sensitivity, or I find myself experiencing abuse by some of my fellow Muslims. We need to wake up. These groups and their sympathisers tour Muslim communities, hold events, and have hundreds of thousands of followers on their social media. Yet there is little counter challenge to their toxic anti-Western narrative, which includes opposition to democracy and human rights. I've seen politicians and charities partner with and support some of these voices and groups. This is nothing short of scandalous. Many anti-racist groups will challenge those on the far right but not Muslim hate preachers, in the erroneous belief that to do so would be Islamophobic. But it's Islamophobic not to challenge them as it implies that all Muslims hold these views. Following the attack on Monday, it cannot be business as usual. We must counter those who seek to divide us. 

Jo Coburn: Sara Khan's view there, and Douglas Murray and Sara Khan join me now. Douglas Murray, you wrote a book, Strange Death of Europe. What did you mean in your film when you say, "Let's get serious?"

Douglas Murray: Several things. Just one example I can give you. The young man who carried out this atrocious attack last Monday night was two years a student at Salford University. He was on a campus which is, from its leadership to its student leadership, opposes all aspects of the government's only counter-extremism programme. They not only oppose it they boast they're boycotting it. They always did this. The university that he was at was against the only counter-extremism policy this state has. 

Jo Coburn (interrupting): Talking about one event, were you? Yes? 

Douglas Murray: This is just one example of a much bigger problem. 

Jo Coburn: What are you suggesting though? Shut down the University? Force them to change their policies? 

Douglas Murray: Well, I think that a university, which in the case of Salford, for instance, encourages students to report racist attacks - which is quite right - but discourages them from reporting any Islamic extremism is a serious problem because...after all, if you've  spent years telling people not to report Islamic extremism and then discover that you've produced a suicide bomber in Manchester, I think you should be held accountable. 

Jo Coburn: Sara Khan, what do you say to that? 

Sara Khan: I think it's quite clear from my own experience that there have been politicians who have undermined Prevent, there have been community organisations, indeed there have been Islamist groups in this country that have been at the forefront of undermining and countering Prevent, but also wider counter extremism measures. And I think we haven't really started getting real in recognising the fact that Islamist extremism has flourished in this country. If somebody had given us a crystal ball ten years ago when the 7/7 bombings had happened and said, 'Look forward and you're going to see the fact that hundreds of people leave this country to join Isis', and we've had hundreds of people being convicted of Islamist offences, I think we'd have been quite shocked about the fact that things have got worse as opposed to getting better. 

Jo Coburn: Right, but, Douglas Murray, the essence of your argument when you made those comparisons between the numbers of Muslims in different countries is that we've got too much Islam in Britain? 

Douglas Murray: Well, look. The answer that the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups give is that the answer to absolutely everything is Islam. It think less Islam, in general, is obviously a good thing...

Jo Coburn (interrupting): Really? 

Douglas Murray: The Islamic world...let me finish...The Islamic world is in the middle of a very serious problem and it has been going on since the beginning. And I think it is not worth continuing to risk our own security simply in order to try to be politically correct. 

Jo Coburn: Would you support that kind of policy?

Sara Khan: No, I would disagree with Douglas on that and say, look, nobody is going to deny that since the end of the 20th century there has been a rise in Islamist extreme terror organisations. But the fact of the matter is, what's really happening now, yes, there is a crisis within contemporary Islam, but there is a clash at the moment. There are competing claims about what the faith stands for. So, yes, while we're seeing Islamist terror organisations, at the same time there leading religious theologians who are saying to Muslims that, for example, the concept of a caliphate is absolutely outdated and that Muslims should be embracing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and adopting a human rights culture. 

Douglas Murray: If I may just pick up on that very quickly? I entirely agree with Sara Khan that there are obviously people trying to counter this; however. I would urge us to take the long view. In the history of Islam there have been many reformers and most of the time they have ended up being on the brunt of the violence and the ones being killed. I deeply admire what Sara and other people do in this country. I want them to win. But the evidence out there is that they are not only a minority but the most beleaguered minority. Take a poll that was taken last year in this country. It found that two thirds of British Muslims said they would not report a family member they found to be involved in extremism to the police. I mean, this is a very serious problem...

