Random Thoughts for a Sunday Evening

 

I

Lib Dems, lib Dems and Facebook

It's been a while since I've made myself listen to The World This Weekend but I learned something quite interesting from it today - albeit only after a bit of Googling as they didn't disclose it themselves.

The programme's main focus was on demands to regulate Facebook, particularly in light of the murder of Sir David Amess. 

I avoid Facebook like the plague.

Being politically-minded I now associate Facebook with Sir Nick Clegg, as he's become their Vice President for Global Affairs and Communications at Facebook since 2018.

The World This Weekend's sole defender of Facebook today was one Lord Allan, Facebook's Director of Policy in Europe until 2019. 

Like former Lib Dem leader/Deputy PM Sir Nick, Lord Allan is a former Lib Dem MP. So Facebook seems to like UK Liberal Democrats. 

And it gets spookier.

Lord Allan, it turns out from searching for him on the internet, was the MP for Sheffield Hallam from 1997-2005 before giving way to the one Nick Clegg, who remained MP for Sheffield Hallam from 2005-2017. 

What are the chances of that happening?

My random thought here is that maybe the American liberal Democrats at Facebook chose the UK's Liberal Democrats because of their party name, assuming because they call themselves 'Liberal Democrats' they must think like liberal Democrats in the US...and, if so, they should be careful when hiring from Russia and Japan or they might end up with Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Shinzo Abe, and they might un-ban former US president/possible future US president Donald Trump while Mark Zuckerberg isn't looking. 

II

The BBC and the word 'terrorist'

The estimable Scottish blogger Effie Deans has a thoughtful piece on her Lily of St. Leonard's blog about the murder of Sir David. It made me re-think a few things. and is well worth a read. 

If Sue's not seen it yet, it begins: 

Whenever there is a terrorist attack in somewhere like Israel, we are told by the BBC that it carried out by militants. It gives the impression that the far left from the 1980s stopped handing out newspapers to blow himself up. Only when a terrorist attack happens here in Britain will the BBC allow itself to describe it as such. IRA militants after all did not try to blow up Margaret Thatcher. If a word is useful then we must use it consistently. If something is terrorism call it terrorism, otherwise you are lying in which case how can you be trusted on anything.

It then moves on.

It's certainly true that the BBC will use the word 'terrorist' more about terrorist attacks in the UK than anywhere else and that it goes out of its way to avoid applying it to the like of Hamas or Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah.

But the BBC has used it in connection to radical Islamic terrorism in the UK through the most gritted of gritted teeth over the last couple of decades. 

They were very reluctant to begin with post 9/11, and particularly post 7/7 in London. 

All of us hereabouts observed that at the time. 

It made the BBC look terrible and absurd. 

I'm guessing they finally realised that they were dangerously adrift from the public mood, so they eventually eased the prohibition. 

And that's where we are now - with a word that should never had been banned being grudgingly allowed in the UK context - albeit still through gritted teeth on certain BBC reporters' parts - but still being banned [except in heavy inverted commas] when it comes to terrorism against, say, Israel.

III

Sunday, Flipping Sunday

The one Radio 4 programme I've tried to keep up with during my blogging slumbers is Radio 4's Sunday, what with it being the starting point of this very blog. 

It never really changes. 

Todays programme featured:  

[a] Takes on the murder of Sir David Amess which avoided the thorny issue of Islamic terrorism.

[b] An entirely one-sided 'woke' segment on Ethiopian demands for the return of some sacred plaques held by the British Museum where neither context nor the other other side of the argument was given. Presenter Emily Buchanan simply announced that the Ethiopians were demanding them back, said that we [the UK] ''looted'' it, and stated that ''lawyers'' said it was legally right to return them, and then interviewed an Ethiopian Orthodox priest who told listeners how precious these plaques were to the Ethiopians. When it's that one-sided it reeks of abetting a campaign.

[c] A strange piece about how cuddly toy deities might be ''the best way to help children understand faith and culture'', reporting on how a range of cuddly toys of deities like the Hindu god Ganesha is ''expanding to include all major faiths'', including Jesus and Buddha. I googled the company and checked their range of cuddly toys and found that the phrase Sunday kept using - ''all major faiths'' - wasn't quite true. You won't be surprised to hear that Islam was the exception and that the BBC skirted around the point like a cat trying to avoid its fated date with a cage during a trip to the vets. 

