Making no bones about transitioning

The topics on this morning's Sunday were, as so often, largely redolent of left-liberal concerns:

(a) Putin and the Patriarch going to Mount Athos in Greece.

(b) transgender Christians.

(c) the Church of Scotland and same-sex marriage.

(d) a multi-faith choir which celebrates multiculturalism.

(e) a relic of St Thomas Becket going to England from Hungary.

(f) the faith of Nelson Mandela, and

(g) a dispute over the World Humanitarian Summit, with Medecins Sans Frontieres refusing to attend.

The bit on a fragment of a bone believed to have been part of the body of St Thomas Becket making its way over to England for the first time in more than 800 years (from Trevor Barnes) was interesting though. Its usual home is the Basilica of Esztergom [pictured above], Hungary’s most important Catholic church. During the heavy oppression of religion under Communist rule, a cult developed around the saint. He was seen as a symbol of resistance to an over-mighty state. (Maybe Brexit supporters could adopt it as their relic too).

On the subject of transgender Christians, I was fascinated at the way guest presenter (and former BBC South Africa correspondent) Mike Wooldridge conducted his interview with two transgender vicars - Rev Rachel Mann and Rev Christina Beardsley [both of whose surnames made me laugh, for some reason]. Rev Mann and Rev Beardsley both believe that being transgender and being Christian are wholly compatible things. 

Though a veteran BBC reporter (with well over 40 years of service for the corporation), Mike conducted the interview as if he was a Radio One Newsbeat reporter (or Stacey Dooley), brimming with understanding and concern for his guests (and their concerns) and sounded fluent in 'transgender-speak' ('transitioning', etc) throughout. 

He even described people who don't accept that being trans is compatible with Christianity as "those who have convinced themselves" that they are incompatible - a somewhat loaded way of characterising such religious 'conservatives'. 

I wish him well when he eventually transitions to being Michaela Wooldridge. 

What day is it again?

It's true: Sometimes I really don't know what day it is. But today I know it's Friday. And (getting my calendar out and tracing my finger back from today's date) I can even tell it's been getting on for six days since last Sunday. 

And I'm telling you this because?

Well, I really wasn't going to write a post about last week's Sunday on Radio 4 but I am now. (Crack open the Prosecco folks!)

You'd might have thought I'd have done so earlier (like last Sunday), but I felt as if I'd probably bored you more than enough about it over the past few years.

So why am I doing it now? Well, because it was such an 'exemplary' edition of the programme and its biases were so pronounced, so something has been nagging me all week to write a short piece about it. 

So, belatedly, here goes (and it might not turn out to be that short after all)...

Over the life history of ITBB, I've described the Sunday programme in various ways:

• as the broadcast counterpart of the liberal Catholic magazine The Tablet (in the way that the BBC more generally is sometimes described as the inkless counterpart of The Guardian), of which its main host is a trustee, obsessed with Catholic matters from a liberal Catholic perspective (and as 'groupies' of Pope Francis).
• as "offering perhaps the most undiluted liberal bias to be found anywhere on the BBC" (pace Damian Thompson).
• as following a fairly unvarying menu consisting of "the usual diet of breaking news from the Arab world, Christian-related abuse stories, bad news about the Catholic Church [that was in the days of Pope Benedict, who wasn't a favourite of Sunday], something about human rights, the usual airing of Muslim grievances, a call for something or other by a left-wing campaign group, an Anglican row over something, that sort of thing".

Last Sunday's edition had four sections on Catholic matters: the first Catholic service at Hampton Court chapel since the Reformation; the Catholic diocese of Salford's 'Mercy Bus' (inspired by Pope Francis's Year of Mercy); the Pope's relationship-building with the Orthodox Church; and the closing debate on whether the Zika virus should make the Catholic Church re-think its position on abortion and birth control. 

[Edward Stourton's old friend from The Tablet, its disgraced-and-then-dismissed former Vatican correspondent Robert Mickens, also made his return to the programme. He was given the push for his heavily-mocking social media comments about then-Pope Benedict].

The Christian-related abuse story was there in the shape of the row over the (long-dead) former Church of England Bishop of Chichester George Bell, accused of assault. 

The left-wing campaign group bit was given over to the feminist group in Israel that's won the right for women to worship at the Western (formerly known as 'Wailing') Wall. The programme let us hear from one of those feminist campaigners (the kind who talks about 'patriarchy') and from a liberal journalist from Haaretz who applauded their victory whilst worrying about what the Palestinians might think.

(And Hadar at BBC Watch was not impressed with Edward Stourton here, especially his sloppy language about what the Jordanian Waqf controls on and around Temple Mount.).

And, of course, "the usual airing of Muslim grievances" was to be found. 

It took the form of an interview with a male convert to Islam who bemoaned his treatment since converting, with sympathetic supporting comments from a Muslim leader. (For someone who wanted to find spiritual fulfilment he did an awful lot of moaning.)

In all the time I've been closely monitoring Sunday I've yet to hear an equivalent interview with a convert to Christianity from Islam, or with an 'apostate' from Islam. (And that's because there hasn't been such an interview).

Having got that off my chest, I will now state that the Zika virus discussion regarding abortion and birth control featured both sides of the argument and that Edward Stourton handled it fairly. (The choice of subject matter in the first is a different matter of course). 

And I will state that Trevor Barnes's bit on the historic first Catholic service to be held at Hampton Court (of Cardinal Wolsey and Henry VIII fame) since the Tudor era was characteristically interesting....

....and calls for a favourite piece of music of mine from the time, one of Catholic Thomas Tallis's simplified, English language pieces for the new Anglican church: If Ye Love Me.

Haras Rafiq on 'Sunday'

This morning's Sunday on Radio 4 began with a report from Trevor Barnes about how people of faith in London have been reacting to the massacres in Paris, and some of it was very moving. 

In the midst of his report came a brief contribution from Dr Shuja Shafi, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain:

Trevor Barnes: How did you react to this atrocity?

Shuja Shafi: With horror. Horrified to hear and see what was unfolding. I think what we have to make sure is that that is their narrative which is wrong and we have to make sure this is nothing to do with Islam and they're as much an enemy of Islam as anything else.

And that really was it. 

I may be doing Dr Shafi a terrible injustice here, but I can only comment on what I heard. In contrast to the heartfelt contributions of everyone else in Trevor's report, this sounded like a brief, generalised expression of horror followed, all too quickly, by that distressingly overused, self-serving and false turn of phrase, "this is nothing to do with Islam" - and that didn't inspire confidence. 

The programme ended, however, with an engrossing discussion about the extent to which the actions of Islamic State and their supportive terrorists actually do have something to do with Islam. 

The discussion's starting point, read out by presenter William Crawley, was IS's Islam-soaked 'press release', every sentence of which was absolutely saturated with religious language. 

Three people took part in this discussion (besides its presenter). 

