Two takes

Two very takes on the same story.

First, the BBC's take:

Second, the Daily Telegraph's take: 

The BBC website's article sounds quite Soviet after reading that Telegraph article, doesn't it?

Not bovvered

Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters were outraged at the audacity of Cathy Newman’s ambush  of their hero in some back alley t’other day.

It was filmed and widely disseminated on the internet. 

Newman questioned him on his association with Hamas and Hezbollah and friendships with antisemitic individuals like Raed Salah, to which he protested  “they never said anything antisemitic in front of me”, and of infamous holocaust denier Paul Eisen “I didn’t know he was a holocaust denier.” 

His main defence seemed to be that his mother stood alongside the Jewish people and the Irish people against the fascists in the notorious Cable Street demonstration.

As if those answers weren’t feeble enough, Cathy Newman’s questions were pretty feeble as well. 

Let’s not forget that Channel Four is as censorious and condemnatory of Israel’s defensive activities as anyone. Jon Snow is probably more guilty of promulgating pro-Palestinian propaganda  than Corbyn. 

However, apart from the actual holocaust deniers, most Israel-bashers will concede that the Jews suffered at the hands of Hitler; some of them even admit that Jews have suffered in a unique way. This does not translate into sympathy for Israel. Somehow, somewhere on the journey between universal sympathy for survivors of Belsen and Auschwitz and the establishment of the Jewish state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people, something went awry. Logic, history, facts, documentary evidence - all flew out the window.  Out with the philosemitism, in with the antisemitism.

Personally I feel that insincere challenges from the likes of Cathy Newman are futile because the bulk of Corbyn’s supporters couldn’t care less about his friendship with Salah, Sizer, Eisen, and now, another scandal, his association with a fellow named Dyab Abou Jahjaj.

The most damaging aspect of these revelations is that Corbyn seems to have forgotten his  friendship with this man altogether. Various investigators have come up with all sorts of evidence, which indicate that he’s a liar, or, if you prefer, economical with the actualité. In other words their hero is behaving in the manner of someone to whom the truth is irrelevant. 

The Telegraph has joined in the fun. 

And so has the Daily Mail:

“As to my position towards Palestine, it is guided by anti-racism and decolonisation logic. The racists are the Zionists themselves.”  

Opines Dyab Abou Jahjaj.

“Douglas Murray, of the human rights think tank the Henry Jackson Society tonight accused Mr Corbyn of being a ‘cheeerleader’ for Jahjah.He said: ‘Jahjah is a well-known thug on the Continent, particularly in Belgium and Holland’.‘Mr Corbyn hosted him in London in 2009 - long after his views because widely known. Indeed he was banned from entering the UK that year by the Home Secretary.‘But it’s not just the fact that he was receiving Jahjah – he was cheerleading for him. That is what makes this case so troubling.’”

The Jewish Chronicle posed some questions a few days ago, and it seems Corbyn has now attempted to answer them, through a spokesperson from his office.

All his answers are rather pathetic. He was unaware of the antisemitic beliefs of the individuals he befriended at the time he befriended or supported them He didn’t know. He didn’t recollect. He didn’t mean ‘friends’ literally when he said ‘friends’. He meant it as a term of diplomacy. He condemns antisemitic language, even when he’s spoken at rallies where antisemitic posters are being brandished in front of cameras; he was unaware of them. Raed Salah never said anything antisemitic in front of him. Dyou Abou Jahjah never expressed nasty views in front of him, and he claims he didn’t  even know him.

Doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter. Water off a duck’s back. Corbynistas will say it’s a smear campaign. They don’t care. Are they bovvered? No. They.  Ain’t.

Whitters Goes Pop

Please feel free to make what you want of this (and I'm reserving judgement for the time being), but.....

.....according to the Telegraph, Culture Secretary John Whittingdale warned the BBC within weeks of being appointed not to be pro-EU membership in the forthcoming referendum:

In a letter dated June 15, Mr Whittingdale wrote to Rona Fairhead, chairman of the BBC Trust, seeking assurances over “impartiality” in the BBC’s coverage of the upcoming EU referendum. 

It is understood the Culture Secretary said the vote would be very “high profile” and that “timely” processes for dealing with breaches of impartiality must be in place 

A similar letter was sent to Sharon White, the chief executive of Ofcom. Both replied promptly to say impartiality was paramount. None of the letters have yet been made public.

"None of the letters have yet been made public"....

...which, if so, wouldn't be much of a surprise! Transparent, the BBC certainly isn't.

The BBC can stop trembling again

That Telegraph piece by Bruce Anderson also makes it clear that those who expressed scepticism about John Whittingdale's much-touted eagerness to 'screw' with the BBC (as Tony Hall put it) were correct:

John Whittingdale, the new Culture Secretary, is a sound Right-winger and a devoted Thatcherite. So when he was appointed, the BBC trembled. Were the Tories about to take their revenge on the corporation for decades of Left-wing bias? There were reports that the Prime Minister had told his new colleague to “sort out” the BBC. But any BBC executive who entertained such fears might well have been reassured by yesterday’s Telegraph interview with Mr Whittingdale. 

No, the PM had not given him those instructions. He had no intention of privatising the BBC, still less abolishing it. There would be new methods of dealing with allegations of bias. A rigorous examination of BBC practices would be necessary when the new licence fee was negotiated. That sounds awfully like business as usual. It will disappoint some Tory backbenchers, who will accuse Mr Whittingdale of going native already: of forswearing red-bloodedness in exchange for a Cabinet minister’s red box.

Like a long-legged fly...

If you're feeling in the mood for a proper take down of the BBC, then please try Michael Henderson's hatchet job on the BBC at the Daily Telegraph. 

