Why do it?

I just watched an extraordinary performance by Andrew Neil. First, he interrogated Stephen Crabb of CFOI. His questioning was repetitive, and his approach was impatient and unoriginal, namely that  Israel is guilty of ‘disproportionate use of force against unarmed civilians'. 

“Social unrest” he called the riots. “Sixty people shot dead, most of them unarmed” he repeated. “Why do it?” 

It was perfectly obvious that he and the rest of the BBC can see no justification whatsoever for Israel’s actions. He kept saying, irritably, “so you refuse to condemn Israel” and constantly reinterpreted his interviewee’s words, rather like a combo of Cathy Newman and Evan Davis, who wanted to extract an emotional outpouring of regret from his Israeli interviewee on last night's Newsnight.

Neil seemed to think it was a simple matter of bringing in a few “anti-riot police” - not soldiers armed with high-velocity weapons. Did he know the numbers involved? How many anti-riot police would be enough to quell 40,000 ‘protestors’? We’ll never know. “Why do it?” he kept asking, then  “How many Israelis were injured?” he ventured, turning into a ghoulish Mishal Husain. How many injured Israelis would suit you? one would like to know.

 “Killing sixty people is disproportional.”  “A disproportionate response.”

What are things coming to, I wondered - when the BBC’s only supposed ‘good guy’ is brimming with ill-will towards Israel?

Next, he turned to Richard Burgon, the shadow something or other, (Secretary of State for Justice and Shadow Lord Chancellor) and suddenly it transpired that Andrew Neil knew all along that many of the unarmed civilians were not unarmed at all.   He wondered what would have happened if the protesters had got through the fence? "But they didn't," said Burgon. (No, because they were shot.)

“It all happened because Hamas organised it,” said Neil, and it was Burgon’s turn to be dismissed with: “so you refuse to condemn Hamas?” 

I have to say this was not Andrew Neil’s finest hour. He was impatient and rude and at times he wouldn’t let his victims complete a sentence because he thought they were not answering his unanswerable questions. He showed no attempt to think beyond the superficial and appeared to be pandering to the kind of viewer who is as ignorant of the reality on the ground as the entire coterie of journalists and reporters currently employed by the most trusted news-gathering outfit in the world. They have all, collectively, leapt to the same conclusion- reflexive condemnation of Israel.

Everyone is willing to rush in with their disapproval, most of them showing no curiosity and little understanding of the situation. It reminds me of the Goldstone report. Remember that? 

I'd say, don't rush in, just because you can. This is one time when it really is wise to wait for a formal inquiry before dishing out blame. I’d be interested in Andrew Neil’s response to this letter from a soldier in the IDF who witnessed the proceedings, published on the Elder of Ziyon website.   I reproduce some of it below.

"I’m writing because I am one of the few who was there – in uniform, in the reserves, but I was there. Yes, right there on the fence where the demonstrations are happening. It was last Friday – but I saw it with my own eyes; I was on our side but I could see and hear and understand everything. I want to testify from my firsthand knowledge, not a theoretical point of view. Because I was there. 

I want to testify that what I saw and heard was a tremendous, supreme effort from our side, to prevent in every possible way Palestinian deaths and injuries. 

Of course, the primary mission was to prevent hundreds of thousands of Gazans from infiltrating into our territory. That kind of invasion would be perilous, mortally dangerous to the nearby communities, would permit terrorists disguised as civilians to enter our kibbutzim and moshavim, and would leave us with no choice but to target every single infiltrator. 

That’s why our soldiers were directed to prevent infiltration – in a variety of ways, only using live ammunition as a last resort. The IDF employs many creative means of reducing friction with Gazans and uses numerous methods, most of which are not made public, to prevent them from reaching the fence. 

In addition, over the last few weeks there have been serious efforts to save the lives of children and civilians who have been pushed to the front lines by the Hamas – who are trying to hide behind them in order to infiltrate and attack Israel. 

When there is no alternative and live ammunition must be used to stop those who storm the fence – the soldiers make heroic and sometimes dangerous efforts not to kill and only to injure those on the other side. 

The IDF is stationing senior commanders at every confrontation point to ensure that every shot is approved and backed up by a responsible figure with proper authority. Every staging area has an especially large number of troops in order to make sure that soldiers are not put into life-threatening situations where they will have no choice but to fire indiscriminately. 

A situation where thousands of people rush you is frightening, even terrifying. It is extremely difficult to show restraint, and it requires calm, mature professionalism. 

55 dead is an enormous number. But I can testify from my first-hand experience, that every bullet and every hit is carefully reported, documented and investigated, in Excel spreadsheets. Literally. I was there and I saw it with my own eyes. 

This isn’t the time or place to discuss the situation in general and the desperate plight of the residents of Gaza. I’m not interested in starting a political discussion here, although I do have a clear position. 

What I’m trying to do is present, for everyone who really wants to listen, the extent of the IDF’s enormous effort to protect Israel’s borders while minimizing injuries and loss of life on the other side. 

And despite all this – the situation on the border with Gaza is deteriorating. I hope that we won’t be called up again soon for reserve duty to protect our country. But if we are, we will go with the knowledge that we are serving a just and morally correct cause. We do not rejoice when we must go to war, but we also don’t go like sheep to the slaughter. Not anymore.

So there you are. Why do it? you ask. Now you know at least part of the answer. 

Update:  
It would be quite nice if Andrew Neil and some of the least intransigent armchair moralisers would acknowledge that Hamas claims 50 of 62 Gaza border deaths were its own members.

The Jewish Chronicle.

Salah al-Bardawil, one of the Islamist group’s leaders, told Palestinian Radio on Wednesday: “In the last round of confrontations 62 people were martyred, 50 of them were Hamas.”

In a further statement, the Islamic Jihad terror group said three of its members were also killed in the protests. 