Two - Katherine Brown of King College, University of London and Dr Sara Silvestri of City University, London - were academics of the kind I'd expect to appear on the BBC - academics who inhabit that peculiar world of academic PC jargon and extreme sensitivity towards 'the internal Other', namely Muslims (especially Dr Silvestri, who was very prone to jargon). 

The third guest was Haras Rafiq of the Quilliam Foundation and, unlike Ms Brown and Dr Silvestri, he eschewed academic jargon and made a good deal of sense to me.

While Dr Silvestri wouldn't go beyond saying that ISIS had an "ideology" and Katherine Brown stuck to implying that ISIL's use of religious language was a distortion of Islam, Haras Rafiq struck a very different note:

I think, first of all, we have to understand where this particular theological interpretation comes from. It comes very much from Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab....and the theology that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab came up with, which is loosely known as Wahhabism...and some people call it Salafism - was born out of having an enemy. It actually was created as a theological reform at the time, a reformation almost, to combat and take on the colonial Ottoman Empire, as its founder saw it. 

The words that they [Islamic State] used were very, very interesting. They are designed to create and bind to a particular identity. a particular world view, use words like 'Allah' quite a lot, 'God', 'soldiers', 'Caliphate', 'believers', 'killed', 'identity', 'terror'. 

And any theology can be interpreted in any particular way to suit any particular political aim, but one thing is very interesting - that we are living in a time when there is, whether we like it or not, a jihadist insurgency and any jihadist insurgency is only really sustainable if it has some sort of support amongst the community and, of course, there is some support and that's the theology and the political ideology which we call 'Islamism', as opposed to 'Islam, the faith', that we need to tackle. 

Though a highly likeable presenter, William Crawley did come across as being 'very BBC' here. Fairly late in the discussion, and failing (it seems) to have quite taken Haras's first contribution on board, he suddenly interjected the following - as if trying to get the discussion back 'on track':

We're making it really clear today. this is not an action, this is not a military action of the religion of Islam. Everyone's emphasing that point. This is a twisted version of a very extremist cult, a death cult really, within the wider Islamic tradition. But it doesn't follow that everyone who reads Islamic texts goes this way. How do you explain why some people are taken into this theological bubble?

Haras Rafiq really wasn't quite buying that - or what Sunday's other guests were saying either:

Sure. First of all, when we look at the psychology, the whole narrative that it's about disenfranchisement, it's about foreign policy, it's about poverty, doesn't really wash. If you look at some statistics, 57% of the convicted Islamist terrorists here in the UK went to higher education, had a degree. More than half of the people that are convicted of  Islamist terrorism here in the UK actually were middle class, were actually engaged in either studying for medicine or other well-to-do ...social sciences, and living a good life. 

But if you look at the actual psychology. the psychology really and the reading, you mentioned "the twisted version", this is not neces...this is a version. This is a version that is coming out of the Middle East, a version... 

What is the difference between somebody in Saudi Arabia or somebody else in the Middle East who actually says that in an ideal Islamic state that anyone who commits...somebody who goes through the due process of Sharia and actually changes their faith should be stoned to death or somebody who is gay should be stoned to death. Then ISIS. The only difference is that one has a theological interpretation that they would like to do it if they could, and in Saudi Arabia (and other places) they are, and in the other one they've created the Islamic State. 

So this is really a version that is coming out from the Middle East and it's designed to do seven things. The first is create the 'otherisation': "I am one group any everyone else is different". Secondly, collectivisation, that "Everybody else is the same". Then it talks about the 'oppression narrative', that "They are oppressing us". It talks about the 'collective guilt' that "everybody else is complicit" in oppressing them. Then comes the 'supremacism': "We're better than them". Then comes the 'self-defence' and finally the idea of violence. This is not new. We've had this theology within mainstream Islam for a couple of hundred years or so...

...at which point William Crawley interrupted to say, "And indeed within medieval Christianity, a kind of apocalyptic theology - a form of theological paranoia".

Haras agreed that that's what it is and called for reform - not a reformation but reform: a plurality of interpretations drawing on traditional, classical readings. Hmm.

As William said in conclusion, very interesting indeed.

The inevitable post about 'Sunday'

The Pope Francis Fan Club's weekly magazine was out again this morning. It goes by the title of Sunday and its audio incarnation is broadcast on Radio 4 every Sunday morning. 

Not one but two features on this morning's programme took the doings of (St.) Pope Francis as their starting point: Pope Francis goes to see the Turin Shroud, Sunday does a feature about the Turin Shroud; Pope Francis spouts off about global warming, Sunday devotes the opening and closing sections of the programme to discussing it, ending with a discussion with two admiring Catholics (chaired by a third, Edward Stourton). 

Not even a whiff of scepticism was to be found here (either about global warming or the Pope). The science is settled and Pope Francis is simply super. 

The bit on the Turin Shroud with Professor Mark Goodacre was quite interesting though. The science still isn't settled on that, apparently.

International Yoga Day received some coverage (as it did on Sunday Morning Live). The focus on Sunday was on the politics of it. It was the BJP government of Narendra Modi that got the UN to make it an official 'UN day', as a symbol of Indian spirituality (and, thus, helpful at creating the right image for Western tourists). This innocuous-sounding move has, however, upset the Muslims. (I know! It's not like Muslims to get upset about stuff, is it?). They think that yoga is a Hindu thing rather than an Indian thing, and that the Modi government is advancing a Hindu agenda over it. And, boy, they aren't happy about it! (And neither are some Christians it has to be said). 

Talking about Muslims, there was also a report (from Trevor Barnes) on how some Muslim groups are using new teaching resources to challenge Islamic State ideology and try to deter "youngsters" from going overseas. They will be doing so using "authentic Islamic sources" - ones that show that Islam is a "moderate" religion and that 'jihad' should only be taken to mean 'inner spiritual struggle'. IS are only "so-called Muslims", according to one campaigner. These groups will show young Muslims the true Islam. Hmm.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks was also on talking about his new book and about the term "altruistic evil". (This basically amounts to 'doing evil things in the belief that you are nobly helping others'.) He argued that the way to fight Islamic State is to get all religions back to the mainstream (a sentiment not dissimilar to the ones expressed by those Muslim groups in Trevor Barnes's report). He defended himself against Edward Stourton by insisting that all religions have a history of being misused by murderous extremists, so he's definitely not singling out Islam, no sirree. 

Everyone was saying 'nice things' here, but the terms 'wishful thinking' and 'vague' kept popping into my head.

I did note that Edward Stourton briefly echoed Newsnight's strikingly biased defenestration of David Cameron's Slovakia speech about some British Muslims "quietly condoning" Islamic State's actions (if you recall, the programme contained nothing but criticism of the speech - including from its presenter),by beginning his discussion with Lord Sacks by saying:

David Cameron raised some hackles this week when he some some Muslims "quietly condone" the extremism of groups like Islamic State.

Was the "raising of hackles" the important part of the news story here? (And he did receive some support too, Edward). Later he described the PM's words as "tough rhetoric".