Jo Coburn (interrupting): But the policies you are proposing are far more Draconian because, as you say, you don't think they can win and the majority...

Douglas Murray (interrupting): No, no. I wish that they could. I hope that they could. We should do everything we can to support people like Sara but we should also recognise that the scale of the problem out there is beyond our current understanding. 

Jo Coburn: How do you counter, Sara, radicalisation that can happen on a university campus or it can happen online? The discussion we had with Ben Wallace this morning, the security minister, about the amount of material that is out there. But if we really pursue in a hard-line way perhaps the sort of thing Douglas Murray is suggesting, then gone is freedom of speech, gone is free debate and discussion, as they will see it? 

Sara Khan: I've always said that the best way and the most effective way of countering extremism is through the prism of human rights. We cannot abandon our human rights to fight extremism. And I have to say where I think we are going wrong, where there's the hole, the gap, is that the lack of counter work is actually in challenging the Islamist ideals....that when you put up your larky image there...How many people are actually going to say 'We need to now counter that very strict anti-Western narrative, the Islamist ideals?' That's where we really aren't doing enough work. 

Douglas Murray: Yes, and....

Jo Coburn (interrupting): What about the human rights point though, that you cannot take away people's human rights in order to protect ours? 

Douglas Murray: I'm not suggesting that and I'm not suggesting that anyone has their human rights taken away. I'm suggesting that we do things that make sure  that 22 people don't get blown up on an average Monday again, OK? The idea that it is against human rights to ask people, for instance, to simply be opposed to people who want to blow up our daughters in a pop venue on a Monday night, that isn't restricting human rights. It isn't restricting human rights if you're taking government money and you are an institution like Salford University you should be held responsible for not cooperating with the standard security measures. 

Sara Khan: I don't disagree with that but I'm saying you can challenge extremism without having to abandon human rights, and in my organisation there's a lot of work going on, going into Muslim communities, working with teachers. But we're saying: We've got to actually counter the Islamist narrative. We are not doing enough. This is not about actually closing down free speech. This is encouraging more of us to say...and this is the most effective way of countering the Islamist narrative. 

Jo Coburn: So why isn't it doing better?Why isn't it reaching and spreading in the communities themselves?

Sara Khan: There are a  number of reasons. One of them is there is a denial taking place. There are a lot of apologetics taking place. Part of it is also the way we talk about Muslims in this country. We use this term 'Muslim communities' as if they are a homogeneous monolith when the fact is there is a very positive trend but also there is a negative trend among British Muslims, and we need to counter those who are promoting the idea that Muslims need to be part of a global, collective (?) identity. 

Douglas Murray: I agree. I absolutely agrees. It's also the case there is massive push back because a lot of Islamists in this country they are defending the faith as they see it. We think we can advise them down a better path but they think they are defending absolutely everything and e need to get real about that. 

Jo Coburn: Douglas Murray and Sara Khan, thank you very much.

Pundits; what do they know?

Isn’t it unsettling when the TV pundits evidently know less than you do? I want them to know more than I do otherwise what’s the point?

I’m not talking about the I/P conflict for once - you’ve undoubtedly already written that off as the topic no-one wants to know very much about. A few judicious cries of “What Israel is doing” and “Shame on you” should suffice.

No, I’m referring to the extraordinarily pedestrian discussion about the UKip leadership contest on today’s Sunday Politics, with Tim Shipman, Isabel Oakeshott, Steve Richards and of course Andrew Neil. 

They began talking about Raheem Kassam, whom some people believe is a strong contender.

“He’s something to do with Breitbart, isn’t he?” said Andrew, looking rather pleased with himself.