Dealing robustily

Talking of missed opportunities, let’s not forget the antisemitism scandal. (Jonathan Arkush speaks for the Jews and Norman Smith speaks for the Labour party)  Lots of coverage following the “Missed opportunities” verdict from various members of the Jewish delegation following their unsatisfactory meeting with Jeremy Corbyn.

From Today, Norman Smith, Justin Webb and Barry Gardiner.  And  Ian Watson.

The Daily Politics with Andrew Neil. Peter Dowd MP, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury is in the hot seat. A little sheepish, but still loyal to Dear Leader. Andrew Neil had a long list of examples of Labour’s outrageous conduct, (reputedly lifted from Guido Fawkes) which he read out, item by item. Dowd had no answer, but he did express regret. 

The Today programme featured Kier Starmer who said the party should “deal robustily” with the antisemitism. 

We mustn’t forget Len McCluskey who has written a nasty piece in the New Statesman in which he dismisses it all as a smear. 

Did you know that Jennie Formby is a former partner of Len McCluskey a relationship from which they have a son? She’s the one who has the task of dealing with it, no doubt robustily.

Missed opportunity

One of the joys of working for oneself is that one can watch The Daily Politics and PMQs live, if one should feel the need.

Yesterdays PMQs was particularly acrimonious. Jeremy Corbyn gave an impassioned speech about the Windrush debacle, calling on Amber Rudd, or possibly Theresa May (some people aren’t quite sure which) to resign. 

The theme was that the Tories had deliberately created ‘A Hostile Environment’ for immigrants and that both legal and illegal immigrants were ‘caught up in the fallout’. It suited the Labour Party to conflate the two whilst angrily accusing the Tories of doing the very same thing. See how Dawn Butler MP operates on The Daily Politics (arguing with David Jones MP.) 

It’s impossible to get a straight answer out of her. She knows what she wants to say and she isn’t budging from the script. I’d like to know what Jo Coburn really makes of this performance.

Isabel Hardman describes PMQs here “The Maybot returns…” but fails to mention the potential elephant trap that the Labour leader set for himself when he chose to refer to the Stephen Lawrence affair and screeches in that old-man-Steptoe voice of his:  “we must stamp out institutional racism”.

You’d think, under the circumstances, that mentioning institutional racism was treading on dangerous ground. Unforgivably, Theresa May missed her open-goal-level of an opportunity to hit the back of the net. 

The most striking contribution, towards the end, came from Yvette Cooper. Looking a bit like a very indignant chipmunk, she blurted out a bombshell that could prove to be a big embarrassment for the government.

When I listened to Andrew Neil and Laura Kuenssberg giving their customary summary of what had just gone before (in case we lesser beings needed to have it spelled out it in big print for the hard-of-comprehending) they described something I barely recognised. More interested in Yvette Cooper’s intervention than anything else, harshly critical of Theresa May, it was apparent that they accepted Corbyn’s histrionics as par for the course, as they ignored them altogether; it’s as if they hold the current Labour Party to a different set of standards than all the rest. As if, like the Palestinians, Jeremy Corbyn and his followers have little or no agency.

As far as a gentler, kinder politics, this was not it. Jeremy Corbyn was rattled; near hysterical, while May’s manner was exaggeratedly condescending and painstaking as if explaining a simple principle to a very thick child (!) and the child was just not getting it. Both sides made a pig’s ear out of the whole thing, and everyone, not least the BBC, missed their respective opportunities, dragging the tone from poor to abysmal.

When kosher pigs fly

I dipped in and out of the Today programme this morning, as you do - (Isn’t it annoying and unhelpful that the website no longer provided us with ‘running order’) but I did hear John Humphrys’s remarkable interview with Jenny Manson, co-chair of Jewish Voice for Labour.

On the off-chance that you missed it, or don’t already know about Jenny Manson’s group, it’s a small number of Jewish members of the Labour Party whose devout admiration for Jeremy Corbyn involves dismissing allegations of antisemitism as politically motivated smears. 

Manson described the Chakrabati report as ‘very good’. She stated that most a/s comes from the far right. She said she is very sorry that Dame Margaret Hodge has “never felt as nervous and frightened” but insisted that “our” group has never experienced any a/s in the Labour Party.  She thinks it’s “a misery and a tragedy” that Jewish MPs have received nasty antisemitic comments, “which I suspect are on social media - but no-one has worked very hard to find out who this nasty stuff is coming from” (implying, perchance, that they’re not L.P. members?)  and she said complaints should go to the Labour Party, not the media.

Presumably the editors commissioned the interview because of Jeremy Corbyn’s scheduled meeting with ‘mainstream’ Jewish leaders this afternoon, this meeting being one of the Today Programme's main headlines. The editors must have decided that denying the actual existence of antisemitism in the Labour Party has a legitimate place in this story.  Perhaps they saw it as their duty to air the case for the antisemites, for balance.  Some would argue that the BBC must allocate equal air time to ‘all forms of denial’. A facetious remark, maybe, but I hope you know what I mean. 

As I’ve said many times before I do not advocate no-platforming people, but in this case, I seriously question the relevance of including this particular interview in this particular context. It muddies the water in what I see as a vexatious manner and is a distraction from the core issue.

Now, what is the issue here?  At its heart it’s Israel. 

A perception has arisen - of the ‘good’ Jew who opposes Zionism and the ‘bad” Jew who supports, or doesn’t actively denounce Israel. This allows vehement supporters of Palestinian causes to air their disapproval of ‘racism’ without appearing too obviously hypocritical. In other words, they will submit the kind of Jews they like, (the anti-Zionists) as evidence to ‘prove’ that they’re not racists. “How can we be antisemitic, if we don’t hate all Jews ‘because they are Jews’?”

Arch pro-Palestinian activist Dr Philippa Whitford MP was the guest on The Daily Politics, sympathising with Louise Ellman. The subject of Israel was conspicuously avoided by all.  