Before wielding his axe against the BBC, he too offers some praise for the BBC - specifically for one of those Radio 4 programmes I had in mind during the previous post: Prof. Roy Foster's magnificent, gimmick-free Radio 4 lecture on W.B .Yeats. (Like a long-legged fly upon the stream, Roy Foster's mind moves upon silence.)

[Other fine examples of BBC broadcasting from the same day were What the Songbird Said, Soul Music: The Lord is my Shepherd and Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock on The Thought Chamber.] 

Michael Henderson's piece is something of a smorgasbord, but it contains some striking points - and I think we can all agree about Giles Fraser:

But it isn’t just the liberal bias, which during the recent election campaign saw Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, surrounded on Newsnight by no fewer than four people who opposed his views in a studio discussion about welfare reform. It is, speaking more broadly, a cultural problem.

On Radio 4, for example, The News Quiz, which used to be an amusing show that ended the week with a merry quip or two, is now a platform for unfunny Lefties who bellow anti-Tory propaganda at the audience.

Mariella Frostrup, whose manicured tones can’t quite conceal the pity she feels for anybody unfortunate enough not to live in London, seems to be on the wireless every other day. This is the lady who, simper simper, bowled a few half-volleys at Gordon Brown during a Labour Party conference. Would a Tory-leaning broadcaster get away with a stunt like that?

Other programmes, such as Front Row, Saturday Review and even A Good Read, tack heavily to the Left in their choice of material and guests. When a leisurely world view is required, to put everything “in context”, it is usually to the likes of Lisa Jardine and Helena Kennedy that the BBC turns; or, increasingly, to that frightful windbag, Giles Fraser.

Rev Fraser, the turbulent priest who last week confessed to his shame at being English, gets behind doors where water can’t penetrate. Why? On The Moral Maze, where he is a regular member of the team, he struggles to articulate himself, yet there he is, week after week, presented as the conscience of Christian England.

Charles Moore has written more than once about the BBC’s abject failure to “get” Margaret Thatcher, thereby failing to get what most viewers understand instinctively. Things haven’t changed much. Newsnight, in particular, has become a shadow of the programme it used to be. It is Islington talking to Camden, and that kind of stuff tends not to play well beyond London.

At 8.20 yesterday morning, the Today programme on Radio 4 ran a feature on Grayson Perry, the potter who wears a frock. With so much going on in the world, that was considered to be worth five minutes of our time. And they wonder why their foes stand by the gate, planning to cut a swathe through their privileges! It’s not dark yet, Auntie, but it’s getting there and most of it is of your own doing.

P.S...

THAT civilisation may not sink,
Its great battle lost,
Quiet the dog, tether the pony
To a distant post;
Our master Caesar is in the tent
Where the maps are spread,
His eyes fixed upon nothing,
A hand under his head.
Like a long-legged fly upon the stream
His mind moves upon silence.

That the topless towers be burnt
And men recall that face,
Move most gently if move you must
In this lonely place.
She thinks, part woman, three parts a child,
That nobody looks; her feet
Practise a tinker shuffle
Picked up on a street.
Like a long-legged fly upon the stream
Her mind moves upon silence.

That girls at puberty may find
The first Adam in their thought,
Shut the door of the Pope's chapel,
Keep those children out.
There on that scaffolding reclines
Michael Angelo.
With no more sound than the mice make
His hand moves to and fro.
Like a long-legged fly upon the stream
His mind moves upon silence.

Booker on anti-India bias at the BBC

I've been holding off all day about posting about Christopher Booker's hard-hitting Sunday Telegraph piece, Why to blacken India on rape do they have to omit the facts?. 

It savages the BBC over its controversial documentary about rape in India - a documentary India's courts have banned.

I have to say that, up till reading Mr B's piece, I'd been entirely siding with the BBC against the Indian government over this. The BBC seemed, from all the (extensive) coverage I've been reading (and hearing), to be on the right side of the argument. 

However, as I now know that others are in a similar position, I'll give it a recommendation because it does raise some concerns about the BBC's selective targeting of particular countries and communities (especially in comparison to other countries and communities)...

...and it makes a serious charge (with what looks to me like compelling evidence) that the BBC cut out counterbalancing material from the original version of its film - material which (apparently) pointed out that India is far from being unique or, indeed, anywhere near being the worst case of a country which tolerates rape. 

Bias and the leaders' debates

On the big domestic issue of the day (especially according to the media), it's interesting to see how the various media organisations are reporting the shenanigans over the leaders' debates. 

The Telegraph is in fully Torygraph mode, unstintingly taking the Conservative Party's side - specifically against the BBC:

TV election debates: Tories go to war over BBC's 'institutional arrogance'

Senior Tories are furious with the BBC for attempting to 'dictate' the terms of the TV debates ahead of the General Election

The BBC is facing accusations of "institutional arrogance" after threatening to press ahead with televised election debates without the Prime Minister.

David Cameron has rejected the idea of a head-to-head debate with Ed Miliband and said he will only take part in a single seven-way debate with the other party leaders.

However the corporation and other broadcasters insisted that the debates "will go ahead" and host two election debates with seven party leaders and one head to head

The Guardian, however, is somewhat more balanced - despite their headline:

TV election debates: broadcasters call David Cameron's bluff

BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky welcome prime minister’s ‘final offer’ but move could result in PM being ‘empty chaired’ 

Broadcasters and Downing Street were at loggerheads on Friday after the television companies made it clear they would press ahead with plans to hold three separate election debates, whether David Cameron took part or not.

The networks said they would go ahead with plans for three debates during the election campaign - two between seven party leaders, and one a proposed head-to-head between the prime minister and Ed Miliband.

Downing Street described the announcement as “disappointing”, and said it was willing to discuss the logistics of Cameron’s proposal to take part in one, seven-way debate before the campaign begins.