“He’s extremely right-wing” asserted Isabel,” he has a picture of Enoch Powell by his bed” (or words to that effect)

Well, did you know, as I’ve just found out, that Raheem Kassam’s favourite journalist is Rod Liddle? (I thought Rod was supposed to be a bit of a coconut - wobbly leftie on the outside, wibbly righty on the inside. Or something like that. Did you read his amusing piece on Baroness Tonge in the Sunday Times (£))

I actually read that scintillating insight (and others) into Raheem Hassam on Buzzfeed. It’s not a site I’d normally look to, and I don’t expect the BBC would see it, as you’d have to go to the trouble of Googling ‘Raheem Kassam' to find it. And interestingly it also sheds a tiny bit more light on the intriguing bust-up between Kassam and his former business partner Robin Shepherd. It’s weird that hardly anyone brings up this mysterious and very acrimonious fight when the UKip leadership issue comes up, since skeletons in closets are the driving force behind much of our current political discourse.

So here, for the information of the Sunday Politics team, is the link, and a brief extract. 

“By this point he had become a pundit, and sought funding from “pro-Israel, anti-Islamism” American neocons to run a blog called The Commentator with fellow activist Robin Shepherd. The pair split in incredibly acrimonious circumstances in 2013. 

“Working with Raheem Kassam was a nightmare,” Shepherd said when contacted by BuzzFeed News this week. “I formally reported him to the police on suspicion of fraud. Since I had never before reported anyone to the police, perhaps a reasonable observer might wonder why that seemed necessary. Kassam is a psychopath, and a crook. Kassam is a nasty piece of work, and prides himself on being so. Being a ‘wrong ’un’ is something he relishes, as do the shabby characters who associate with him. 

“Raheem Kassam is a danger to British democracy, and the rule of law. I saw at first-hand behaviour that was so appalling it was, and remains, difficult to internalise.” 

In response, Kassam says Shepherd wrongly accused him of taking thousands of pounds from the blog when the business venture collapsed: “We never codified the relationship between us. When we had a bust-up he said I was sacked.” 

Kassam said he went back to the American donors. “I said, who do you want to keep the money? Me or Robin?” He says the donors chose him, much to the anger of Shepherd, who struggled to deal with this and has written furious posts about the situation ever since.

Oh well, we still don’t know exactly what has happened, but then, neither do we know the fine details of various other game-changing revelations that have been given the full-on  press coverage, which (arguably) are designed to scupper certain political ambitions. I just wish the pundits knew what they were talking about so that they could tell us.

Harriet Harman crashes her car (again)

While I'm giving credit where credit's due...

It's Andrew Neil again, on BBC One's The Sunday Politics - and, hopefully, this link takes you to the right place to enable you to watch Andrew Neil & Co. debate the issue of the EU and women's rights with Harriet Harman. 

We're firmly in 'car crash interview' territory here....especially from 9:07 in, when AN lists a long list of leading female Leave campaigners and invites Harriet to give an equivalent list. She duly 'does a Harriet' and stonewalls. But it's no good. It's 1-0 to Andrew Neil and Harriet's car is out of control, scraping along dozens of others Remain campaign cars as it hurtles towards disaster. 

It then got even worse for her.

Answering her claims that the EU is good for women's rights, AN then showed her the top 7 people in the EU and asked her if she noticed something common to them all:

After trying to 'do a Harriet' again, she said - more than once - that she didn't know who any of these men are...

...which, given that they include EU Commission President Juncker and EU Council President Tusk (former Polish PM) and European Parliament head (and long-term leading light in the EU's Socialist group - which includes Harriet's Labour!) Mr Schultz, is very hard to believe - except that this is Harriet Harman!

And then, still flailing around, she accused Andrew Neil of picking seven "random" men! AN, of course, immediately disabused her of that suggestion.

She was now not only looking at the smouldering remains of her own car but a twenty-mile pile up behind her (entirely caused by herself)...

...though, also being Harriet, it has to be said that she still didn't bat an eyelid.

Her pro-EU arguments were severely dented by The Sunday Politics though - eyelids or no eyelids.

A brillo-iant BBC interviewer

You've got to hand it to Andrew Neil...

Yes, he may be best buddies with his long-time colleague on BBC One's This Week, Diane Abbott, but that didn't stop him from giving her a thorough and forensic debunking on today's Sunday Politics.

He then gave Conservative Liam Fox and UKIP's Steven Woolfe a very thorough grilling.