Everyone must be aware that there are differing historical attitudes to Israel and its history. With regard to the creation of the Jewish State, the Arab world’s inherent, long-standing antipathy to Jews is rarely mentioned, and there is little awareness of the Arab-instigated wars that have so far failed to eradicate Israel altogether. Information from the Israeli perspective is absent or treated with derision.

The Arab - Israeli conflict is narrated by most mainstream British news organs from a purely Palestinian/Arab perspective. There is an odd acceptance of the concept of ‘Muslim Land’; I see it as particularly odd that a largely secular country adopts this concept. 

The antisemitic nature of Mahmoud Abbas’s imagined / proposed Palestinian State is never mentioned. Never. Pro-Palestinian activists in the west are even more hostile to Israel than many Palestinians actually are. The PSC movement would consider it a betrayal if Hamas or the PA were persuaded to see sense and soften their anti-Zionist stance.  The antisemitism in the hard left will never be eradicated unless the BBC suddenly decides to report fairly on Israel, shocked into action by a flock of flying kosher pigs.

Earpiece Complaints from the Other Side...

Rob (an old ITBB pic Guido didn't pilfer)

Fans of the BBC's new Editor of BBC Live Political Programmes - one Rob Burley - will be delighted to know that his new much-wider-than-just-The Andrew Marr Show remit means that Our Rob is now active throughout the week as well as at the weekends.

Here he is, a couple of days back, engaging in conversation with some very nice, entirely reasonable Corbynistas over an episode of The Daily Politics where one of Mr. Corbyn's allies fell foul of a dodgy BBC earpiece:

Tony Man: Bloody hell ..#BBCDP interviewing Chris Williamson MP,  he starts talking about Saudi humanitarian (public Executions, Beheading etc) crimes gets cut off by the BBC..

Rob Burley: There was a technical problem. Why would we invite him on in the first place if we were seeking to suppress his views?

Tony Man: Of course there was Rob..You weren't expecting him to start talking about Saudi's public executions and the embarrassment of having our PM negotiating with these people!

Rob Burley: Despite the fact that we raised Saudi executions ourselves yesterday (before Corbyn did)? We also asked a Minister about whether the Govt should be talking to Saudi. So, 2 days in a row we raised Saudi and you are suggesting we faked technical problems to sabotage ourselves.

Tony Man: I never said, or suggested, you "faked it" - I never said you were "suppressing his views". It is only YOU that introduced those things in to the post .. I know what I saw, your viewers know what they saw.  simple as that!

Rob Burley: What are you saying then Tony?

Tony Man: Rob - see my original tweet mate. I think you giving the your self away by bringing the words "suppression",  " faked technical problems", "sabotage" and "Corbyn" into the conversation.

Rob Burley: I have no idea what your insinuation was then. None. Anyway, for clarity: there was a simple technical problem and that's the only reason the interview ended.

Tony Man: .. For clarity, when I posted this tweet I was correct. Can we look forward to a complete interview with CW -without technical issues?

Rob Burley: Well he's almost certain to be on again but no special return. Again, you sort of imply it was on purpose but then again the courage of your convictions also melting away.

Tony Man: Great I'll look forward to hearing more. No Rob.. My conviction remains strong. MP Chris Williamson was talking about Saudi Humanitarian Crimes and got cut off by the BBC. Anything beyond that is a torsion in your  pants of your own making. Have a good day.

Rob Burley: Oh Tony. . . . You have a lovely afternoon too!

******** 

Jean: #bbcdp Typical BBC, Charlotte Leslie didn't show up, so cut Chris Williamson off.
Rob Burley: You think we cut him off? Wow! His earpiece failed it seems.
Jean: His BBC earpiece!
Rob Burley: Why would we invite him on if we were seeking to find an excuse to cut him off?
Jean: Why indeed!
Rob Burley: Jean, you are seeing things that aren't there. Why would we go to the trouble of inviting him only to fake a technical issue? "Why indeed" isn't an answer, it just repeats the insinuation.
Jean: Are all BBC lost connections purely accidental?
Rob Burley: Sometimes we run out of time or maybe someone is being abusive but even then we'd say goodbye and explain to viewers. This was a technical failure, Anything else makes zero sense.

#Earpiecegate.

Watertight oversight - 'Cob' and the BBC

Please bear with me on this one (as I weave my way through my thoughts on this), and please also try to remember that not all tl;dr posts are really 'tl', and that (maybe) they should be 'r' after all...

Stephen Glover of the Daily Mail has excoriated the BBC for "ignoring" the allegations about Jeremy Corbyn being "a Czech ‘asset’" - and agent codenamed 'Cob', approved by the Soviet Union in the dying years of the Cold War: 

Far more worrying is the way the all-powerful BBC has hitherto avoided Sarkocy’s allegations, which have been met with vehement denials by the Labour Party. If you relied on our public service broadcaster for your news, as about half the nation does, you wouldn’t know anything about ‘Cob’. 

I watch and listen to the news on BBC television and radio almost obsessively, and I have picked up only two fleeting references [on a Today newspaper review and The Andrew Marr show yesterday - the bit where Andrew called the story 'rather thin] to the extremely grave charges against Mr Corbyn. All I can find on Auntie’s voluminous website is a tiny mention of a newspaper report....

There may have been other passing references, but it can be fairly stated that the BBC has done its utmost not to give this story wider circulation even though it contains the mind-boggling suggestion, of course unproven, that as a young MP Jeremy Corbyn betrayed his country.

Oh Stephen! Much as I like and admire you and much as you may have a point here, the canny BBC's tradition of 'watertight oversight' means that it was never going to be that easy for a critic of the BBC like you here (though please bear with me!)...