The BBC has a very similar headline to that of the Guardian but is far more biased. The BBC takes its own side, and even quotes Ed Miliband's criticisms of the PM before (later on) quoting the PM himself:

TV election debates will go ahead, say broadcasters

Broadcasters have said plans for three TV general election debates in April will go ahead, despite David Cameron saying he will take part in only one.

It means Mr Cameron - who has rejected a head-to-head debate with Ed Miliband - could be "empty chaired".

Mr Miliband said it was "judgement day" for the prime minister, who was "a weak leader running from his record".

Sky News, which also has a dog in this fight, is, however, noticeably more neutral than the BBC, leading with the PM's point of view but carefull balancing it with the broadcasters' standpoint:

Leaders' Debates: PM Rejects Broadcasters' Call

The UK's major broadcasters plan to host three TV debates before the election but Downing Street has insisted the Prime Minister is only willing to take part in one 

Downing Street has insisted the Prime Minister is only willing to take part in one televised leaders' debate before the General Election after four major broadcasters repeated they were planning to stage three.

Sky News, Channel 4, the BBC and ITV said they were sticking to their plan of hosting one head-to-head contest between David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband and two pitting seven party leaders against each other during the election campaign.

They made it clear they were ready to go ahead with the debates even if Mr Cameron decides not to take part - raising the possibility that the PM could be "empty-chaired".

All credit then to the Guardian and Sky News for trying to report the story fairly. No credit whatsoever, however, to the toadying Telegraph and the arrogantly biased BBC. 

Obornegate

To return to a subject Sue has tackled earlier...

The self-updating 'My blog list' feature on the right hand side of this blog gives me the chance to see what's going on elsewhere. For some reason, I included 'Guardian Media' in the list. (Sorry Sue).

For the past few days the 'Guardian Media' link has been updating itself pretty often - and always with some new story about the perfidious Daily Telegraph, in the wake of Peter Oborne's dramatic resignation from the paper. [Update: Immediately after posting this piece, yet another such Guardian piece appeared].

The Graun is obviously on one of its periodic all-out crusades against a major rival. The intent is clear - as it was with the Graun's tireless campaigning against the Murdoch Empire: To serious damage a rival. 

The BBC, inevitably, hasn't been far behind. (The two often seem to walk together on such occasions.)

Newsnight didn't just help 'break' the story (via the Guardian/BBC's media go-to-guy Steve Hewlett), it also led the following night's edition with its own damning report (from Chris Cook) on the Telegraph's misbehaviour. 

Legal eagle and Radio 4 Law in Action presenter Joshua Rozenberg (aka Mr Melanie Phillips) was then interviewed and told how he'd resigned from the Telegraph after his articles were 'amended' - despite his protestations - to include untrue things that the Telegraph had been pressuring him to include because they chimed in with their core messages (say, about the EU or the European court). And I have to say that I believe Mr Rozenberg completely about that.

The Telegraph published an unapologetic editorial about the Oborne affair. This included some swipes at the BBC and the Guardian:

This newspaper makes no apology for the way in which it has covered the HSBC group and the allegations of wrongdoing by its Swiss subsidiary, allegations that have been so enthusiastically promoted by the BBC, the Guardian and their ideological soulmates in the Labour Party. We have covered this matter as we do all others, according to our editorial judgment and informed by our values. Foremost among those values is a belief in free enterprise and free markets.

We will take no lectures about journalism from the likes of the BBC, the Guardian or the Times. Those media outlets that are this week sniping about our coverage of HSBC were similarly dismissive in 2009 when we began to reveal details of MPs’ expenses claims, a fact that speaks volumes about their judgment and partiality.

There's obviously some truth in this but the Guardian's description of this editorial as "callow" seems fair to me. What the Telegraph did, if Peter Oborne is to be believed, isn't proper journalism. It just isn't. That editorial doesn't even come close to being a proper, convincing rebuttal of those charges.

And, by the way (though none of this seems to concern the Beeb or the Graun very much), the Telegraph has slumped in quality in recent years, and has shed a lot of its best journalists (who weren't quite on message), and has closed much of its content for comment, and has become a bit too partisan in its projection of the official Conservative Party agenda to the extent of smearing others (such as UKIP), etc.

That's by the by though. Anyhow...

The Telegraph's attempt to fire back at the Guardian with a piece alleging something similar to the Oborne accusations hasn't taken off, probably because it smacks of desperation. And their attempt to fire back at the Times with a piece claiming - without much evidence - that behaviour there had resulted in suicides among Times journalists has rightly been condemned as absolutely atrocious journalism well beyond the Times, the Guardian and  the BBC (including, on the BBC, by FT and Northern Echo journalists). 

Media outlets fighting each other can get vicious. Very vicious. The Telegraph is coming out firing, but shooting itself in the foot. The Guardian and BBC are lapping it up and attacking the Telegraph on two fronts. The Times doubtless has its own agenda (an overlapping demographic for its readership) and is joining in, and being broadly defended. 

There are agendas everywhere, much as you'd expect from commercial organisations. But from the publicly-funded BBC? Why is their agenda so apparent?

Comment is (or isn't) free

The BBC News website opens up a tiny number of reports for (licence-fee-paying) readers to 'have their say'. The Sky News website, in contrast, (to which I've never contributed a penny), opens up every article  for comment (as far as I can see). 

I think I can see why the BBC runs scared of allowing its readers to comment on its reports. The BBC has strong controlling tendencies. It probably couldn't cope with thread after thread after thread slipping out of its grasp. Sky seems much more relaxed. 

As things stand the BBC can simply put out a report on, say, three British-born Muslim girls apparently running off to live under the so-called so-called Islamic State and get away with projecting the sentiment that everyone in the nation is united in their "fears" for these "three UK schoolgirls". 