[d] A piece on a Jewish comedy Fringe event featuring...and here's the BBC angle...''the only Orthodox Jewish woman on the British comedy circuit''. There's always got to be a bit of identity politics and marking of identity politics milestones. 

[e] The inevitable book-plug for a friend of the programme, here Catholic author Peter Stanford. 

[f] A somewhat campaigning closing segment about aggrieved Muslim women being refused entry to pray within some mosques and how ''conservative'' attitudes in mosques need changing, followed by an interview with Sunday's favourite Muslim, the silky Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, who positioned himself somewhat vaguely on the matter, as is his way. At least Sunday raised the question of Deobandi influence.

I've been going on about the programme for over a  decade now, but there's now a small legion of people criticising Sunday every single week on Twitter and on blogs hereabouts. It's a growth industry that growing fast. The programme remains the ripest of ripe targets as far as BBC bias is concerned.

IV

Nancy wonders if it's just her

Following today's Sunday was - as ever - Sunday Worship. I was in the mood for hymns and heard it live. 

It provoked a murmur on Twitter when Annunziata Rees-Mogg [sister of Jacob] complained about it being about gender equality today when it should have been a Catholic service in honour of Sir David Amess.

Wouldn’t it have been nice if Sunday Worship on BBC Radio4 had been from a Catholic Church in memory of Sir David Amess? And perhaps a sermon about the value of public service rather than gender equality? Or maybe that’s just me.

Now, I have to say that - much as I can see where she's coming from -  I agreed with those of her critics who pointed out that these things are prepared weeks and months in advance. The BBC publishes the text and running order of the service in full before it's even broadcast. And this was coming live from Ely Cathedral. So this was a juggernaut that's being rolling for weeks ready for this morning, and the BBC couldn't just drop it and swap it with a different service. And, in the event, a pray for Sir David was said at the start before the feminist-influenced, all-women service about women in the Bible began.....though, amusingly, the male dean popped up at the end to read the blessing.

So Annunziata might have been better saying that, yes, the BBC couldn't reasonably have replaced this service at the last minute, but that it's still 'very BBC' that the identity-politics-obsessed BBC Radio 4 prepared yet another service with an 'identity politics' focus today, because Sunday Worship is doing that ever more often as the channel increasingly sinks into a smelly slough of 'woke'.

V

John Simpson says 'this can't go on'

Fantasies, born of childhood/adulthood reading of brave British men rescuing women in peril, have occasionally led me to dream that we British would somehow spring Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe from jail in Iran, literally leaving behind a Carry-On-style black fingernail card of 'two digits rampant' for old 'Smiler' Khamenei to splutter at as his beard caught on fire humorously.

Five years younger than the Supreme Leader of Iran, the BBC's World Affairs Editor John Simpson is unimpressed: 

The rejection of @FreeNazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe's appeal in Tehran is predictable but disgraceful. She is being held hostage for the repayment of a £400m debt the UK owes to Iran. Handing money to Iran is a big problem, given its support for terrorism; but this can't go on.

I do believe that the BBC's Mr Impartiality is demanding, ever so impartially, that the British Government cough up to the terroristic, hostage-holding Ayatollah. 

Hm. 

Sunday morning viewing

I couldn’t help spotting irony in kindly Sheikh Mogra’s contribution to the Sunday programme featuring the Pew report. 

In the context of the projected rise in Europe’s Muslim population (to 18% by 20150) the good Sheikh said it will work out fine if WE stop invading MUSLIM Countries. 

Who’s invading whom?

*****

I listen to Andrew Marr on Start the Week occasionally, and he always impresses with his grasp of the issues discussed, sometimes extremely complex ones, such as  this morning’s episode. Russia, religion and the Middle East.

Andrew Marr has many talents, but I don’t think presenting the Andrew Marr show is one of them.

I was just thinking, in view of Rob Burley’s wry Twittering, why not swap jobs? Burley presents the Andrew Marr Show and  Andrew Marr produces it. Win-win.

Further to Craig’s astute observations about the paper review 

“Andrew Marr was trying to conduct an interview with Nigel Farage during the paper review, challenging him about those Trump tweets, Britain First and his EU pension - something that would have been much better done as a proper interview not during a supposedly relaxed paper review with two others leaping in to 'help' in harrying the ‘interviewee’.”