...and, sure enough, Dino Sofos, Senior Social Media Producer at BBC News, found a 'gotcha' answer for you (and, specifically, for Guido Fawkes) :

And so did Rob Burley, the Ed-Sheeran-averse editor of The Andrew Marr Show:

So (apparently) John Pienaar's Radio Sunday show covered it "at length", and so did today's Daily Politics. 

QED for the BBC? (Not really. See below).

And, similarly, when Guido Fawkes asks, "Any chance the BBC will cover it properly now the PM has commented?", the BBC will point to a report on BBC News website this evening headlined Corbyn should be 'open' on spy's claims - May and say 'Yes, we did report it'.

Ah but....

...(long sigh)....

....in the venerable tradition of BBC 'watertight oversight', just check out where on the BBC website the BBC published this headline story (and where it's stayed ever since). [You'll have to click the image to enlarge it, and then you'll see that the BBC hasn't made it a prominent story.] Yes, it appeared near the exit door of the BBC's Home page, so to speak. But, yes, they have reported it on their Home page, so....'watertight oversight' kicks in and the BBC is off the hook.

Or is it?

Read that BBC report, however, and it's mostly 'the case for the defence' as far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned.  The caption to the opening image puts Jeremy's case for him, rebuttals of the claims against Mr. Corbyn get the lion's share of the reported speech, and the BBC itself gives its own imprimatur to those rebuttals. Plus the whole report is full of 'health warnings' ("claims", "alleged", "reportedly", "possible") about the claims against Mr. Corbyn.

The BBC, rightly or wrongly, is essentially rubbishing the story here - 'belatedly reporting it and frantically trashing it', unkind folk might say!

As I'm wary of taking the BBC on trust these says (even those BBC people I like), I've also checked out Dino and Rob's claims. 

As for John Pienaar on Pienaar's Politics, yes, the story was discussed - for fully 5 minutes - but John Pienaar himself immediately rubbished those claims that Jeremy Corbyn might have been an agent for the Soviet Bloc by describing them as "pretty absurd" and ended the big discussion (twently minutes later) by saying, flippantly, "this story may be going absolutely nowhere but it doesn't stop us talking about anything!" - both of which statements clearly signalled to the Radio 5 Live listener that the BBC's Deputy Political Editor personally doesn't reckon much to the story. 

As for the discussion itself, two defenders of Jeremy Corbyn (Labour's Peter Dowd and pro-Labour journalist Jenni Russell) rubbished the story for nearly all of and then, just before the end, the Sun's David Wooding got a brief say and voiced some criticism of Mr. Corbyn's past. 

So, yes, Pienaar's Politics did devote a whole segment of the programme to the story yesterday, though John Pienaar began and ended his programme's coverage of it by strongly suggesting his own sense that the story doesn't amount to much and doesn't really merit reporting, and - separately - the 2:1 imbalance of the discussion (made worse by David from the Sun getting far less time than either of the two Labour-defending guests) didn't really cover this segment in impartial BBC glory either, did it? 

So, Pienaar's Politics is classic BBC watertight oversight in action. 'See, we discussed it after all!' , says the BBC. Yes BBC, you did. But HOW did you discuss it on this rare occasion when you seemingly reluctantly consented to finally discuss the story? That is the question.

As for The Daily Politics, well, yes, they too did discuss it today, as Rob said. ('What took them so long?' I imagine many people crying). Did they, as Rob contends, discuss it "at length"? Well, I think Rob is definitely stretching it there! So how long did they discuss it for? For 3 minutes and 2 seconds.

And Jo Coburn began the segment by stating, "Our man in Prague has spoken to the head of the Czech secret service archive who has reiterated that there's absolutely nothing in the archive to suggest that Jeremy Corbyn was an informer but he was a 'person', according to her, 'of interest' to the secret service."

Again, this is classic BBC watertight oversight in action. The story that many people claim the BBC is "ignoring" is then (after those complaints have been pouring in for days) finally discussed on the flagship Daily Politics...albeit for just three minutes and with the BBC presenter sounding a very strong 'health warning' about it from the word go.

So there we are. The BBC - like the Guardian but unlike several right-wing papers - isn't buying these claims about Jeremy Corbyn.

And it's not encouraging you to buy them either.

And what does that say about 'BBC impartiality'?

For a firmly non-BBC take on all of this you might want to read the latest article from Douglas Murray. It's quite a 'think' piece.

Newsnight, Hair, a giant baby and a bit more

This is a series of observations I would have posted earlier if I’d had time. Some of it might be past its use-by date, but what the hell.

++++++++

What a dilemma, whether to watch Newsnight with Kirsty Wark (afraid of missing something after last week’s spat with Tommy Robinson) or succumb to a nagging desire to watch Question Time. (afraid of missing something) You have to keep an eye on these things.

Switching back and forth between them, I stumbled upon a bizarre exchange between Ann Coulter and Laurie Penny,  in some ways chalk and cheese, and in other ways cheese and cheese.

A surprise location switch found Ms. Coulter in the studio with Kirsty and Laurie Penny in the US against a backdrop of the Hollywood sign, culturally appropriating LA speech patterns and saying “right now” instead of “at the moment". The interview concerned Fake News, a subject close to the hearts of these interviewees with their diametrically opposed interpretations of what is ‘news’ and what is fake.

Ms. Penny was convinced that journalists (like her) were the sole purveyors of truth, while Ms. Coulter said decisively 

 “The internet is the only place you can get the truth.” 

The discourse  became increasingly ludicrous, but Kirsty eclipsed both guests by calling people who doubted the absolute integrity and honesty of the BBC “despots” 

“Aren’t you aiding the despots who say “it’s all about fake news from CNN even the BBC, so we won’t believe it?” You are aiding people by undermining the probity of the mainstream media?” 

Ms. Coulter, never known to be lost for words, was in full flow, when Kirsty turned to Ms. Penny.

“Are you finished!” said Laurie Penny. “May I speak now? Are you finished?” 

she said menacingly in her tiny penetrating voice. 