The Sky News account is very similar to the BBC's and projects the same message, but - unlike the BBC - it opens its report to its readers. 

And its readers, via the comments, offer a very different perspective: basically saying, "Good riddance to bad rubbish, and please don't let them back in". 

Sensitive souls may flinch at that but it's a point of view that's likely to be widespread in Britain - the Britain that the British Broadcasting Corporation is funded by and which, surely, should be reflected.

*****

Talking of which....

Shutting down potentially 'unhelpful' comments is something the Telegraph has also been guilty of recently. The paper first wound down and then ended its lively blogs. 

Why? Because thread after thread after thread after thread became full to the brim (before overflowing) with commenters disagreeing with/'casting a bad light on' the Telegraph's central positions. 

The Telegraph obviously became completely fed up with endless commenters endlessly writing 'Vote UKIP', 'LibLabCon', 'global warming is a scam', 'Vote UKIP', 'the ROP is not an ROP', 'Vote UKIP', 'Scameron' and 'Vote UKIP'...

Now, what the Telegraph does is its own business (literally). As we know, it's a Tory paper, close to the Tory leadership. It doesn't reckon much to UKIP or Labour. The Telegraph isn't funded by a national licence fee. If I chose to subscribe to it or (like Sue) unsubscribe to it, that's my choice. 

No such excuse is open to the BBC - the news website that likes to say 'no' to its fee-paying readers' comments.

*****

Sue's point that "the commentariat seems to have migrated en masse from the Telegraph to the Guardian and vice versa" rings true. 

Reading the comments at the Graun these days is far more pleasurable than it used to be. It's a less-heavily-moderated experience than it used to be, and a far greater range of views are heard. Indeed, occasionally, it reads like the Telegraph comments of, say, five years ago. 

The rare comments threads at the Telegraph, in contrast, are as depressing (pace Borat) as a tumbleweed-filled town in deepest Kazakhstan.

*****

Thankfully, however, the initial commentariat assault on Allison Pearson's brilliant (and I'd said bang on the mark) take on the BBC's one-sided drama output, which Sue described (and which I also witnessed), has now abated. 

That initial flurry of antagonism was partly provoked by The Oborne Affair and, doubtless, stoked by the 'vice versa' Guardianista contingent now circling the corpse of the Torygraph blog. 

Unlike then, the top comment now - doubtless reflecting the true view of the Telegraph readership - duly bashes the Beeb for being left-wing.

*****

The Torygraph editors, incidentally, remain sufficiently audience-savvy (despite what Newsnight says) to know that their audience would want their pro-Tory piece for Allison Pearson illustrated by a picture of Keeley Hawes. We here at 'Is the BBC biased?' are far too high-minded to do such a thing. 

Who's Keeley Hawes you may ask? Well this, your honour, is Keeley Hawes:

School for terrorists

I think I mentioned somewhere that the Telegraph recently featured a series of photographs on its ‘picture gallery’ of a Hamas youth training school. It’s tone seemed rather admiring, as though it was showing some sort of wholesome British Army Cadets’ summer camp. 

I just thought I’d mention it in the light of this. 

For the past several months, Hamas leaders have been complaining that they do not have enough money to rebuild the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the last war with Israel.However, it appears that Hamas does have enough funds to train, arm and indoctrinate thousands of young Palestinian men and boys.While thousands of Palestinian families who lost their houses during the war continue to live in public shelters throughout the Gaza Strip, Hamas recently established 18 camps for military training.The Hamas military training camps, under the motto "Vanguards of Liberation," have attractedsome 17,000 Palestinian males aged 15-21. The young recruits were trained how to use various types of weapons, including pistols, rifles and mortars. They were also "educated" about the need to eliminate Israel and "restore Palestinian rights."

Is the Telegraph part of the media's attempt to rehabilitate Hamas, and to  get it officially undesignated as a terrorist organisation?

Peter Oborne, self-awareness and 'follow the money'

When I heard of Peter Oborne’s high profile resignation my first thought was ‘Yippee I can buy the Telegraph again’. But on second thoughts, no. When we cancelled our subscription a while ago the Telegraph marketing department rang us at home to try to tempt us back, pleading: “we’re more left wing now." “precisely” I said or words to that effect.

Isn’t it a funny old world? If you look at online comments (I do) you’ll notice that the commentariat seems to have migrated en masse from The Telegraph to the Guardian and vice versa. I believe some of the credit for the improvement in the Guardian can be attributed to the relentless monitoring of its antisemitic and anti-Israel output by CiF Watch. 

(I remember issuing a press release to theBiased-BBC audience to promote CiF Watch’s  imminent launch, whereupon rather than welcoming the good news, the btl commentariat  roundly turned on me for ‘advertising’. ) Oh well. Bitter memories.

So the Telegraph has moved to the left, and the Guardian has moved towards the middle. Let’s hope Adam Levick of CiFWatch builds up enough momentum with his new media watch enterprise to improve the likes of Sky.

Here’s one that goes against that trend. I always thought of Allison Pearson as one of the Telegraph’s columnists with a slightly lefty tendency. Maybe I was wrong. I don’t know if there’s a change on her part or if I was mistaken all along, perhaps getting her all mixed up with Mary Riddell, but you should read this.

I thought it was a clever and  thought provoking piece, and it demonstrates that weird thing I mentioned with the BTL comments. (mostly castigating her at the time of writing this)

There is a guest article on Harry’s Place that sums up Peter Oborne. I urge everyone who hasn’t already done so, to read it now.  

Of course if you tap Peter Oborne into this blog’s search facility you come up with a positive treasure trove.  The H.P. article about the piggy-eyed one  ends:

"My guess is that he’ll shortly announce his move to Al Jazeera or,  like The Guardian’s David Hearst, the Hamas thinktank, Middle East Monitor.”