If you didn't know his past, would you be able to tell his politics from his questioning?

And yet because of that past he's the trump card played by defenders of the BBC who have - for years - cried "What about Andrew Neil?" when confronted with evidence of left-wing bias at the BBC.

It's a funny old world, isn't it?

Update: (Sue)

Diane Abbott; making it up as she goes along.

Car crash 2010

Car Crash 2015  

“Jeremy got the most applause”  "250,000 people who came out in London  think the cuts are unfair." "You can sneer, Andrew"

“Earnings from the BBC alone”  H/T fi_karen (btl comment)

I don’ wanna be a basic bitch, but what I do know, Andrew, is that straightened hair and geeky glasses definitely don’t do much for our Diane, do they, Andrew?

Guess who?

Well, at least someone at the BBC brought it up:

Labour candidate @lucianaberger asked about segregated audience at Labour #GE2015 event by @afneil in #bbcdp clip https://t.co/vHL4yWZdN9

— DailySunday Politics (@daily_politics) May 4, 2015

The importance of being Jeremy

Someone on the Sunday Politics said Labour’s four point lead in today’s polls was down to the media’s representation of the Cameron/ Miliband/ Paxman programme, rather than the actual debate itself. Apparently some of the people polled hadn’t even seen it. They went entirely by media reports and clips of ‘the best bits’.

If that’s true, and I’m inclined to believe it is, then Ed’s success hinges on ‘that’ remark. 

I can’t remember the exact words, but it was something like “You may be important Jeremy, but you’re not that important.”

Oh the impudence! The flirtatiousness! Cheeky to the headmaster!

I can’t imagine David Cameron being lippy like that! The bit at the end was pretty punchy, too. Paxo said with faux concern “You alright Ed?” a slight pause, then “Yes. Are you?”

I can see Boris doing something similar, but not our straight-laced PM. There’s some sort of lesson there, to do with ‘The Weakest Link’. If the whole election hinged on an episode of T. W. L. hosted by Anne Robinson, more people would probably engage. 

You are the weakest link goodbye. Walk of shame. End of.

You could apply the Ed technique to quite a few other things too. The BBC for example. You may be important Tony, George, Mark, (insert favourite DG) but you’re not that important. Death threats? It happens to the best of us. They’re thinking of setting up a dedicated hotline. Or are they?

What with death threats, and the stress of covering Israel: 

“the corporation aims to be balanced in its coverage of Israel, but that reporting on the country’s conflict with the Palestinians was “tough”.”

Tough shit.

Jeremy Clarkson is a good example of someone who wasn’t as important as he thought he was. Or is it that the BBC underestimated Clarkson’s importance to his fans? Is Jeremy Clarkson the most important person on the BBC? I feel a John Lennon joke coming on. 

“He’s not even the m.i.person on Top Gear!”  (ba boom)

I have been forced to think about this incident. It has divided the country so it’s my duty to come up with a definitive verdict.( As it happens, I watched Stacey Dooley’s investigation into domestic violence the other day. Stacey is famous for her “My hometown fanatics ” film about the Islamification of Luton.The people’s version of investigative reporting. On domestic violence she managed to wangle an audience with Theresa May no less.  May was evasive and all politiciany. Waste of time.)

I must ask myself, did the Clarkson fracas, a workplace version of domestic violence, cross the line? I needed to know more before making my final decision.

1. Had 36 year old Oisin what’sisname been in the relationship long enough to know that a man needs a hot dinner on the table when he comes in after a hard day’s graft?
2. Whose fault was it that Jeremy had to work so late?
3. Was it reasonable to expect the producer to oversee dining arrangements efficiently enough to ensure that Clarkson is kept in the manner to which he had become accustomed?  
4. We all get ratty when we’re tired and hungry.
5. Not always to the point of fisticuffs. 
6. When the star is bigger than the producer there will be trouble.
7. The BBC is notorious for making bad decisions.
8. Could it have been handled differently?
9. Is Clarkson too big to fail?
10. Does Clarkson hit people often? 

Bored now. I’ll retire to the jury room and think about it.