“Now Miss Coulter is a troll, with no credibility, and so is her president” 

said she, looking suspiciously troll-like herself.

This must have been desperate attempt to boost the ratings, as Newsnight must have known there was no conceivable prospect of meaningful dialogue between these particularly outspoken, ideologically opposed polemicists, specially when there was no time to progress beyond a slanging match and with a host whose speech is so slurred and nasal you have to wonder why she is a host.  

++++++++++

Continuing ITBB’s popular series of posts dedicated to hair. (Episode 3) 

I spotted “Next: hair.” at the top of the screen as I watched The Daily Politics this afternoon.  (The other day, now) Naturally I was excited and I knew immediately where they got the idea. (here!)

The discussion was strictly confined to politicians’ hair, but I suspect Jo Coburn surreptitiously plumped up hers, which had been looking rather flat, while the cameras were focussing on celebrity hairdresser Nicky Clarke as he slid into the studio to explain Donald Trump, which he was unable to do. 

Even the comedians on programmes like Mock the Weak Week sound bored with Trump while wearily churning out their tedious Trumpisms.

extreme short back and sides

Images of obvious hair-centric politicians, Boris and both Michaels Heseltine and Fabricant were shown, as well as (for some reason) Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while real man of the moment, hair-wise, Kim Jong Un, was conspicuously absent. After all, his extreme haircut has conquered the world with the trend for short back and sides. Celebrity hairdresser Nicky Clarke, modelling a fetching Lauren Bacall style, is about the only man-about-town with whom this fashion hasn’t caught on. Luckily for Andrew Neil, he wasn’t present, or there may have been some sniggering in the background. He seemed to be sporting a new toupee when I last saw him discussing PMQs with Laura Kuenssberg.

Lauren Bacall

******

Oh dear what shall I do with my Saturday evenings now that Spiral has finished? The series ended on an enigmatic note, and will be returning when we’ve all forgotten how we left it.

One thing I do know; if that baby continues to grow at the rate she’s ballooned since birth, she’s gonna be massive by then.

*******

Has anyone else noticed the way the BBC’s man in Jerusalem, Tom Bateman, has been prefacing or appending information that comes from Israeli sources with “Israel says” even when reporting something it seems Israel didn’t exactly say. Oh yes, BBC Watch has noticed, and more besides.

This sounds almost as if Bateman is terrified - either for himself,  for the BBC in general or on behalf of the puffed-up Middle East Editor — of sounding like an “Israeli shill”, which is the boilerplate term Israel-haters are inclined to throw at the BBC to intimidate them, and and make them stop sounding as though they ‘believe’, or heaven forbid, approve of anything an Israeli spokesperson might utter.

I’m no particular fan of Sky, but their man on the spot doesn’t seem to need to use caution-laden qualifiers in that way.

+++++++++

I once knew a sexually voracious and predatory chap who worked for Oxfam. Young girls were slightly in awe of him, which made him feel important.  I believe he was ‘let go’ from his post. Huge charities nearly always turn out to be rabidly political, like War on Want and Amnesty International etc etc. and I am wary of them all. 

I have a feeling that this kind of sexually predatory behaviour has been going on in these circles for a very very long time but I don’t know how long the antisemitism has been part of the remit.

***********

I watched the replay of this debate that took place in Westminster Hall on 7th. It was shown on the Parliament channel this morning. Children in detention. (In Israel)

All the usual anti-Israel MPs had their say, as did the small number of pro-Israel MPs, most notably Matthew Offord. 

You wouldn’t get a sense of this from Hansard, but there was some disturbing background noise, including some whoops and cheering from the public gallery. The debate was brought by Sarah Champion who was looking very pleased with herself. 

Ahed Tamimi has a strong fan base in the Labour Party, and the degree of animosity towards “Israel”  (if that’s how they want us to  see it) is based on superficial (mis)understanding of history. This is Gathering Storm territory. Goebbels would be proud.

I don't know what to call this post

Following Craig’s post, I wonder, did Andrew Marr leave an open door for Dan Hodges to deploy the ‘handing over editorial control to your interviewee’ manoeuvre?

“Can I read you what Amnesty International has said?” asked Marr, whereby Corbyn’s counter-attack (you've been reading too much Daily Mail) was effectively: “No, please don’t read something out that makes me look foolish and / or hypocritical”, which is the equivalent of McDonnell’s “no need’ remark (albeit from the opposite direction.)

Of course, Amnesty International is hardly a suitable body for Andrew Marr to bring in as a beacon of moral righteousness or whatever it was he was trying to imply, even if all he meant was:  ‘if an alt-Left outfit like Amnesty International even thinks Iran’s HR record is beyond the pale, shouldn’t you, too?’
Update: 
Following Craig’s post (again) see Harry’s Place for Habibi’s forensic, fully fleshed-out exposé of Jeremy Corbyn’s deviation from the actualité on the Marr show.
It’s all there, including a lovely video of his speech ‘marking the 35th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran'.

I’m afraid Rob Burley is looking a little bit like someone who ain’t totally au fait with the actualité. Think  those interested in JC position on Iran will have more to go on as a result of Habibi's article.

**********

Never mind. I also want to mention that I was mistaken when I said that the BBC hadn’t noticed the HoC debate on proscribing Hezbollah. At the time I said it, I hadn’t seen Friday’s Daily Politics. Well, they brought it up, though in a somewhat perfunctory way.  

Claire Fox from the Academy of Silly Ideas explained that she was against proscription because “Banning people because of their politics is unhelpful and illiberal”. 

Had she not absorbed the case for proscribing Hezbollah, which, in its own words, is explicitly and unequivocally that there is no distinction between imaginary ‘wings’ of this overtly terrorist organisation? It's a unified entity. Terrorist through and through.

This makes one wonder if half the people we hear on the BBC opining on issues like this are totally au fait with the actualité.