I’ve just caught the tail end of newly released Al-Jazeera journalist Peter Greste telling the BBC’s Anita McVeigh that journalism needs to be open and unrestricted.  No doubt we’ll be hearing him on and off all day on the Beeb, with obvious irony and the BBC’s customary lack of self-awareness. 

James Naughtie did an interview on journalistic and editorial integrity, advertising, sponsorship and so on with Harold Evans on the Today programme. Harold Evans said any compromising of journalistic integrity will damage advertising revenue, as attracting the best (most lucrative) advertising depends upon the credibility of the journalism; circular fashion. He disapproves of ‘native advertising’ which is when the advertiser fashions ads to look like editorial. 

Does the same thing also go for sponsorship?   If Qatar, for example, sponsors something on, say, Sky, does that impact the unrestricted journalism that Peter Greste is asking for?  (Rhetorical question.)

Over on Biased BBC I followed a link (H/T Guest Who) to this  (no wonder the BBC uninvited Stephen Woolfe MP onto that infamous Galloway Q.T.)

which links to this 

None of us are free from the tentacles of root of all evil (except Craig and me) Hmm.

Richard Dawkins is a dork

Richard Dawkins, Romana and K9

Click bait. Websites that include advertisements use it to help boost their hits and increase revenue. It even exists on blogs that don't advertise.

One of my old blogging chums Not a Sheep is a firm proponent of one its incarnations: the fifth rule of blogging. This is the art of putting up pictures of pretty women in various stages of undress in order to attract visitors to your blog. 

Without realising it, it turned out that I was pretty good at employing Rule 5 on my old blog. It may have been closed for five years but, nonetheless, thanks to Rule 5 it's still getting a ridiculously large number of visitors seeking out sexy images of Emily Maitlis and Jo Coburn. [To quote Duffman from The Simpsons, Oh yeah!]

Now, right-wing newspapers and magazines are increasingly employing another incarnation of click bait. It's not got an official name yet, but it needs one. So here it is:

Rule 234: To boost your website's potential and attract thousands of readers and comments, regularly post something nasty about Richard Dawkins.

Telegraph fopinjay (fop + popinjay) Tim Stanley has put this newly-named rule to superb use today, and the Telegraph is plugging it right at the very top of its homepage. 

They know it makes sense.

Posted at 12:15 pm today, it already has [at the time of writing, 20:15 pm] a corking 2,630 comments.

Tim gets things off to a cracking start, with the words:

Richard Dawkins’ insanity has now become an English institution...

Now, obviously, the sainted Richard is very far from insane, but it's a fine, provocative start from two-eggs-short-of-an-omelette Tim - fruitily rude, a little bit nasty, and absolutely guaranteed to keep the comments coming. 

Rule 234. 

Spongiform Tim (as he's universally known at Torygraph HQ) keeps 'em coming.

"Britain's nuttiest professor"..."Dick"..."nutjob 180"..."Celebrity atheists"..."yawnfest"...

As an offence-monger, by the way, I'm deeply offended by Tim Stanley's offensive use of imagery associated with mental illness, which is (a) a very serious issue and (b) should never be used to insult vulnerable scientists. I'm starting a Twitterstorm to demand his immediate sacking. 

No, actually, he should apologise, be reported to the police, arrested, convicted, sent to Saudi Arabia (PBUI), and flogged. For starters.

The comments generated by Tim Stanley and the Telegraph are the usual stuff about whether religion is good or bad....and on and on and on and on and on and on it goes. Job done.

If you're not a 'twitter or tweet' person, then here are a flavour of Richard Dawkins's latest whacky tweets (burn him!) - all from the past five days:

My nephew Nick Kettlewell took Andromeda photo. No telescope, just tracked Earth rotation w simple electric motor. 

Wankers? Is Boris right to blame sexual frustration & low self-esteem? 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/30/boris-johnson-jihadists-wankers … … Might explain pathological hatred of women?

.@GeorgeBooth52 Oh yes, the poor wee studenty-poos mustn't have their little feelingsy-weelingsies upset, must they? Oh just grow up.

Decent, tolerant, multicultural, PC liberals: are we sleepwalking towards a violent, intolerant, freedom-despising  theocracy?

MT “@SecularSpeech: Students Union told us not to display Charlie Hebdo paper at refreshers fair at  Manchester ”. What do these priggishly officious offence-junkies think a university is FOR?   Manchester Student Union this time.

"Now it seems to be he the turn of liberals and Democrats to veer off into their own ideological fever-swamps": http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/liberals-and-the-illiberal-left/384988/

Can't RT all the myriad specific examples @StopGulfSlavery cites of cruelly treated SLAVES, mostly in Saudi Arabia. Horrible if true. Look.

Be suspicious of those who say "infinitely" when they mean no more than "very".

 Richard Dawkins retweeted

 Dörte Faatz @Bitch2410  ·  Jan 28

@RichardDawkins 

There are 2 main streams of Islam: 

1) HasnothingtodowithIslam &

2) HasnothingtodowithIslamatall

Richard Dawkins retweeted

 Robert @robert1z  ·  Jan 28

@RichardDawkins Spot on by Rod Liddle. Excellent piece. @spectator

Oh NO, they're beheading my book ['The Selfish Gene' - and, yes, they really did!] and are going to eat it. Quick, find a flag to rip up and an embassy to burn. 

How DARE you believe someone when he tells you clearly & explicitly what he really believes? http://smithandfranklin.com/current-issues/Believe-the-Terrorists-Religion-Violence-and-the-Power-of-Beliefs/9/14/74/html … Facts are Islamophobic

Michelle Obama goes some way to redeem the ignominy of her husband’s crawling to the odious Saudi regime. 