The same African-American academic that appeared on Newsnight last week, discussing the Charleston church massacre, was interviewed again on this edition of Sunday. One of her friends was murdered in the attack. She takes the view that a lot more action needs to be taken to confront racism - a view the BBC is prepared to share across its platforms.

There was also a pleasant report on a new piece of classical music - 'The Passion of Christ as told by Mark the Evangelist - by the BBC's delightfully-named Sarah Swadling. Whenever I hear her name on Sunday I always think of the little baby Jesus lying in his manager wrapped in swaddling clothes, and that cheers me up. Hmmm, mince pies!

And on that bombshell, here endeth this week's rant about Sunday.

Yes, the BBC is biased

Elections may throw up surprises, but BBC Radio 4's Sunday will always remain a surprise-free zone...

Now, I suspect many of you aren't overly interested in Sunday (with Ed Stourton) - this quiet, understated (boring?) Radio 4 staple. But I am, and the programme seems to me to reflect (unexcitingly) many of the BBC's biases at their most flagrant...

[...even though, being a quiet, understated (boring?) person myself, I actually rather enjoy listening to it, and, yes, I do like Ed...]

So, please read on (and please don't fall asleep if you can help it). Here there be plenty of BBC bias (if not any dragons)...

******

Many a right-wing critic of the BBC regards the corporation as being the broadcast wing of The Guardian. I regard Radio 4's Sunday as being the broadcast wing of The Tablet - the Guardian of British Catholicism.

After years of almost weekly carping at the previous (non-Tablet-approved) pope, Benedict, presenter Edward Stourton and BBC Rome correspondent David Willey suddenly went into almost entirely uncritical mode when Pope Francis appeared on the scene...

...and it's been "Pope Francis this" and "Pope Francis that" ever since.

At time they've sounded like a pair of elderly Pope Francis groupies. At other times they sounded like an extension of the Pope Francis Press Office.

So, unsurprisingly, this week's Sunday began with yet more "Pope Francis this" and "Pope Francis" that from Ed and David. Pope Francis invited that nice Raul Castro of Cuba to the Vatican for a chat. Pope Francis is an expert on Cuba, apparently. And as for the warming of Cuban-Vatican relations, "he's something to be quite proud about", said David, approvingly.

[Incidentally, I have a memory I've not shared before. As this is a blog, sharing is considered a jolly good thing, so here goes...

I remember watching Cardinal Ratzinger becoming pope. I remember snorting at the BBC's 'experts' snorting at his election as Benedict XVI. I knew they didn't like him. I remember watching him on the Vatican balcony and thinking, 'What kind, intelligent eyes he has!', only to watch Paul Merton on the subsequent edition of 'Have I Got News For You' repeatedly (as if it was a new catchphrase) saying "Evil eyes! Evil eyes!" every time a picture of the new pope came up, and thinking - doubtless to the new pope's disapproval - "WTF?". It was another of those classic BBC bias moments].

******

From a Sunday hero to a Sunday zero...

...a TV programme Ed Stourton probably dislikes even more than he disliked Pope Benedict (and that's saying something)...

...yes, Channel 4's Benefits Street - the programme the BBC nearly had a collective heart-attack about when it first appeared - is back, and Sunday duly leaped into anti-Benefits Street action in a section of the programme its website page pointedly entitled "Real Benefits Street".

Trusting his instincts, Ed Stourton sniffed:

But anyone who saw the first series would probably agree its portrayal of people on benefits wasn't always flattering and Church Action on Poverty have marked the arrival of the second series on our screens by launching a YouTube channel called 'Real Benefits Street'.

A clip from that Church Action on Poverty video duly followed featuring the voices of several benefits claimants in distress - a clip that went on for quite some time.

And then came what? A discussion between someone from Church Action on Poverty and someone who's willing to stick up for the original Benefits Street or to criticise the CAP's standpoint? 

You must be joking. This is Radio 4's drippingly left-liberal Sunday after all, so there was next to no chance of that. All we got was an interview with a spokeswoman from Church Action on Poverty, slagging off Benefits Street and Iain Duncan Smith. 

Ed Stourton fed her helpful questions with barely the faintest sop to impartiality (one question attempted to 'defend' Benefits Street whilst at the same time describing it as "distasteful"!!) and the slagging-off of Channel 4 (and the plugging for the CAP videos) continued pretty much unabated. 

(One for John Whittingdale, that one).

One of my earlier posts, about this blog's long-term study of Sunday, gathered together what I consider to be clinching evidence of Sunday's left-liberal bias on the subject of the last (coalition) government's welfare reforms (i.e. an endless parade of critics and next to no defenders). 

Evidently, despite the results of the election, Sunday is prepared to carry on regardless. 

******

Is it all bad though? Well, after that came an excellent report from the BBC's Turkey correspondent Dorian Jones on the exodus of Yazidis fleeing (the Islam-inspired) Islamic State to camps in Turkey. 

I've often admired Dorian's reports on Sunday and this report was grim but compelling. He reported that the Islamist ruling party in Turkey is highly wary of such camps (the Yazidis being ethnically Kurdish and emphatically not Muslim) and that the Yazidis, given their experiences in Iraq, are very distrustful of Arabs, even fearing the sight of mosques. 

Being a BBC reporter though, even Dorian felt the need to spotlight an example of  how Muslims in Turkey have gained the trust of the Yazidis and how, as a result, the Yazidis are finding "freedom" in the camps in Turkey.

His report ended with the calls from desperate Yazidis to be allowed to flee to the West. Instinctively, I thought 'yes, let's save the Yazidis' ...

...but then it dawned on me that the BBC might have been encouraging me here to think: 'Yes, let's save the Yazidis and let them settle in the UK, but what about other such desperate people? Those fleeing Assad in Syria? Those heading to Europe's shores from North Africa? Why not save them too? Indeed, why not save as may as we can by letting as many as we can settle in the UK?' (Damn that Farage! Damn those Tories and their immigration cap!)

Wasn't that implied in Dorian's report?

******

Then, being Sunday, it was then straight back to Pope Francis, and the decision of Germany's [largely liberal] Roman Catholic Church to allow lay Catholic employees who divorce and remarry or form gay civil unions to keep their their jobs. This was a very Catholic section of the programme. Not being a Catholic I rather struggled to get to grips with all the (Catholic) theological divergences here, but even I sensed that Ed and his interview, Daniel Deckers of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, were strongly siding with the German "progressives" and 'disrespecting' the wretched German Catholic conservatives. ("Ratzinger" was duly mentioned). Ed described those progressive German Catholic leaders as being "out ahead".

******

Next up came something a little different though - a very rare Sunday interview with a "conservative evangelical" bishop - someone who led the campaign against women bishops in the Church of England, namely the Reverend Prebendary Roderick Thomas. 