I’d hate to think they’re really not.

***********

Now for The Big Questions. The biggest question of all is what did the programme makers hope to achieve by bringing in one of the most offensive “asaJew” Israel-hating, pro-Palestine campaigners to discuss the problem of antisemitism in the left?  I contend that the programme makers were completely uninterested in achieving any form of civilised conversation. All they wanted was the TV equivalent of click bait. “Let’s have some fun with this”.

Well, the discussion certainly wasn’t fun. To give the benefit of the doubt to those responsible for commissioning or inviting the ‘front row”, perhaps they were inspired by Idrissi’s LBC interview with Nick Ferrari but didn’t listen hard enough to predict she would steer the discussion in the direction of a tirade of highly dubious pro-Palestinian propaganda from the ill-informed antisemites  in the room.

Perhaps they didn’t anticipate that the audience would be whooping and cheering at the sweet sound of cries like “apartheid state” and  “Jew-only roads”. 

Geordies for Palestine

The only contributor who was allowed to speak without being interrupted was Anna Turley MP, and her little bit showed what a balanced, civilised discussion on this topic might have been like.  

As for the rapt, adoring nodding from the pro-pornography advocate sitting next to Naomi Idrissi, the twisted, Israel-bashing, sheer nastiness of Chris Mullin “They’re in the process of setting up an apartheid state”[…] “They’re starting to ethnically cleanse east Jerusalem” and the nonsensical bile from the lady lawyer with  the PSC  brooch: “I witnessed —— I spoke to mothers who were forced to give birth at Israeli checkpoints” […] “I’m not denying that there’s a problem with antisemet — antisemitism, however the majority of antisemitism is coming from far right groups” and the clapping and nodding from the baying mob of an audience, the whole thing was sub standard. Even by TBQ's normal standards.

Nicky Campbell, perhaps bruised by his highly publicised reduction in salary, seemed subdued. He pleaded for the discussion not to turn into a shout-fest. But what else did he expect? Yes, I’m doubting the integrity of the programme makers. It’s Jeremy Kyle territory, and Nicky Campbell knows it. He even had to (effectively) apologise at the end, by promising they’d be back to this subject at a later date. 

Jeremy Corbyn isn’t unelectable after all!

Watching the Daily Politics (yesterday*) a couple of thoughts struck me. 

One: Why did Conservative MP Anne-Marie Trevelyan come in fancy dress? (What as? I’d take a punt at Sandy from Grease.) (the musical) 

Two: I have to question a system whereby Labour MPs like Emma Reynolds have collectively decided to place party loyalty above all else. To a certain extent party loyalty is understandable, I get that. However, when it means continually having to say “I don’t agree with Jeremy, but I respect his decision” it’s quite alarming. Astonishing even. For non-Momentum Labour MPs, (assuming there will still be some) the consensus has settled on an approach that seems to be, ‘well, anything is better than the Tories.’ But when Corbyniste ideas positively endanger the country then it’s time for what people might call ‘a reality check’.

How can the likes of Emma Reynolds (I may be wrong, but she doesn’t come across as an ardent Momentumiste) or, say, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, John Mann or any sane member of eg., Labour Friends of Israel, justify toeing the party line, when the party line is halfway along the road to ruin?

Sunder Katwala of “British Future” looked as though he was about to burst into tears, which might account for the encouraging smiles from both the ladies on the other side of the desk. “Please don’t cry!You can do it” 

Don't Cry!

You can do it!

Reporting the findings of a survey carried out by his group, he revealed that the public takes an extremely nuanced view of immigration. So we’re not such racists as we’re cracked up to be. I was surprised to see that “British Future” is a left wing, pro-immigration outfit which heavily promotes stories about “good” Muslims; no-one hinted at this when he was introduced. 

I didn’t enjoy watching the news editor of Huck magazine (see Dawn Foster’s contribution here)

But as I’m not one of those bigot who are always clamouring for people I disagree with to be no-platformed. I respect his views and will reluctantly suck them up.

* I wrote much of the above yesterday but life intervened, so it was with a nuanced amount of glee that I read this piece in today’s Times: 

 “Moderate Labour MPs are threatening to quit and sit as independents in the Commons if they are deselected as the left tightens its grip on the party. 

Three Momentum-backed candidates, including Jon Lansman, founder of the pro-Corbyn network, were elected to Labour’s influential governing body yesterday. The leftwingers won the national executive committee (NEC) seats by a landslide, beating moderate and independent candidates including the comedian Eddie Izzard, who came fourth. The result prompted fears among centrists that the left would push ahead with trying to deselect MPs in favour of candidates who were more aligned with Jeremy Corbyn. The NEC presides over Labour’s rule book, guarantees the propriety of its selection process and helps to oversee policy development. 

Branches of Momentum have been vocal about wanting to make it harder for incumbent MPs to be confirmed as candidates for the next general election without facing an open contest. At present an MP needs to win a simple majority of nominations from local party branches and affiliated trade unions and socialist societies in a “trigger ballot”, the vote to confirm them as the candidate. Momentum has proposed raising the threshold to two thirds of nominations. 

Other left-wing backers of the Labour leadership want to go further and introduce mandatory reselection before every general election, forcing incumbents to face challengers."

All traces of glee evaporated when I saw this:

“Michelle Harris has been shortlisted to stand as the Labour candidate in Amber Rudd’s (very marginal) seat of Hastings and Rye.  Her previous form with regard to antisemitism was revealed a few days ago by @GnasherJew, an account dedicated to exposing Labour antisemitism.  One particularly egregious moment came in 2014 when she shared a David Icke post referring to ‘Rothschild Zionist Israel’. “

I wonder if Emma Reynolds will still be rejoicing at the fact that Jeremy Corbyn isn’t unelectable after all. 

A retweet is not an endorsement!