Think the problem is limited to tiny extremist minority? Polls quoted by @MichaelShermer may give you pause: http://smithandfranklin.com/current-issues/Believe-the-Terrorists-Religion-Violence-and-the-Power-of-Beliefs/9/14/74/html …

Update /rude interruption.

I might or might not be exercising my right to offend, but this one is even better. It contains strong language for which I take fool respnsiblty lol. Sue XX

Precautions

There’s a good piece in the Telegraph by Allison Pearson. I particularly noticed this bit:

Some things, however, are no laughing matter. At dinner recently, a Jewish friend shocked me. “We’ve been thinking about whether we should get out sooner rather than later,” Anna said. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, Anna, her husband and their three lovely kids are as British as you or me. Sadly, it looks like she was merely giving voice to a widespread unease. Anti-semitism is nowhere near as bad here as it is in France, but a new poll reveals that more than half of British Jews fear that they have no future in the UK. British society is at a “tipping point” with Jewish families increasingly questioning whether to stay in the country. To make matters worse, a YouGov poll found that 45 per cent of Britons agreed with at least one of four anti-semitic statements.So this is where we are in 2015. One of the best-assimilated minorities in the UK, a group which makes a contribution to the arts, science, business, black-cab driving, laughter, you name it – and one that is out of all proportion to its size – is getting ready to pack its bags while the group that has been worst at integration demands ever more shrilly that we bow to its world view.To quote Margaret Thatcher: No, No, No.

The penultimate paragraph reminded me of this: By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez

I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered aterrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz ..We killed six million Jews andreplaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitzwe burned a culture,thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen,because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world. The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science,art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world.These are the people we burned. And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove toourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gatesto 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religiousextremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingnessto work and support their families with pride. They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities intothe third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, theyplan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts. And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred,creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness andsuperstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and theirtalent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging tolife because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumedby the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children andtheirs. What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe..

I wonder if Allison Pearson has seen it?

I noticed Tim Willcox was reading the news about new precautions that are being taken to protect Jews going about their daily lives. That's here, in Britain.  

We like life / you like death

Mohammed Abu Khdair

Most of the world, the media, and in particular the Telegraph have decided that the murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir was a ‘revenge killing’. The remaining uncertainty over the motive and perpetrators of this murder is represented by a pair of scare quotes.

I must say Robert Tait looks tired and unkempt by the way. “Video obtained by the Telegraph” says the Telegraph. “Dramatic new footage” it says. Slight exaggeration there all round. Not a scoop, not dramatic, not revealing, not conclusive, not convincing.

The Guardian is a little more cautious. Their article states:

“This claim appeared to be bolstered by the emergence of the footage which the boy's family says captures the abduction – and suggests that he was randomly targeted outside a mosque and did not know his kidnappers.”

Having seen the video a few times I can’t see how the footage bolsters any theory at all. The whole thing looks weird. Not just the video but the demeanour of the boy’s aunt while she is making her oddly presumptuous presentation.

  

David Vance  has posted a characteristically concise piece over at Biased-BBC contrasting the difference between the BBC’s responses to the two incidents. 

When the news broke of the Israeli boys’ abduction the BBC vigorously promoted Hamas’s denials. Most BBC interviewers invariably made these particular points to Israeli spokespersons.  “Hamas denies responsibility” and “We don’t know who was responsible.” 

Yet, as soon as the murder of the Palestinian boy was known, all and sundry knew that it was a revenge attack. 

Today’s announcement by Hamas - some would describe it as ‘breathless’ - was touted as though it was some sort of conciliatory move by the ‘militants’. Of course  if it’s true that it was merely the Hamas’s response to Israel’s ultimatum, the BBC portrayal is not wholly accurate. 

“Palestinian sources cited by Walla reported that Israel has delivered an ultimatum to Hamas to stop rocket fire from Gaza within 48 hours. Otherwise, Israel warned, it intends to launch an attack on Gaza.The sources said that the threat was delivered by Egyptian Intelligence to the head of Hamas's political bureau, Musa Abu Marzuk, who is in Cairo.”

Meanwhile, there is uncertainty over the motive and identity of the killers of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. The one thing that is certain however, is the difference in the circumstances surrounding the two appalling incidents.

Melanie Phillips has written in the Jerusalem Post about the distinction between the two. 

It would cut no ice at all to point out that there can be no comparison between a tiny fringe element of Jewish ultras committing violence against Arabs, condemned by most Israelis and pursued by the Israeli justice system, and the systematic incitement to hatred and murder of Jews by Palestinian society.

It’s an extremely powerful article and I urge everyone to read it .
P.S.

I nearly forgot to mention that I saw a blatantly pro-Palestinian report by Christian Fraser yesterday. It was almost as full of undiluted Palestinian propaganda as the Today programme I wrote about earlier, but perhaps more damaging by virtue of the huge number of homes it was undoubtedly beamed into (because it was on TV rather than the relatively obscure radio 4.) 

What am I talking about? - the Today programme is widely listened to by people getting ready for work and the common and garden listening intelligentsia who assume they’re being informed, educated and entertained. 

All the BBC output is potentially damaging when it turns its hand to ‘Israel and Palestine’. So I’m pleased to see that Hadar has tackled Christian Fraser over at BBCWatch.

Lord Tebbit on the Trojan Horse Affair

No time to post any 'deep thoughts' of my own tonight, so here are some from Lord Tebbit instead: 

No one should have been surprised at what was going on in schools in Birmingham. It is precisely what I was talking about over 20 years ago and Enoch Powell was warning against long before that. We have imported far too many immigrants who have come here not to live in our society, but to replicate here the society of their homelands.