Ed Stourton gave him a respectful hearing, rather as a kindly but cautious doctor might handle a leper. He then expressed a surprised "Goodness!" about the Rev's position, talked about "those who think in the way that you you do", and then talked about people pursuing a "conservative evangelical agenda". (I rather doubt - and, in fact, I know for a fact - that Edward would ever talk about a "liberal Catholic agenda" in that way [for obvious reasons]). He then probed his interviewee's links with certain organisations.

No, this definitely wasn't an Ed Stourton interview with someone 'on his side'. 

******

Next, Trevor Barnes talked to two veterans of Bomber Command about V.E. Day - a fascinating feature. Trevor encouraged them to tell their stories and reflect on their faith. Being a cynic about the BBC, I expected Trevor to inevitably fixate on the usual moral concerns about Bomber Command's bombing of Nazi German cities. Did he do so? Well, yes, but incidentally, and gently, gently. No complaints here then. Trevor is a very nice man.

******

Finally, however, it was onto Sunday's post-election debate:

What will the outcome of the General Election mean for religious people in Britain? Edward Stourton explores the issues from a cross-party and multi-faith perspective.

This, frankly, was a flipping travesty of BBC impartiality.

There was a two-against-one situation, guest-wise (two left, one right). And the 'one' veered staggering close to the left-leaning 'two' on far too many occasions. And the presenter (Ed Stourtion) also took the side of the 'two'.

Proof? Well, please listen for yourselves. But if you can't be bothered....

We heard from Conservative-supporting Tim Montgomerie; avowedly "left-leaning" Paul Bickley on the Theos think tank; and Nazir Afzal, "until recently the Crown Prosecution Service of the North West" (whose political starting point wasn't specified). 

Ed began by playing them a clip of a C of E bishops' letter saying there was a racist undertone to the election debate about immigration.

Nazir agreed with Ed that the issue was "the dog that didn't bark" during the election, but denounced the "xenophobia" over the Med migrants issue, and then tied that "xenophobia" to UKIP. "Hate" is his concern over the immigration discussion. Tim talked of our inability to control our borders - and the volume - due to the EU. Ed, stuttering somewhat, wondered, "And..and..do you think that the..the..more benign tone [loaded language there, Ed] that we've been talking about that survived during this campaign will survive that sharper debate?" Tim replied that UKIP didn't do that well and their tone was "unattractive". Ed asked Paul about divisions in the Labour Party over immigration. Paul (fairly enough) said that Labour lost votes to UKIP in the North because people didn't believe them over immigration, and that their white working-class based is alienated. Ed, in response, asked Nazir about "alienation" in his community (oh, yes!). Nazir said the fear of being "stigmatised" was a concern, and there's also concern about  a rise in "xenophobia" over the EU referendum 

Ed then moved onto welfare. As per the earlier part of this post, he then played a clip of the C of E bishops denouncing the government's welfare reforms. 

Ed asked Tim about "human faces" being attached to the "numbers" affected by welfare reforms. Tim, nicely (and perhaps dimly) agreed, but said the Church underplays the issue of wealth creation and its creation of new jobs, which is something to be said against the negatives of "the cuts" . Ed, undeterred, immediately countered Tim and asked Nazir, "Well, presumably they're still going to be huge and does this worry you? Is it alarming?" [a biased, leading question if ever I heard one]. Nazir complained about food banks, set up by mosques, to deal with those cuts, expecting them to do "a great deal more" in the coming years. Ed asked Paul about the criticisms leveled at the Church for being "lefty" [his sniff was merely implied here]. Paul said there was a problem of "tone" in the last parliament and there's likely to me more of that talk about "the undeserving poor" in this parliament. "It's going to hurt", he said. Ed asked Tim is "a more compassionate caring Conservatism" could "be squared with the cuts". Tim said yes, but the Tories won only 35-37% of the vote and that there need to be "a generous acknowledgement" of the good ideas in other parties' manifestos, such as the taxing of non-doms and higher tax bands on higher value properties [WTF has got into Tim? Jeez, no wonder 'Sunday' invited him on!]. 

Finally, it was onto living standards. Cue a clip of the bishops' denouncing in-work poverty and denouncing the vagaries of the market. 

Ed asked Paul why Labour hadn't "made the progress that might have been expected [by people like him] over this issue. Paul said England was pragmatic, but didn't back the Conservatives' agenda and that people "want common decency". Cue this following oh-so-telling exchange:

Ed Stourton: But you could, Nazir Afzal, interpret the result as a reflection of the fact that people don't seem to care that much about inequality.
Nazir Afzal: That's very sad if it's true.

Nazir said that minority groups are concerned that the welfare cuts will hit them most, and that access to justice will hit them most, and that they won't feel part of the society they've "immigrated" to. So "everybody's concern" if that if the those "at the lowest end" are losing out. Tim, in response, praised the living wage [?!?] but said the bishops are still too keen on the power of the state.

The discussion ended.

Even by the BBC's standards, that was an unbalanced political debate, wasn't it? Naturally, there was no one from the UKIP-supporting 13% of the population - and no reflection that the Right (UKIP and the Tories) made up half of the voting population. The unjustified imbalance in the guest selection was compounded by Ed's deeply unbalanced (anti-Right) questions. 

The whole programme, however interesting and engaging, was unbalanced - i.e. biased - pretty much from start to finish, wasn't it?

I genuinely would love to hear from anyone who has 45 minutes to spare to listen to this edition of Sunday and who then feels justified in disagreeing with me about the programme. Why do you think I've gone wrong? Because, to be blunt, I don't think I've gone wrong at all. I think this programme sums up much of what's wrong with the BBC - the choice of subjects, the choice of guests, the questions posed, the attitudes adopted. Almost everything exemplified the BBC's left-liberal worldview here. (And I think I'm being charitable in my use of the word "almost" there.)

As Alan at Biased BBC has sometimes been known to say: "Is the BBC biased? Yes it is."

Islam in Kenya, Israel and Britain...plus food banks

Among other things, this morning's Sunday on Radio 4 discussed the claims by senior Kenyan and Israeli politicians that the latest atrocities by Islamic terrorists signal that a "religious war" is developing. 

The programme struck a sceptical note about that. 

William Crawley discussed the situation in Kenya with BBC correspondent Anne Soy. Unfortunately, a bad phone line made it increasingly hard to catch much of what she said. William managed to make the familiar point though that "many Muslims across the world will regard the circumstances of this attack as a hideous distortion of Islam".  

The situation in Jerusalem was discussed first with Cardinal Nichols then with Cambridge University's Dr Wendy Pullan. 

William Crawley introduction to that discussion stated that "atrocities have been committed by both sides". Similarly, Cardinal Nichols worried that extremist groups on both sides are becoming the main protagonists and wanted "both governments" to show "leadership". Moral equivalence hung heavy in the air.