Oh yes. Forgot to add:

1. Someone at the BBC must have decided to let the ‘slope’ film go out.
2. someone at the BBC must have leaked the eeny meeny / n****r outtake.
3. Someone at the BBC must have approved the insulting numberplate.
4. Russell Brand is still on our screens.       
5. You alright Jeremy?

Farce of the day

The latest scandal to hit ‘electioneering’ is even more like something from “The Thick of It” than the Ukip debacle. (I mean everyone is tempted to inflate an invoice or two... if the EU is picking up the tab..... are they not?) No? Maybe not.

I mean, did Afzal Amin really dream up that farcical plot? (Brian Rix eat your heart out. )

Did he, as he now claims, do all this for the ultimate betterment of mankind?

Who made the recording? Some say it was the EDL; Mark Mardell said the Daily Mail.

The Celebrity Restaurant? You couldn’t make it up. Well, you could, but no-one would believe you.

By the way, what was Afzal’s actual policy on the mega-mosque? Or was he so hell-bent on getting elected that he didn’t give a damn one way or the other? 

From the transcript of the conversation it really looked as though Tommy Robinson was all set to go along with the plan, but it now seems it was all a bluff. Surprisingly, the media believes him.

The whole thing begs several questions, who did what and why? 

Personally, from my own position (a combination of total ignorance and guesswork based on various media reports of the incident) I’ll guess that Afzal Amin was pretty miffed about his failure to stop the original EDL march, and fantasized, as one does, about how he could re-run the whole thing and emerge triumphant.  Only he took it a bit too far. It should have remained a fantasy, obviously.

What astounded me more than the fiasco itself was that the BBC seems most outraged at the very idea that a would-be M.P. could stoop so low as to hob-nob with such a disgustingly far-right-wing bunch of thugs as the EDL. The fact that as a would-be MP Afzal concocted an elaborate farce to make himself look good didn’t seem to bother them at all.

Now call me a right-wing defender of the EDL if you must, but I seem to remember that the EDL are vilified for objecting to the Islamification or Islamisation of the UK, which they express vociferously and sometimes drunkenly, through the medium of the protest march.

Both ladies on Marr’s paper review seemed to be taking this EDL-bashing line, specially the labour MP Gloria De Piero.  “The idea that anybody would contemplate doing a deal with the English Defence League” was the thing that appalled her. “They’ve marched through my constituency, they intimidate people, they frighten people....”  Wow. 

“The EDL is the most appalling organisation” said Anna Soubry MP. 

Nothing was said about the intimidation emanating from massed Muslim marches we’ve seen over the last couple of years, least of all the one against depicting the prophet Mo. that winded outside the PM’s residence.

Meanwhile, scandals surrounding the corrupt councillors of Tower Hamlets, the hate preachers that seem to be protected by chancellors and governing bodies of our universities, the communities that demand separate Islam-style education for their children, the racist sexual exploitation that was swept under the carpet by the police, social services and the media for years - have enjoyed kid glove treatment for fear of stirring up social unrest, and worst of all fear of being called racist.

It would have been admirable if Afzal had really been what the Conservatives wanted him to be, disadvantaged background, Muslim, aspirational, successful, multicultural; diversity with a cherry on top. But alas, no.

Tim Montgomerie was interviewed on the Sunday Politics. (I think) He also adopted the anti-EDL approach.     

Andrew Neil eventually got Tommy Robinson on the blower. 

“Hello, Mr Robinson, can you hear me?” 

“Yes. Hello”

“Are you there?” 

“Yes, I can hear you. Hello.”

“I can’t hear him.”

That palaver at the beginning of the conversation gave the whole thing a surreal aura, and although Andrew Neil appeared prepared to hear Tommy Robinson out, alas and alack, they ran out of time. 

The story continues....

Unspoken Question

Did anyone see TBQs? From Peckham? 

The biggest "Q" was to do with immigration and whether or not it’s of net benefit or net detriment to the UK. 

“While there’s economic inequality people are bound to want to come and take advantage of our prosperity, and also the UK would grind to a halt if it weren’t for immigrant workers” was the gist of the argument from the open doors advocates. 