This is not a tirade against migration from the EU, which we are largely unable to control, but from the rest of the world, which we could have controlled if we had had the will to do so. However, even if suddenly the inward flow of those unwilling to adapt their society to ours were to be entirely cut off, it might  already be too late to prevent the establishment of enclaves in which our values are treated with contempt, while foreign values and even laws are promoted.

It is certainly true that nature abhors a vacuum and with the decline of Christianity leaving the structure of our values system with no foundation there is now a great emptiness in our society. The doctrine of multiculturalism is a nonsense. A society is defined by its culture, and rival cultures are bound to create rival societies within the same territory. That is what has now been forced into public view in Birmingham.

Of course a tolerant dominant culture has no problem in tolerating or minority groups. Neither Judaism nor Buddhism are a threat to Christianity in Britain, but if our society loses confidence in its value system, it will not long remain dominant.

For all the shouting and finger-pointing at Westminster, particularly that from the Labour Party – which bears responsibility for destabilising British society by its policy of unlimited, unrestricted, uncounted immigration fanned by unlimited welfare spending – I do not see any evidence yet that the scale of the problem is recognised, let alone that there is a realistic plan to deal with it.

And what would be my advice?  Well I feel like the Irishman asked by a stranger the best way to Dublin: “I wouldn't start from here if I were you.”

"The BBC will try to dampen it down"

As it's a blogpost [and, thus, not Paywall-bound], I think Damian Thompson's latest post can [just for once] be highlighted in full:

Radical Islam in secular schools: now the shocking truth emerges

"Students' understanding of the arts, different cultures and other beliefs are limited." That's one of the complaints about Birmingham schools made by Ofsted in their leaked report. It sounds like a relatively mild criticism.

Not so. What the Trojan Horse scandal has revealed is that leaders of the Muslim community in Birmingham have been creating a Wahhabi-inspired counterculture in secular, not faith, schools.

Put simply, the interpretation of Islam that's sweeping through the Muslim world, thanks to Saudi money, seeks to deprive children of any exposure to the arts, which it condemns as idolatrous. Even listening to music is haram, forbidden. The underlying teaching is that the arts, by seeking to create beauty, blaspheme by detracting attention from the only source of true beauty, Allah, which can be appreciated only in the natural world he created.

The imposition of this ideology on Muslim cultures is a tragedy – for them. But secular state schools in Birmingham are not part of Muslim culture, and their ghettoisation under the years of Labour government is a scandal.

To be clear about this: primary school children in certain non-faith schools are not taught music because Islamic fundamentalists have been able to manipulate the system.

Finally, Ofsted has begun to discover what's going on. I very much doubt whether it would have done so if anyone other than Michael Gove – who is not an Islamophobe but is definitely a veteran opponent of creeping Islamism – were Secretary of State for Education.

I expect plenty of controversy in the days to come, as the Ofsted report is published and its implications sink in. The BBC will try to dampen it down. We mustn't let that happen.

"The BBC will try to dampen it down." 

That's a serious charge, but it's one many of us might take more as a 'dead cert prediction' than as a mere charge. 

We'll see. If the report says what Damian says it says, and if the BBC tries to dampen it down, it would be unforgivable. So, eyes wide open then!

The BBC told a fairy tale about Richard Dawkins. Now they've apologised. And they all lived happily ever after.

BBC Radio 4 Today producer just phoned me to apologise. Apology accepted. Now I'm off to snorkel near New Guinea.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) June 5, 2014

So, the BBC have been forced to apologise to Richard Dawkins. On bended knees.

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Radio 4's Today misquoted the 'selfish genius' as saying that fairy tales are harmful to children and falsely implied that he wants to ban Santa Claus. It seems that they had borne him false witness.

Even though he hadn't said that, Today's report led to Chinese Whispers.

I know that for a fact as one Dawkins-hating family member (who shall remain nameless) was absolutely bursting to tell me about it this morning, and the Telegraph's Tim Stanley went off on one based on what he thought Prof. Dawkins said.

[No confession, no retraction, no apology yet from Prof. Stanley though. Get thee to a confession box, Tim!] 

Richard Dawkins actually believes that "fairy tales, as well as charming, can be good training in critical thinking."

It is fascinating, though, how such untrue memes [to use a Dawkins-inspired word] get about in the media, parts of which are just gagging, yes gagging, for any old Richard Dawkins story [cos it winds up their readers and generates clicks].

If I may draw an analogy, large parts of the media (and many of them the very same people) were also gagging, yes gagging, for anti-UKIP stories in the run-up to the Euro elections - and, yes, I do mean the Mail and the Telegraph. 

Nigel Farage and Richard Dawkins aren't obvious bedfellows but they share this in common: Both are often on the receiving end of some very dodgy reporting.

We've been here before with Richard Dawkins - see an earlier article we did, The Tabloid Reporter Delusion, which took down an earlier smear against him from the Daily Mail. 

Just because who don't like someone - and many people regard Prof. Dawkins as a devil and a fool - doesn't mean they deserve to be misquoted and smeared.  

Don't forget: Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

Good news, hopefully - and some sharp words for the BBC

Mother facing death penalty in Sudan for abandoning religious faith to be freed in few days - senior Sudan official http://t.co/j1RGmQrQhj
— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) May 31, 2014

Damian Thompson in the Telegraph has a sharp word or two for the BBC - and others too:

There are reports that Meriam Ibrahim, the Sudanese woman sentenced to death by a Muslim judge for refusing to abandon her Christian faith, is to be freed. The BBC announced it thus: 

Mother facing death penalty in Sudan for abandoning religious faith to be freed

No! That is a lie. Meriam was sentenced to death (as the Telegraph correctly reports) "for refusing to recant her Christian beliefs, and on Tuesday she gave birth to a daughter while she was in prison, and with her legs shackled".