Dr Pullan, introduced as a Cambridge university historian and author, said she doesn't "buy into" the claims that a "religious war" is developing. She argued that the other issues - disputes over identity, land right and "a very prolonged occupation" - have not been displaced by the religious angle, though that angle remains far from unimportant. William Crawley noted that she was "calming down the rhetoric". She went on to say that, for her, Jerusalem is where "the occupation comes to a head". 

Wendy Pullan signed a letter from Cambridge academics calling for the boycott of the French multinational Veolia for being "complicit" with Israel. She's not, therefore, quite the disinterested academic Sunday would have us believe. 

The programme also featured a glowing appreciation of "the birthplace of Islam in Britain", the newly reopened Quilliam mosque in Liverpool. Britain's first mosque originally opened in 1889 (on Christmas Day). Everyone in the report was delighted that it had re-opened and rejoiced in its symbolism. 

Then it was onto Islamic extremism in British schools and a report by Trevor Barnes from one school which claims to have dealt with a plot to radicalise the curriculum. The report's intended message was meant as a positive one, showing moderate Muslims working against the extremists and defeating them. 

This morning's Sunday wasn't all about Islam though. We also heard about an apparently disreputable Hindu guru in India and the influence of gurus within India, about the delightful comic singer-songwriter Jake Thackray, about a lovely husband and wife who (together) have volunteered for over 100 years, and - a familiar Sunday theme - about 'food poverty'.

The latter took the form of an interview with Chris Mould of the Trussell Trust who argues that delays in benefit processing and low wages are resulting in record numbers of people using their foodbanks. This, of course, is politically sensitive stuff and the government hasn't taken too kindly to the Trust's previous pronouncements on the issue. William Crawley read out a government statement this morning rejecting the Trust's latest findings and Mr Mould angrily rejected their criticisms. 

We've heard quite a few times over the past couple of years on Sunday from people who share Chris Mould's position. It would be good to hear from someone who shares the government's scepticism about the Trust's analysis of 'food poverty' in Britain, though whether that will ever happen on Sunday is rather doubtful.

Boko Haram, the Extraordinary Synod on the family, Ebola, the morality of tax, end of life care, and ShabbatUK

Today's Sunday on Radio 4 began with the news of the apparent ceasefire between the Nigerian government and the bloodthirsty Islamists of Boko Haram, and the possible release in the coming days of the abducted school girls.

I have to say I wasn't expecting either development, given all that's gone before. We could do with some good news though, so fingers crossed! 

Then it was onto Catholic matters, specifically the Extraordinary Synod on the family at the Vatican. The bishops there had rejected some of the 'gay-friendly' statements in the full draft document, plus some relating to remarried Catholics. 

Edward Stourton interviewed Cardinal Vincent Nichols about it. 

Edward's liberal Catholic bias has a habit of coming through in interviews with Cardinal Nichols and, for the first time under Pope Francis, I got a strong sense of dissatisfaction from Edward at the less-than-revolutionary turn of events in Rome. This was not a friendly interview in its early stages - and Ed came close to sounding cross at times. 

Here's a flavour of his line of questioning:

And on the specific point of gay people, the Church, presumably, this morning is in the curious position of having indicated earlier in the week that it wanted to welcome them into the Church, and now saying, no, actually we don't after all?

Well, it tells us a bit more than that, doesn't it? It tells us the mind of the Church is not to as welcoming and liberal as it appeared to be earlier in the week?

It was thanks to Cardinal Nichols that a further piece of evidence for bias on Edward Stourton's part emerged (or possibly confirmation bias on Edward Stourton's part). Twice, including at the start of the programme, Edward quoted Pope Francis criticising the "hostile rigidity" of conservative traditionalists in the Church. Cardinal Nichols, however, pointed out that the Pope also condemned the "destructive good will" of progressives and liberals who wanted change at any cost - people like Ed Stourton's friends at the Tablet. 

If you check out the news reports, you do indeed find that even-handedness in the Pope's statements. Why did Edward Stourton cherry-pick just the statement condemning Catholic traditionalists? 

Things then took a weird turn as it emerged that Cardinal Nichols voted against the 'gay' statements because they weren't "welcoming and progressive" enough (Ed's words) - or at least he thinks he voted against them because, he said, he can't remember if he did or he didn't. [At that point I could well understand why Edward Stourton sounded incredulous.]

Edward's mood suddenly changed though as it seemed to dawn him that Vincent Nichols was actually on his side in wanting "more positive" attitudes towards gay people. His tone audibly softened in the following questions - which, I think, further suggests his bias.

Edward's mood of dejection then appeared to return at the turn of events as he worried about how the Church's new spirit of 'democracy' had produced such an unexpected result.

Cardinal Nichols then gave him a little pep talk on impartiality that made me smile:

Vincent Nichols: I would a similar level of honest, open, pensive and very, very charitable exchange of views in order to discern a way forward. What Pope Francis does with immense depth and skill is to create and follow a process. And he comes at it all of the time with an eye for discernment. Where are we being prompted to go. And that excludes nobody. So nobody's views are unimportant. Nobody's views are there to be dismissed. They're to be listened to, and we sense our way forward. 

Ed Stourton: Including the views of traditionalists, which clearly made themselves felt very powerfully in the conversations during the last few days?

Vincent Nichols: Well, why not? They are people - if you can use that category. The Pope did - who have a profound dedication to the Church, who give their life to the Church and see in their understanding of the coherence of the faith continuity with the tradition to be very, very important. That's a very proper part of being a Catholic.

If only Sunday would really take the Cardinal's advice to heart!

The next topic was Ebola. Edward mentioned an article in the Tablet [which has started getting more mentions again on Sunday in recent weeks] by Monsignor Robert Vitillo of the Catholic charity Caritas Internationalis, who has recently returned from Liberia. Msgr Vitillo compares Ebola with the early days of HIV. He's worried that the same kind of "fear, discrimination and stigmatisation" is re-appearing. He talked about the actions being taken by Caritas (and Cafod) and the Catholic Church in the effected countries.  

Sunday is always keen to promote calls from campaigners for something 'left wing' or 'progressive', especially if it's something from a religious group, so it was hardly surprising that this week's edition promoted the calls from Christian Aid for businesses to pay more tax than the law requires. Cue a discussion on the morality of tax.

Sunday began by doing what Salford-based Sunday now tend to do - canvas a few 'vox pops' in the ultra-safe Labour stronghold of Manchester. Why do they keep thinking that's going to give a representative snapshot of public opinion? Won't that tend to massively skew any survey they do?

The results of this survey? One man said corporate tax avoidance is immoral and that the rich make use of loopholes. One woman said you should be paying tax to the right level, not paying as little as you have to as tax is "for the betterment of other people". A second woman said the government wastes money and people can make better use of their own money. A second man seemed to be blaming to government for taxing tax from people who haven't got the money. A third woman said, as a pensioner, that she'd pay less if she could do. A fourth woman said paying as little as you can is immoral. (4:2 in favour of Christian Aid's position then).