(admittedly, Rob Burley would have had to undergo even more flak had Farage been invited as an interviewee proper.) 

Craig referred to Ayesha Hazarika’s (and Nigel Farage’s) verbal incontinence  as 'a shouty affair', but Ms Hazarika was the one  throwing out ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’ like there was no tomorrow. 

Isn’t it odd that certain female pundits (men don’t do this so much) show their disrespect, nay, disgust, by gurning and squirming during an opponent's  attempt to “finish their point”. Ayesha gurned like a demented Yasmin Alibhai Brown, and (Craig politely referred to it as a hubbub) she and Farage continually interrupted each other, effectively drowning each other out. Andrew Marr didn’t seem to have the will nor the way to put things back in order.

Presenters! Take back control!

I spotted that tell-tale  'at last we agree on something’ from Andrew Marr as he signed off Jacob Rees Mogg, and I do think Rob Burleys’s retort was a tad glib:

“Well you don't know anything about Andrew's views. Think it was a jocular end to the interview which shouldn't be taken seriously really.”  

As Tweeter  “Tesh” remarked, I can’t see him saying that to “a leftist”, even in jest.

Still on Sunday viewing, Alan Milburn has resigned from something or other...

but when did he quit producing “One Big Family” for the BBC?

17.2%?

This morning's Sunday on Radio 4 discussed the Pew Research Center's projections for the Muslim population in Europe in 2050:

Conrad Hackett, from the Pew Research Center, talked about it first and then Edward Stourton discussed it with Sheikh Ibraham Mogra from the Muslim Council of Britain and Katie Harrison, Director of the Faith Research Centre at ComRes.

The message I heard from the programme is that it will all turn out well, especially if we stop invading and occupying Muslims countries! Plus, such research is useful if it's used properly and doesn't get misused by 'the far-right'. 

Transcript: Opening debate on 'The Big Questions', 12 Feb 2017

NICKY CAMPBELL: On Tuesday, Mrs May held talks at Downing Street with her opposite number in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Increasing trade and investment with Israel was high on the agenda. The day before, the Knesset, Israel's parliament, passed a bill legalising settlements on privately owned Palestinian land on the West Bank, in direct contradiction of a UN Security Council Resolution. Mrs May was clear that Britain opposes settlement activity and believes the two-state solution is the best way to bring peace to the region. Should we trade with Israel now the settlements have been recognised? Well, I've been doing debates on this issue for 30 years now. And it's never that quiet. It's very, very impassioned on both sides. We shall attempt to proceed in a civilised direction. Now, Ryvka from War on Want, many would say, "Are you serious? Come on! We've had trade deals with Saudi Arabia, with China, with Russia, with the United Arab Emirates, some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet - none of them a democracy like Israel is. How can you possibly justify this?"

RYVKA BARNARD (War on Want): Well, I think there's a major issue with the UK. The UK should be putting human rights and international law at the centre of all of its trade negotiations with all countries. 

NICKY CAMPBELL (interrupting): Should we stop trading with all those countries? 

RYVKA BARNARD: I think it's a question to be brought up. I think we can't talk about trade without talking about human rights and international law. That's why it's important for the UK to take action right now, move beyond words and suspend its trade relations with Israel because of its systematic violations of international law. 

NICKY CAMPBELL (interrupting): If we stop trading with countries with human rights abuses, at a time when we need friends, we'd go out of business.

Ryvka Barnard

RYVKA BARNARD: I think what happens when you continue trading with human rights-abusing regimes like Israel, you're basically incentivising human rights abuse and you are giving a green light to say that violations of international law, doing things like building settlements, demolishing Palestinian homes, is OK. We might say on the side, we don't like it when you do that, as Theresa May did, but incentivising them with trade and especially things like the arms trade - the UK Government has approved over £100 million worth of arms exports to Israel in 2016 alone - those arms are used in violence against Palestinians. So it's a real double standard to say 'no settlements' on one hand but then to be no settlements but giving arms to the country that is building them. 

NICKY CAMPBELL: You refer to Israel. Paul, good morning Paul, chairman of the Zionist Federation, former tank commander with the IDF, there's a couple of things I need to ask you and then we'll throw it out. I want to hear from the audience, because, of course, hands going up already. Ryvka referred to, in unequivocal terms there, Israel as a human rights abuser. How would you respond to what she said there? 