This young mother is – and always has been – a member of the ancient Ethiopian Orthodox Church, an institution centuries older than Islam. The thuggish Sudanese ruled that she was an "apostate" because her father was a Muslim. What rubbish. It was her Christian mother who raised her in her faith. And even if she had chosen to leave Islam and become a Christian, then she would have had every right to do so.

Her ordeal, coupled with the continuing atrocities of Boko Haram, have finally alerted the international community to the fact that the malign influence of Islamism extends far beyond its terrorist aggression towards the West. It is directed at Christians in Islamic countries and is not confined to "apostates".

The wider global Muslim community (if one can speak of such a thing) does not believe in putting into practice the extremists' homicidal agenda. But if it's been campaigning furiously against the slaughter of Christians then I must have missed it.

That original BBC headline now reads Meriam Ibrahim: Sudan 'to free' death row woman.

Those were different times

Oh dear. Clive James is giving up his TV reviews in the Telegraph to concentrate on finishing two books.

Here's a taste of his latest review for those of us who love the familiar, surprising prose of Clive James:

Victorious in the Eurovision Song Contest (BBC One), the Austrian singer Conchita struck the most triumphant blow for bearded male transvestites since the heyday of Kenny Everett, or possibly even of King Edward II.

Nobody knows what Edward II sounded like when he sang, but now the whole world knows what Conchita sounds like. She, or he, sounds like incoming artillery. One hundred and eighty million people in 45 countries were blown sideways by the uproar emanating from a young woman pretending to be Russell Brand, or perhaps it was Russell Brand pretending to be a young woman.

No, it was neither: it was a bloke called Thomas Neuwirth. Back in Austria he had spent several years developing his identity as a bearded lady, or whatever it is he is. But in Copenhagen, the site of the world’s greatest song contest, his identity stood fully revealed: he was a bearded lady draped in a gold-embellished fishtail gown. He shimmered in the light-storm like an upright carp with a bad shave. Hosting the British TV transmission, Graham Norton explained that Mr Neuwirth’s achievement could be important to all those of us “struggling to come to terms with their sexuality”.

After struggling with my sexuality all my life, I’ve finally realised that I should have been Graham Norton all along. The guy is so at ease with himself. He doesn’t even bother to dream up a few lines in advance, as Terry Wogan used to do. He just reacts to what we can all see. “In a minute, lots of indoor fireworks. Ooh! There you go.”

On the other hand, he was quite Woganesque when he postluded the performance of some moaning Norwegian by saying, “I think he’s delighted that’s over. As are we.” Pretty good gag: we just need more of them.

But Graham has charm. He tactfully played down the inconvenient truth that the UK singer Molly Smitten-Downes came only 17th. I studied Molly carefully to see what she lacked. Alas, it was all too obvious: a beard. She might have done better had she been twins, like the two Russian women tied together by their hair: but to win she would have needed a transgender element. I couldn’t remember Lulu having anything like that, when she won the contest back in 1969: but then, those were different times.

Women have come a long way, if they can now conquer the world by growing a beard and being a man really. And it’s all happened in the lifetime of my generation. 

This Be The Verse

The Daily Telegraph broke a highly significant story overnight - Parents who deliberately starve children of love face jail under new Cinderella Law: Changes to the child neglect laws will make “emotional cruelty” a crime for the first time, alongside physical or sexual abuse. 

The new offence would make it a crime to do anything that deliberately harmed a child’s “physical intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development”.

This could include deliberately ignoring a child, or not showing them any love, over prolonged periods, damaging a child’s emotional development.

Other new offences could include forcing a child to witness domestic violence, making a child a scape goat or forcing degrading punishments upon them.

As many as 1.5 million British children are believed to suffer from neglect.

In the comments below that article and in the Telegraph's own leading article, practical concerns were raised that this could be very hard to police, that the definition of 'emotional cruelty' must be narrow and precise, and that it might lead to a considerable number of vexatious complaints and potential miscarriages of justice. 

Reassurance are given though that that this kind of law already works well in other countries and that only around 250 such cases are expected each year (rather than the 1.5 million cases that might possibly be expected from the Telegraph's figure.) In other words, we are assured that social workers won't be calling in the police on thousands upon thousands of families every year.

Won't they? After all we've had over-zealous social workers (the satanic abuse affair, most notoriously before) for, despite the strong case that cab be made for rescuing children in those 250 or so worst-case-scenario kinds of home through some change in the law (given the mental health issues that can result from such prolonged treatment ) it's hard not to hear alarm bells ringing at the thought of the potential dangers that could arise from this legislation. After all, expecting the state to be a perfect fairy-godmother is unwise at the best of times.

Such are the kinds of conflicted things I've been thinking whilst reading the Telegraph, Guardian and Spectator today. 

It's a good thing that I didn't just rely on the BBC today though. 

I've had two encounters with the BBC's coverage today.

The first was a website article in which everyone was in favour of the proposed new law. As it wasn't open to comments and no dissenting views were given.

The second was a discussion on Martha Kearney's The World at One where both guests (a Lib Dem MP and a lawyer) backed the proposed law, again with no dissenting view. 

Anyhow, here's a famous poem by Philip Larkin that seems rather appropriate. The state will need to read it daily if it passes such a law to make sure that there aren't many, many, many more that 250 such 'Cinderella Law' cases each year - and that the bulk of those aren't vexatious, based on all-too-common tensions between parents and children:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.   

    They may not mean to, but they do.   

They fill you with the faults they had

    And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn

    By fools in old-style hats and coats,   

Who half the time were soppy-stern

    And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.

    It deepens like a coastal shelf.

Get out as early as you can,

    And don’t have any kids yourself.