This was followed by an interview with a co-author of the Christian Aid report, Canon Dr Angus Ritchie. [You will note that no dissenting guest was invited to join him].

Revd Ritchie said that multi-national companies are his report's main focus and made the moral case against their perfectly legal activities. At least Edward challenged him decently.

Benjamin Franklin is usually credited with coining the phrases, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes", and after taxes came death and a report from Trevor Barnes on end of life care - "how hospitals and hospices are adapting their services to respond to religious and cultural needs of relatives and patients", or more specifically, how ethnic minorities feel they are missing out on getting the full range of services.

Trevor went to a Catholic hospice in an ethnically and religiously diverse area of East London. The hospice caters for people of all religions and none. We heard from Hindu relatives, praising its work. We then heard from a charity campaign manager arguing for better services, before hearing from the imam at a university hospital about the problems faced by people from the South Asian sub-continent, a hospice palliative medical specialist pioneering a new approach called 'Caring Communities' to bring it lay knowledge and a lecturer in palliative care who said that pain can be understood in different ways by different cultures (say, as a divine punishment) so that needs to be taken into consideration.

Next came something a little different for Sunday, a positive item about Judaism.

It took the form of interview with the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, about ShabbatUK which is calling on Jews across the UK, regardless of their level of religious observance, to celebrate "a Shabbat unlike any other" (from 24-25 October). According to the ShabbatUK website,

Shabbat is a central part of what it is to be Jewish. It plays a crucial role in Jewish identity with its powerfully uplifting and transformative qualities.... This is an incredible opportunity to join with fellow Jews around the world...to experience life, for just one day, disconnected from the daily grind and engage with Shabbat in a meaningful way

Rabbi Mirvis told Edward Stourton that it will be fun:

Judaism is fun. The traditional Jewish religious way of life is fun. The happiness that is experienced within the family circle, the joy within the heart of a community by celebrating the Sabbath days is something very precious and I would like as many people as possible to enjoy it.   

He then sang traditional Jewish words - the Jewish grace - to the tune of Match of the Day. (Yes, really).

Finally, it was back to Catholic matters and the Extraordinary Synod on the family at the Vatican, and a discussion between Mark Dowd of the Catholic gay group Quest and "radical orthodox" Catholic blogger Paul Priest [a new voice for Sunday] - another opportunity to test out Edward Stourton's impartiality.

Well, he did OK here it must be said. Besides some tutting during Paul Priest's opening salvo [denouncing the attempted hijacking of the synod by Church liberals], he let both of them have their say - unfortunately, not for very long though as the programme ran out of time.

I think Paul himself (On The Side of the Angels) was quite surprised to get an invite onto Sunday. He's not really Ed Stourton's type, is he?

@pattif21 Thanyou Ma'am - think someone must have dropped out at the last minute - how they had my phone no. astounds me!! @BBCR4Sunday
— OnTheSideOfTheAngels (@OTSOTA) October 19, 2014

@OTSOTA I was wondering how you got the gig - normally 'balance' means MD v someone from @Tablet editorial board @BBCR4Sunday
— Patti Fordyce (@pattif21) October 19, 2014

Gaza, WWI, Muslim charities and the banks & the West's guilt over Iraq

This morning's Sunday dwelt mainly on the Gaza conflict and on the WW1 anniversary, with side features on how some Muslim charities are being badly treated by the banks and on the West's responsibility for the present plight of Iraqi Christians. 

If that sounds to you like a typical left-liberal-biased edition of Sunday then you wouldn't be far wrong. 

Here's what happened:

1. "As the Middle East crisis intensifies, Matt Wells reports from New York on the US Government's response to the conflict." 

Ed Stourton asked about public demos in the U.S. Matt Wells said the pro-Palestinian demos have been tiny while 10,000 people attended the New York "Stands with Israel" rally. (We heard a clip from Republican senator  from Charles Schumer, speaking to the crowd.) The White House's criticisms of Israel were in turn criticised by some Democrats. The first 'talking head' here was the World Jewish Congress' Evelyn Sommer, saying that the U.S. should not be criticising Israel at this time and should continue to support Israel regardless of casualties. The liberal organisation J-Street is also supporting the Israeli action. The second 'talking head' was Rebecca Vilkomerson from the Israel-bashing Jewish Voice for Peace. She says her organisation is growing, and denounced the pro-Israel lobby. Matt Wells said that, long term, the U.S. public's support for Israel is threatened, according to a new Gallup poll which shows that a clear majority of Americans under 30 think Operation Protective Edge is unjustified. It's "remarkable" how little support there is for the Palestinians, concluded Matt.

2. "We also get the perspective of the British Jewry and British Palestinians who have families in Gaza." 

This was a report from Charles Carroll, talking with British Palestinians in a coffee shop in W. London. A young Palestinian man and two young Palestinian women expressed their fears and aired their complaints about Israel's action, with much talk of families being "wiped out" or fearing being "wiped out". 

3. "HSBC wrote to a number of Muslim organisations in the UK this week informing them that their accounts will be closed. We examine why a bank might take a decision to close an account, and how a charity might fall foul of the rules."

It wouldn't be Sunday if there wasn't something along these lines. Does the Gaza conflict explain this?, Ed began by speculating (implying that the banks are coming under pressure from pro-Israeli sources?), but curiously this wild speculation wasn't followed up, merely left dangling in the air. He talked to Tom Keatinge from RUSI and Jahinger Malik from one of Sunday's favourite charities, Islamic Relief. Islamic Relief had its account closed by another bank back in 2012 and said they weren't informed of the process (or reasons) for the closure. Ed says "natural justice" would make many listeners think it's wrong to do that. Tom agreed, saying these actions can't help the banks' reputation. Ed took this "it's wrong" line and stuck with it, even though both his guests agreed with it. 

4. "Concluding our series exploring the views of faith groups at the outbreak of World War One, June Osborne, the Dean of Salisbury, looks at the Church of England's response to the war."

This was an interesting report from June Osborne. She's been looking through papers of Randall Davidson, the Archbishop of Canterbury during WW1. At the start of the war the main controversy facing him was the issue of whether clergy should enlist as combatants. He came out against it. A lot of clergy took no notice, however, enlisting as army chaplains and front-line soldiers. Archbishop Davidson was working at all different levels, making grand speeches and dealing with mundane things - questions such as 'What would the church do with their silver if the south of England was invaded by the Germans?' By 1915, more substantial issues - poison gas, conscientious objectors, etc - began to weigh on his mind. He saw the war as "a struggle on behalf of righteousness and freedom" through the Anglican Church's moral and spiritual weight behind the war and the need for a British victory, but he was far from oblivious to the dilemmas and tragedies of the war and was clear that war is "evil".