PAUL CHARNEY (Zionist Federation): Well, that needs to be qualified. Israel, certainly by Freedom House, is recognised as the only free country in the Middle East. It has a very strong democracy. It has a Supreme Court. It is not subservient to the executive. It will look at this legislation and it will decide whether it's legal or not. There is a huge social housing crisis amongst the Palestinians and among the Israelis, and these towns that are expanding need to expand. So, it is a controversial issue and you can disagree, but the same time, if the UK disagreed with every country, with every political decision, it certainly wouldn't be dealing with China, it wouldn't be dealing with India over Kashmir,wouldn't be dealing with Turkey over Northern Cyprus, and the opposite would be true. It's not like Spain would cease dealing with the UK over Gibraltar, or Argentina would cease dealing with the UK over the Falkland Islands. What we need is to understand to put this into perspective, that the settlements are an issue but they're one issue, since 1967, that needs to be dealt with in the much larger framework of a peace agreement which the Palestinians require and when they want to build a home in a state for themselves more than they want to destroy and boycott Israel. When that priority changes then peace can be achieved. 

Islam is not feminist enough

I have not read the 199 page Casey Review, but I know some people who have. Well, I assume the BBC have. Has.

This morning the BBC were still in a seemingly never-ending loop, obsessing about sexual abuse in football, while Sky News wheeled in Haras Rafiq and Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra to discuss the matter. But it was short and sweet. Rafiq looked disconcerted when ‘time ran out’ before he was able to finish a point. I can’t remember what was said, but it was largely a case of Muslims wondering why the British expected Muslims to adapt to the British, rather than the other way round. They couldn’t quite understand the problem. It baffled them.

Not to worry, a little later, the BBC was on the Casey; that is Dame Casey herself appeared, followed by some extremely defensive Muslims.

Let’s just recap. When the debate about mass immigration first raised its head in public, people couched their concerns in the only terms they could, to avoid being (or being seen to be) racist. Surely, they asked each other, there’s nothing racist about objecting to mass immigration as long as we stick to the rules. That is, we do it in terms of numbers - especially as we’re already struggling to house, employ and educate our own. Charity begins at home, does it not? A-a-a- am I being racist?

Douglas Murray: 

“In order to cope with immigration at the current rate, this country needs to build a new house every few minutes.  The ‘housing shortage’ in Britain is talked about as though it is a native phenomenon – as though the British people just keep needing more and more houses.  In fact we only need to keep building on green-belt land and covering over our beautiful countryside with new houses because we keep importing more and more people.  Why do we do this?  Why do we need to keep doing it?  What is the cultural enrichment that we failed to get from the first few million Pakistani and Bangladeshi migrants which we will only be able to really enjoy from the next few million?”

As if all that weren’t bad enough, there’s the underlying problem - that shamefaced ‘stranger in my own town’ feeling, which was swept under the very rug that people felt was being pulled from under their feet. Whole neighbourhoods transformed. People walking round in strange and alienating garb. Out with familiarity and its concomitant sense of security and in with uncertainty and not being quite sure what it all amounts to or where it's going.

Eventually everyone was talking openly - about numbers. Pressure on schools, surgeries, wages. In other words they spoke about mass immigration alright, but strictly in terms of anything but you know what. Unspoken, but ominously present and jumbo sized — i.e., creeping Islamisation and the BBC’s relentless attempts at normalising all those regressive cultural abnormalities.  Also, the persistent promotion of diversity and the denigration of anything dangerously resembling patriotism.

Even when the grooming scandal broke, and even when the Trojan Horse affair hit the headlines, still, full and frank debate about Muslim immigration was hobbled by political correctness and the ever present fear of being outed as a racist.

Now it looks as if Dame Louise Casey has fallen victim to a very similar type of deflection. Or perhaps it’s merely the BBC’s (and Sky’s) selective spin. They’ve homed in on the one aspect of the report with which they’re pretty sure there will be no dissent. It’s women’s lib. The feminist angle. 

They’re actually criticising Islam, but not for its homophobia, nor for its appalling antisemitism. Not for its medieval attitude to practically everything, including apostasy and blasphemy. No, it’s the one thing they feel sure everyone will approve of. That a woman needs the permission of a man to do anything remotely independent. They even pretend it’s only Muslim men who are at fault, when although the religion itself is indeed fatally misogynistic and patriarchal, many Muslim women are usually just as dictatorial, rigid and unforgiving when it comes to enforcing all that mumbo jumbo they like to live by.