Daily Politics Wednesday 29th November

“Donald Trump, POTUS, has been sharing videos - reTweeting videos which were originally made by the deputy leader of a far right group in Britain called Britain First. Ah, many people regard Britain First as a fascist organisation - certainly on the far, far right, and these tweets purport to show Muslims committing crimes.

Okay, it’s true. Many people do see Britain First in the way Neil described, and yes, the videos are unverified, so they may be less than accurate. (But, hey, as the BBC is wont to say, retweets are not endorsements.)

“He retweeted three posts by a Jayda Fransen today. i assume when he woke up this morning, Washington time. The posts include unverified videos tilted ‘Muslims destroy a statue of Virgin Mary, Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches - I think you get the sense of the kind of things there -  

Franzen is 31, I think she’s the deputy leader of Britain First, she’s facing four charges  - she’s currently out on bail - facing four charges of causing religiously aggravated harassment as part of a Kent police investigation into the distribution of leaflets and the posting of online videos during a trial at Canterbury Crown Court in May. 

This might sound like clutching at straws, but being charged by Kent police isn’t exactly conclusive proof of guilt. Why, only a few moments ago Paul Bacon, the solicitor for  Michael Stone, the man imprisoned for a brutal murder that now appears to have been committed by Levi Bellfield, was on BBC News telling the world that Kent police have lost evidence and been decidedly unhelpful to his investigation.

It’s a bit disturbing, too,  that Andrew Neil (purportedly) hasn’t heard of Britain First, since the BBC made a documentary about it - featuring Jayda Fransen and co. - only a couple of years ago. . Isn’t that a tiny bit remiss of Saint Andrew?  He’s supposed to be on top of the news, surely.

“She’s also due to appear in court in Northern Ireland, charged with using threatening and abusive language in a speech she made in Belfast in August. Mr Trump has 46.3 million followers who will have now been sent these videos from Britain First.

I think I’m right in saying, you may know better - that the man who murdered Jo Cox - who struck her down in cold blood - wasn’t he shouting ‘Britain First’? 

Yes, Andrew, as everyone but you seems to be aware. 

“Brendan Cox, the widow,(sic) has tweeted ‘Mr. Trump has legitimised the far right in his own country, now he’s trying to do it in ours, spreading hatred has consequences; the president should be ashamed of himself.”  

In addition to the bizarre nature of the president of the greatest democracy in the world doing this sort of thing it’s a real problem for the British government now, is it not?”

Laura Kuenssberg says everyone would find this completely and utterly repellent. The conversation moved on to the issue of Trump’s forthcoming visit.  Needless to say, everyone present was not enthusiastic. 

Several people have remarked that it doesn’t really matter if the videos are accurate or not, because they represent the sort of thing that does actually happen. 

However, that is the very defence used by Charles Enderlin of France 2, who was responsible for publicising the clip of Mohammad Al Dura all those years ago. If you don’t know the story, Google Philippe Karsenty. 

And, yes, such things do have consequences.  For example, Daniel Pearl’s murder was ‘justified’ by his killers as revenge for Al Dura. That iconic image has been round the world many times while the truth is still having difficulty tying up its bootlaces. So, yes, if you’re in a position of responsibility you need to be truthful and you need to be accurate. Such a pity Trump chose to reTweet dodgy videos of Muslim aggression when there are plenty of genuine ones available. 

Of course we mustn’t forget Jon Donnison’s infamous tweet, which did such a good turn for the Israel-bashing brigade, and his apology was too little too late. In fact, let’s not forget the way that the BBC wallowed, and still does, in unverified footage of “what Israel is doing”, yet I haven’t heard anyone from the BBC condemn this for “having consequences”.  The BBC is unrepentant, where indirectly stirring up antisemitism is concerned. It’s ‘Islamophobia’ that must not be encouraged.

The rise in antisemitism in the UK coincides with the increase in the Muslim population, but I haven’t heard Andrew Neil getting vocal over that. Israel-bashing has become mainstream at a time when Jeremy Corbyn is interviewed respectfully and his past and present affiliations with antisemitic groups is no longer an issue with the BBC’s two Big Andrews.  

Instead of examining the logic of his own position, Andrew Neil views anti-Islam advocacy as fascistic and far, far right, when logic tells us that the opposite is the case. It’s Islam’s hatred of Jews that most strongly resembles ‘Nazi’ hatred of Jews, whereas  anti-Islam sentiment is based on a preference for western-style democracy and freedom. Acknowledging this is presently deemed politically incorrect by the people that run the BBC. 

Of course the circumstances behind those examples of ‘fake videos’ are very different, but there’s enough similarity in the weakness of the argument (that "It doesn’t matter because we know that sort of thing goes on anyway!") to dismiss it out of hand. Yes, it does matter. Trump should never have done it, and really, he should give Twitter a rest altogether. 

That doesn’t let Andrew Neil off the hook though. The one thing that stands out (for me) most of all is that Andrew Neil sees critics of Islam as ‘fascists’ and far, far right.  Is he unaware that Islam’s teachings about Jews bear a striking similarity to that of the fascists and the 'far, far, right' of 1930s Germany? In fact they are near identical. For anyone who values western democracy, criticising Islam’s worst excesses and most antithetical tenets is entirely rational. Hating a religion and hating a people are very different things and equating Islamophobia with antisemitism is cowardly and wilfully ignorant. 

But Whatabout the BBC?

Payments to guests and alleged Kremlin influence on @RTUKnews in #bbcdp debate with @afshinrattansi @Andrew_Adonis https://t.co/xlVAD2fCyx

— Daily&SundayPolitics (@daily_politics) October 19, 2017

Afshin Rattansi was invited to defend “Putin’s mouthpiece” (RT) on Daily Politics with Jo Coburn and Andrew Adonis. Should politicians be allowed to appear on RT? Should they be paid for doing so? 