While most of the points made, pro and con, were pretty obvious, the gigantic elephant is firmly squatting in the room. The nearest hint with which anyone from the ‘cons’ camp dares to acknowledge the existence of Nellie is to gingerly offer: “People are noticing their neighbourhoods changing” and “they feel like strangers in their own towns”. 

People are flummoxed by Polish groceries? Or foreign cuisine-themed eateries? I don’t think so. People are affected by the constant propaganda pumped out in particular by the BBC, whereby certain unfamiliar cultural practices are injected into every genre of programming. A hijab here, a bushy beard there, Halal, Eid,  Ramalama-ding-dong. Old MacDonald had a farm ee-eye ee-eye No!

The subject of Muslim immigration is not supposed to be articulated in specific terms. It would be racist. Being thought racist is the biggest crime - on a par with paedophilia and Zionism, and while no-one who has any kind of reputation or standing in politics or the media has the nerve to risk losing it by simply telling the truth the situation will continue to stagnate.

Did you see Philip Hammond saying that I.S. is tarnishing the name of the peaceful religion of Islam?

 Did you hear the panel on Sunday Politics saying that I.S. is on the doorstep of Europe? 

We’ll just have to wait till I.S. reaches the heart of this country before Nellie can pack her trunk and say goodbye to the circus.

P.S. I wonder what effect those graphics on TBQs are supposed to have on the viewer? Those quilted vertical panels in aggressively hideous, jarring colour combinations must have been designed with some psychological message in mind. 

Submit?

In praise of Andrew Neil

In the old days at Biased BBC we used to laugh whenever anyone from the Left would counter our daily charges of left-wing BBC bias by citing three names - Jeremy Clarkson, Andrew Neil and Nick Robinson. It seemed to be their main argument. 

They've got rather more sophisticated these days (with mentions of Craig Oliver, for example, and Cardiff University reports) but their 'counter-evidence' (on blogs, newspaper comments fields and Twitter) still often boils down to repeating "Jeremy Clarkson, Andrew Neil and Nick Robinson". They think it's their trump card.

I was thinking about that again because I was just watching Andrew Neil interviewing Conservative minister Sajid Javid on The Sunday Politics. Andrew going at Mr Javid with Tom Watson-like terrier intensity. It was a classic case of 'interviewing 'from the Left', and a superb piece of interviewing. Yet Andrew Neil isn't 'of the Left'. He's just doing what a professional BBC interviewer is supposed to do, without fear or favour.

It has to be said though that being held up as the absolute model of impartial BBC interviewing by blogs which non-right-wingers (like Owen Bennett Jones) tend to see as heavily right-wing (and biased), probably won't help Andrew Neil fend off the charge that me must be biased because he's known to hold right-wing views.

All I can say is that his body of work speaks for itself. He may have strong views but he knows his role is to play devil's advocate when interviewing people he agrees with. Moreover, in the days when I counted interruptions, Andrew Neil's results showed that he was (on average) tougher with Conservatives than with Labour politicians. Right-wing bias was something he didn't display. 

Therefore, he is the model of impartial BBC interviewing. QED.

Small mercies

Historic mistake

Yesterday’s treatment of ‘The Deal’ by BBC News 24 wasn’t too bad. 

That is, taking into consideration that the deal brokered by Kerry and Mother Theresa Ashton is perceived as a life-changing stride towards World Peace and Apple Pie, at least there was a lengthy interview with Daniel Taub on BBC News 24, which granted him ample space to put Israel’s case.  It’s true that despite Andrew Neil’s attempts to have Saudi Arabia added to the meagre list of party poopers, Israel is still seen, by the BBC at least, as the lone spoilsport.

“The western media concentrates on the fact that the Israelis and Mr Netanyau are not happy about this, an understatement; what they don’t often mention is that the Arab Gulf States are also very apprehensive about this deal.”

As it happens, I heard Mark Mardell this morning - or was it a dream? - setting out quite clearly some of the reasons why Israel was not nearly as euphoric over the deal as the rest of the world seems to be.