5. Iraqi Christians 

This was an interview with David Walker, Bishop of Manchester. He's been talking to the Observer, so Sunday naturally gave him a ring. He mainly blames us, the West, for the present perilous plight of Christians in Iraq - specifically the 2003 invasion. "We are responsible for what we left behind", he said. His solution? We have to take them in, just as we did with the Ugandan Asians. "Our doors have to be open", he said, regardless of the numbers. Ed asked him about the present anti-immigration mood in this country. He replied that that mood needs challenging, saying that immigration helps to "grow the economy" and "enrich us". "Immigration doesn't harm us, it enhances us", he said - and Ed didn't challenge him on the point. 

6. "We also get the perspective of the British Jewry and British Palestinians who have families in Gaza."

This was the counterpart to the earlier discussion in W. London. Trevor Barnes was in Hampstead, talking mainly to liberal British Jews. British Jews are "incredibly conflicted", said Hannah Weisfeld of Yachad ("pro-Israel, pro-peace"). Jonathan Arkush from the Board of Deputies described the present conflict as a "tragic war" but said "these are victims of Hamas". Various vox pops said that the conflict "tears us apart", that their sister in southern Israel has no protective room, and that she finds the Palestinians deaths "heartbreaking". Peacemaking rabbi Frank Dabba Smith said that Israelis are very, very depressed, seeing no end to the conflict. What of the rise in anti-Semitism? Jonathan Arkush said he was "surprisingly heartened" at what it is revealing about interfaith relations, praising both Justin Welby and the Muslim Council of Britain for their statements on the issue. Returning to the general topic, no subject is most divisive, said Frank Dabba Smith, saying that bringing people together is his aim. Hannah Weisfeld then rounded things off by saying, "You don't have to pick sides" and that the community "has to be for peace". 

7. "In the first of two exclusive reports for Sunday, Dr Rowan Williams, Chair of Christian Aid and former Archbishop of Canterbury, reports on the desperate situation he found in South Sudan when he visited the country this week."

"A bit of a scoop this", said Ed - namely Dr Williams' "decision to moonlight as a reporter for this programme". The former AB of C says that South Sudan could be facing famine. 

8. "The Rev Laurence Whitley, Minister of Glasgow Cathedral, looks ahead to the Centenary Commonwealth Service taking place in Scotland and tells the story of the four Anderson Brothers who lost their lives during the Great War." 

Today is the 100th anniversary of the phrase "the lamps are going out over Europe", supposedly said by the British Foreign Secretary of the day on 3 August 1914. Rev. Whitley outlined the details of the service to mark the start of the war.

Catholic social attitudes, gay marriage, Nigeria, "Islamophobia", the living wage and then gay marriage again

This morning's Sunday talked about Catholic social attitudes, gay marriage, Nigeria, "Islamophobia", the living wage and then gay marriage again.  

First up, Catholic matters. (It wouldn't be Sunday if it didn't discuss Catholic matters!). The topic today were the early results of a Vatican survey into Catholic views on social matters. Ed Stourton talked to liberal Catholic commentator Fr Brian D'arcy about it. Ed said "people expect and hope there will be...change" as a result of it, and Fr Brian said "I hope...there could be a better pastoral approach" as a result of it.

Then it was onto the subject of gay marriage in the United States. "We'll hear from Christian conservatives in the United States", Ed said about this section at the start of the programme. Well, so we did, though the report from the BBC's Matt Wells actually split 4:2 against Christian conservatives, with the two conservative voices sandwiched between four liberal voices. One of liberal voices talked of "scary right-wing rhetoric", after which we heard some scary right-wing rhetoric on the issue from a US pastor. (Are they no reasonable-sounding conservative opponents of gay marriage out there?) 

Next it was onto Nigeria and another interview with Dr Stephen Davies, the former canon of Coventry Cathedral, who is helping in the attempts to free the abducted schoolgirls there. He was very insistent that the violence there now is not a Christian v Islam thing, merely a political thing as various political forces sponsor Boko Haram to stage anti-Christian attacks to help them in the upcoming elections. He says that many of Boko Haram's original supporters are horrified at its behaviour. Those who merely wanted a return to the pure Islam of the time of Mohammed are beginning to split from it, he said.

More Islam next. A listener email was then read out saying that we should dwell more on "the peaceful side of Islam". Another email was against women bishops.

More Islam next. To mark the start of Ramadam, Sunday invited in Tell Mama's Fiyaz Mughal to talk about his organisation's latest report into "Islamophobic hate crime". Alongside him was Usama Hasan of Quilliam. It was a friendly discussion. Fiyaz said there was a "very large spike" after the murder of Lee Rigby. Dr Hasan accepted that there's been a "rise in Islamophobic hate crime", but - at Ed's invitation - also discussed Muslim-on-Muslim violence, specifically Muslim "extremist" attacks on Muslim "moderates". He's received "serious death threats" himself. Fiyaz agreed that there is "intra-Muslim hate". They then discussed the "symbiosis between far Right" and what Fiyaz described as the "resistance" to it from "small" section of Muslim community. Usama said there's "no such thing as a Muslim community", only "Muslim communities" and that saying otherwise helps the far-right. Fiyaz said that's a "valid" and "fair" point, and agreed that lumping all Muslims together only helps the far-right to smear Muslims.

Then it was onto another familiar Sunday subject - the campaign for a "living wage", specifically "the moral challenges raised by the Archbishop of York's report into the living wage", as part of the Living Wage Commission's campaign. Trevor Barnes reported. We heard a fair range of opinion (3:2 in favour of the living wage), though it was another classic Sunday sandwich - lay out the 'liberal side' first, then give the 'conservatives' a say, then end with the 'liberal side', here in the form of a Slovakian immigrant grateful for the living wage. 

Finally it was back to gay marriage (and another Sunday favourite - a good old Anglican row) and an interview with Reverend Andrew Foreshew-Cain, vicar of St Mary with All Souls, who has just defied the Anglican Church and gone through a gay marriage with his long-term partner. Alongside him in the discussion was Alan Wilson, the pro-gay marriage Bishop of Buckingham. Bishop Alan was even more critical of his fellow bishops than Rev Andrew, saying they've "painted themselves into an extraordinary corner", behaved in a way that's "almost like bullying" and done a "a very stupid thing". Bishop Alan was wholly supportive of Rev Andrew. Ed Stourton was obviously aware of how biased this looked so insisted at some length that they had tried to get another bishop to appear but none would do so. [Did it have to be a bishop though?]

Nothing much here then, is there, to undermine Damian Thompson's claim that "Radio 4's Sunday programme offers perhaps the most undiluted liberal bias to be found anywhere on the BBC"?

Still, the sun's shining again (visibly) and the birds are singing and the power drills and loud lawnmowers that make sunny Sundays what they are don't just plug themselves in....

A mid-May 'Sunday'

Well, this morning's Sunday on Radio 4 certainly brought out the BBC bias, as you will see.

{The bits in bold italics under the sub-headlines are direct quotes from the Sunday website}.

1. The Indian elections

The Indian elections are drawing to a close. Monday 12th May is the last voting day. Rahul Tandon reports live from India.