There used to be a playground saying: “It takes one to know one”.  

It was quite funny listening Jo Coburn complaining of RT’s bias, “ a propaganda arm of Putin’s government”,  and the oleaginous Afshin Rattansi firing back a few lethal barbs at the Beeb during his “whataboutery” defence. 

What fun.

“Just as people are sent to jail if they don’t pay Jo Coburn’s salary” 

Fake complaints about BBC bias

Talking about 'fake news'....

There's another 'BBC bias' complaint being pushed on Twitter this afternoon after someone tweeted this damning-looking set of images from today's The Daily Politics:

Yes, it's 'BBC bias' folks! 

The problem (for them) is that it's 'fake news'. 

Watch The Daily Politics for yourselves and screengrab all the images used in that introduction and you'll discover that the inventor of this meme is nothing but a Liar, Liar. 

Here are all the images used by The Daily Politics about Mrs May's record (in order of broadcast):

I'm sure you can see what our very naughty Labour supporter did there, can't you? He or she cherry-picked from the DP's images in an entirely dishonest way in order to make the BBC look disgracefully biased towards the Tories. Tut, tut!

FAKE NEWS!!

Now, if that particular Liar, Liar had been honest and showed all the Theresa May images and then all the Jeremy Corbyn images, they might have had a point, given that 4/5 of the Jeremy Corbyn ones were negative for Mr Corbyn while 4/6 of the Theresa May ones were negative for her - i.e. the selection was slightly more negative for Mr Corbyn than it was for Mrs May.

But who want's 'slightly' when you can have 'totally' and, thus, kick up a Twitter storm? - especially when all you need to do is to mock up a highly misleading sample of all the images used and then cross your fingers and hope that no one bothers to check, or hope that the people who read and share your deceitful tweet will prove far too partisan to care if it's untrue (perhaps because it points to 'a bigger truth'!) - even after they've been shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it's just one big, fat lie. 

Another 'complaint from both sides' bites the dust!

Beyond our Ken

Oh dear. The Daily Politics featured the Ken Livingstone inquiry. Is Ken bringing the Labour Party into disrepute? Do Bulgarian flower-pickers shit in the woods?

Will Ken be reinstated? 

Jo Coburn had a go at Jonathan Rosenhead (vice-chair of “Free Speech on Israel” which I assume is an Israel-bashing group of self-hating Jews and other antis) She reminded us that Ken went into this whole business (digging himself deeper each time he appears in public) whilst defending Naz Shah whose antisemitic Tweet she had already, rather remorsefully, apologised for. Ros Altmann also reminded us of that.

If Hitler did co-operate  (the Haavara agreement) with the Zionists in his early pre-extermination-camp period, it merely represented the first stage in ridding Germany of the 'Jewish pest'. 

It was antisemitism, wholly antisemitism and nothing but antisemitism.

We can dance with semantics on the Rosenhead of a pin till the cows come home, but it’s still antisemitism, but the labour Party is in disrepute either way. They may as well reinstate him. It can’t make the Labour Party much more obnoxious than it already is..

Andrew Neil made a funny joke at the end.

Forwards Updated

The Daily Politics had David Goodhart on. He was given their ‘Soapbox’ platform, to plug that book. 

It must be tedious having to explain his innovative sociological theory again and again, every single time you’re on the bleeding BBC. 

David Goodhart and a passer-by (probably a 'Somewhere')

There are the Somewheres and the Anywheres. The Anywheres are educated and cosmopolitan and the Somewheres are parochial and a bit thick. 

But we, the Anywheres, he explains, mustn’t dismiss the concerns of the Somewheres. If you haven’t read the book, he says, you might assume there’s no nuance, but there is; it’s complicated. 

I haven’t read the book so I mustn’t be judgmental, but if the poor old Somewheres (like me) are guilty of preferring security and familiarity, I suppose the Anywheres prefer insecurity and unfamiliarity. Unattached to the old-style norms, the Anywheres are pioneers of the forthcoming post-everything era. 

I don’t know if it’s only Somewheres that have worries about the rising presence of Islam but I’m sure it’s all addressed in the book, even if it’s all euphemistically couched in language about minority communities.

Update:

I don’t want to look as though I’m obsessed with David Goodhart and his book “The road to Somewhere” so I’m updating this post rather than creating yet another post on the topic .

I think I ought to refine my comments, such as they are, because I’ve now read the interviews he gave to Kathy Gyngell over on TCW. 

I’m beginning to think that the media hasn’t served him well, what with their (and his) exploitation of the provocative soundbite, his invented terms the Anywheres and the Somewheres.” 

Those terms still sound trite and patronising. Even though he modifies these definitions, as he did on the Daily Politics Soapbox, (and has done over a few years) identifying the Somewheres as “less educated” is undeniably disparaging. 

Maybe he needed to invent special new terms in order to publicise his book. (I once saw Nigella Lawson doing a book signing in a deserted Bristol superstore) 

Well, I suppose the media has to have something controversial upon which to hang an item, but it does tend to work against one in the long run.

it is indeed true that the Conservative party ‘seems to have gone completely liberal on this issue” and on several other issues, too. 

Mr. Goodhart’s observations about the family, feminism and the way the Conservative government has caved in to the massive pressure from the ‘progressives’ are entirely worthy. His controversial views on mass immigration (not a wholly positive thing) seem pretty bold, too, for a left-leaning think tankist and author.

David Cameron’s enthusiasm for “gay marriage”, Theresa May’s “Terrorism - Nothing To Do With Islam”,  the government’s lack of support for the institution of marriage and the stable family unit show how far left the Conservatives have gone. What with the implosion of the Labour Party, what else could the Tories do but move into the vacuum?

Has David Goodhart has moved in the opposite direction?   Kathy Gyngell has read the book, including the chapter on the destruction of the family. She describes it as excellent.

There. I needed to say that.