While I find it astonishing that the BBC and many politicians seem willing to overlook all the reasons not to be cheerful as set out so succinctly in Netanyahu’s wolf in sheep’s clothing speech   

I understand that there are many matters of global significance and ramifications over which I am unable to trouble my pretty little head to do with economics, balances of power and realpolitik, which are beyond my pay grade. 

However, and it’s a big however, who could argue with some glaringly obvious facts, such as:

It was the sanctions that brought Iran to the table, not ideological capitulation.

Sanctions were imposed for a reason, and ‘curbing’ their nuclear programme in - their own words - an ‘easily reversible’ fashion is hardly reassuring. Would supernanny give in at the first whimper from the naughty chair? (I hate supernanny)

Why would the West suddenly trust a regime that has a record of being wholly untrustworthy? Could wishful thinking really triumph over common sense under the gaze of a worldwide audience? King’s new clothes I suppose.

There are so many reasons why this deal is bad that one must hope there’s some mysterious ‘good’ in there that we’re not being told about.

But it’s early days. The BBC has been behaving oddly recently. After ignoring Israel’s humanitarian efforts in Haiti and the Philippines, and the ongoing medical treatment of Palestinians in Israeli hospitals, we’re suddenly given a generous report by Kevin Connolly of all people, on Israel’s compassionate response to sick and injured Syrians.

I nearly fell out of bed this morning when I heard it, and here is the web article to prove that I wasn’t dreaming.

I understand that some of Israel’s supporters will be expressing their gratitude to the BBC for this small mercy, but you can bet that masses of Israel’s detractors will be firing off furious letters about the Israel lobby and its hold over the Zionist BBC.

Andrew and Tommy show

Him indoors called me to come and watch Andrew Neil talking with Tommy Robinson this morning. This jaw-dropping exchange caused all household activities to be suspended.

The constraints of political correctness applied only to Andrew Neil and not his adversary, which made for a conspicuous case of asymmetric warfare. So it wasn’t a level playing field, but then Tommy Robinson was automatically playing with a handicap just by being who he is. Nevertheless, even on Andrew Neil’s terms, with language as weapons, I’d say it was game set and match to Tommy. 

Realising he was being trounced, Andrew Neil resorted to belligerence and bluster, finally goading Tommy Robinson into reiterating that he was “terrified for his children about what was happening to our country”  in order that, on behalf of the BBC, he could scream his prepared retort “Some people are equally frightened of the EDL”

Saying that the EDL “doesn’t speak for very many people, does it?” begs the same question of the BBC. Perhaps Andrew Neil was simply trying to reassure himself in a last man standing kind of way. 

However this sort of thing is becoming par for the course. Let’s be honest, as they say.

Tommy Robinson starts making a reasonable case, people complain that he’s not being allowed air time, the BBC feels pressured into proving them wrong; each time they realise, too late, that their “far-right” “football hooligan” labels alone are not sufficient ballast against the credibility of his argument.

Andrew Neil then went on to interview a spokesman for the Muslims. Until and if iPlayer comes up with this episode I can’t recall his name, and his face was not familiar to me.

With one bound, Andrew Neil’s interlocutory manner switched from hostile to ingratiating.

The one pertinent question that was put went nowhere. It was something to do with Muslim-only areas, and lack of meaningful attempts to assimilate therein. This was deflected by a retort of such staggering irrelevance that one might assume Andrew Neil might venture the customary “You haven’t answered the question”.

But no. 

Update 

Through the powers of Twitter I can reveal that the gentleman to whom Andrew Neil was so deferential is “Britain’s Stupidest Man” Farooq Murad, secretary general of the MCB.

Huffington Post is making a major issue out of this episode of Sunday Politics. 

“A VIOLENT MAN MAKING VIOLENT THREATS’ screams the headline in enlarged pillar-box red caps.

Click on that and you get “EDL's Tommy Robinson Admits Real Name Is Stephen Yaxley, Was In BNP To Andrew Neil On Sunday Politics”

Jessica Elgot  - oh no, a pun is half-forming - got a bit of her own ‘el in the BLT comments. 

“So Tommy Robinson changed his name and was a member of the BNP...SO WHAT ?” represents the gist of them.