This took the form of a discussion about the role of religion in this election and, inevitably for the BBC, focused on the concern of Muslims over Mr Modi's record during the Gujurat riots in 2002, about the BJP's plans to build a Hindu temple at a site of a historic mosque, and about violence in Assam where several dozen Muslims have lost their lives.

2. Religion and Scottish independence

What role does religion play in attitudes toward Scottish independence? William discusses that question with historian Prof Tom Devine.

Prof Devine said that although religion is "not a major variable" in this year's referendum, there are interesting trends. Surveys show that Roman Catholics are more likely to support independence. Those of no religion are less likely, and Presbyterians are least likely of all. His discussion with William Crawley focused mainly on the sea-change within the Catholic community since the 1960s and 70s when many Catholics feared devolution and independence. He said that the Catholic Church has retained younger people, unlike the Church of Scotland, and that younger people are more pro-independence. In the 60s and 70s, there were Catholic concerns that devolution would help consolidate the power of the Church of Scotland and worries about anti-Catholic discrimination. These have now vanished. 

      Employing that BBC tone of voice when some silly conservative type has said something silly, William 'invited' Tom Devine to criticise the claims made by a conservative Christian that the Scottish Secular Society's pro-independence stance is a sign that independence will lead to an aggressively secular Scotland. Prof Devine duly rubbished that claim.

3. Capital punishment

Days after President Obama said a bungled execution in Oklahoma was "deeply disturbing" a bipartisan panel of legal experts has urged sweeping changes in what it calls the "deeply flawed" administration of capital punishment. Matt Wells explores the morals and ethics of the death penalty in the USA.

32 U.S. states still have the death penalty, though six states have abolished it in recent years. 

      Matt Wells has always struck me as being reliably biased on most issues, and any report from him about the death penalty was never going to be balanced. A majority of his 'talking heads' were against the death penalty, the last word was given to an opponent, and the only supporter (who wants to use firing squads) was challenged with the words, "You're fighting barbarism with barbarism." 

       Still, at least we did get to hear from someone who's in favour of the death penalty, and President Obama's equivocal position on the issue was mentioned. 

4. Apollo 16 & Heckmondwike

From Heckmondwicke [sic] to Houston; the story of the West Yorkshire priest Father Paddy Roche whose illustrated prayer for the Apollo 16 mission is set to go under the auctioneer's hammer.

This segment told the story of how a prayer written by children at the Holy Spirit Catholic school in Heckmondwike, West Yorkshire, came to be used in the blessing of the Apollo 16 mission in April 1972. William talked to the head of the governors at the school about it. 

     I wish more time had been spent on this than on...

5. Food poverty/inequality

Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, talks to William about the theme of peace and reconciliation which is the focus of this year's Christian Aid Week.

...yet another Sunday discussion about 'food poverty'.

      William trailed this interview at the start of the programme as being about Dr Williams criticising the government and saying that they need to visit food banks. 

      William talked of "vulnerable people", and asked him these kind of questions: 

• "You point to a need for redistribution of power, and indeed of wealth".
• Britain? "...how unequal a society is this?"
• "What do you think the British govt should do to tackle inequalities of this kind, in Britain?"
• "And the question of taxing the rich more?"
• Do you think people in government "get that?"
• "That seems to suggest you think they're disconnected from those realities?"
• Are you wanting a more radical, political, ideological approach?
• Is Christian Aid Week "packing more of a political punch" this year?

Rowan Williams answered in just the way you'd expect him to answer. 

      William Crawley did also ask the former archbishop one question about Boko Haram. 

      He didn't ask him if the abduction of those school girls by the Islamic terrorist group "underscores the role of women in a context of Islam?" but, rather, asked, whether it "underscores the role of women in a context of poverty". [Dr Williams was comfortable answering that.]

6. Pacifism

Ahead of International Conscientious Objectors' Day, reporter Trevor Barnes uncovers some of the untold stories of Quakers who refused to fight during the First World War.

Are conscientious objectors "heroes of conscience"? That was the question William posed.

We learned that there was approximately 16,000 on them during WW1.

     We heard from various Quakers, including Ruth Cadbury, a Labour Party election candidate, and from Prof Hugh Straw of Oxford University.

     Trevor Barnes stressed that pacifism at the time was "not an easy option".

     Britain was a pioneer in recognising it, said Prof Straw, legally allowing for exemption, which he called "a sign of progress" and of "civilisation".

7. Boko Haram

As pressure builds on the Nigerian Government to find the school girls kidnapped by Islamic militants Boko Haram, William Crawley speaks to the Archbishop of Abuja Cardinal John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan about the ongoing crisis there.

Nurudeen Lemu from the Islamic Education Trust in Nigeria explains how a crack down by security forces has driven Boko Haram underground creating difficulties in understanding their structure and ideology.

Please re-read that blurb (from the Sunday website). Notice how it emphasises the culpability of the Nigerian government rather than the Islamic terrorists. This is typical of much of what I've been hearing/seeing on the BBC over the past week (from Kirsky Wark being rude to a Nigerian government minister to Roger Hearing on The World Tonight yelling, yes yelling, at a Nigerian government spokesman.)

      Still, William Crawley, in the programme's introduction, said "we'll ask if moderate Muslims there have done enough to fight extremism", which promised something more.

      He didn't deliver. That line of argument was not strongly pursued, and the emphasis remained mainly on the government.

   

First up came the interview with Nurudeen Lemu.

      William asked him how "most moderate Muslims reacted to Boro Haram" since its foundation. Mr Lemu said Boko Haram are "not true Muslims." [A variant on the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy if ever I heard one!]

      William then asked him about the call from "many observers in the west" to "destroy them, defeat them". "Is that an appropriate response?", he then asked, leadingly.

      Mr Lemu prefers negotiation to the 'heavy hand'.

      Can you actually negotiate with those who rape and bomb?, asked William.

      Yes, said Mr Lemu. Raping and bombing are "a means of communication" and we need to understand what Boko Haram are saying.

      Even William Crawley of the BBC couldn't just shrug his shoulders at that. "Raping and killing children is a form of communications?", he asked.

      Yes, says Mr Lemu. We mustn't get too carried away with the present situation. We must look at alternatives.

      If I hadn't been preparing this post, I've have looked at an alternative too - reaching for the 'off' switch.

Then came the interview with Cardinal John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan, who described Mr Lemu as "a good friend".

      William asked him for his response to what Mr Lemu had said, specifically the bit about needing to understand the motives behind the attacks rather than using military force. He then asked him if you can negotiate with these people?

       Yes, was the reply from the archbishop.

      "Should the Nigerian government feel ashamed of their role?", asked William, before moving on to ask Cardinal John about whether he'd had a chance to brief Pope Francis about the situation and about whether he's optimistic that these young girls will be found and released.

******

...all of which rather confirms Damian Thompson's belief that "Radio 4's Sunday programme offers perhaps the most undiluted liberal bias to be found anywhere on the BBC."