This goes to show that even when someone comes near to the crux of the matter, they deflect at the very last moment and retreat to a position of safety. The safe space. "We’re not racists. It’s just that Islam is not feminist enough, and anyway the country is full." 

Well, they’re quite right. Islam is not feminist enough and the country is full, but that’s not what scares me most about mass Muslim immigration.

See? I’m openly Islamophobic. maybe I should be a football fan after all. I’m ‘racist’  and that’s the way I like it.

Friday prayers on the BBC?

Daily Express headline

Back in May the Sunday Times, under the headline BBC says it is too Christian and must diversify, reported that Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC’s (Muslim) head of religion and ethics, had written a report for Lord Hall "that would answer criticisms from non-Christian faiths that they were underserved". 

In that article, Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, was reported as saying that the BBC might televise Friday prayers from a mosque, cover Eid and show children attending madrasahs after school for Koranic instruction.

Fast forward to today and the Times, under the headline BBC revamp will counter Christian ‘bias’, is reporting that Lord Hall is now acting on Mr Ahmed's internal report and that the BBC will, indeed, diversify its religious output in the interests of multiculturalism:

The BBC will increase its coverage of more religions and could broadcast Friday prayers after complaints that it was too Christian, The Times has learnt.

Ibrahim and Justin

That article quotes Shaykh Ibrahim of the MCB again:

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that the BBC could televise Friday prayers from a mosque, cover Eid, the holiday marking the end of Ramadan, or children attending Koranic lessons.

I'm still not sure, even after reading all the articles about it, whether the Friday prayers call actually derives from a BBC source or whether it's merely the newspapers hyping the MCB's wishful thinking for the sake of a dramatic angle/headline...

...but, regardless of that, the direction of travel at the BBC has been very clear for some time. 

The journey is now well underway and the accelerator is being applied ever more strongly. 

And I suspect that Shaykh Ibrahim's prayers will be answered and that Muslim Friday prayers will be broadcast by the BBC in the not too distant future. 

Of Dubya and coffee

Let me take you (and me) back in time...

Waking up and smelling the coffee on Saturday 10 September, Radio 4 listeners would have been treated to a Prayer for the Day from our silky old friend, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain. (His prayers continued on Radio 4 for several days after).

He talked about 9/11 and, unusually for such an uncontroversial programme, used the opportunity to criticise George Dubya Bush for using the phrase 'war on terror'. It was, he said,  "controversial...especially for many Muslims, which has also had great cost to diverse individuals and communities." He then prayed to his God.

Well, it comes to something when even Prayer for the Day is used for political purposes by an Islamist!

What next? Tweet of the Day on the nightingale by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?:

The nightingale's melodious song has infiltrated the heart of poets and Islamic scholars for many centuries. Its song, contrary to what is said in the decadent West, is not to do with courtship or territorial marking. The nightingale is simply singing what every true believer knows in his heart: "Death to America! Death to Israel!"

A few hours later came The Muhammadan Bean: The Secret History of Islam and Coffee, presented by journalist Abdul-Rehman Malik. 

Being a tea-drinker, I wasn't inclined to listen to it.

Abdul-Rehman's Twitter feed is interesting but much as you'd expect - left-leaning party-politically, strongly pro-Sadiq Khan in the London mayoral election, anti-Prevent,  backing criticism of Maajid Nawaz for trying to engage with Tommy Robinson, supportive of an anti-Israel activist, etc.

His personal page says that his:

“Pause for Thought” radio column airs regularly on BBC Radio 2’s weekday morning programme. 

Well fancy that!

I supposed I ought to listen to his coffee programme, as it would be wrong to just derisively imply that someone's a typical BBC choice without listening to their programme first. After all, it could be completely free of proselytising.... 

Could I be bothered though? Wouldn't I much prefer to have a cup of tea and do something else instead? 

Oh, the dilemmas of a blogger!

Well, I listened, and what happened?

He begins by telling us that he's of Pakistani heritage and is now describing how he's long been "hooked" on the "intoxicating...wine of Islam". (I much prefer the intoxicating wine of Asda). Coffee-drinking spread from Ethiopia to Yemen. Mystical Sufi Muslims then spread it further. Coffee houses eventually became stylish meeting places (like Starbucks?), and coffee as "a culture, an art and a cultural force" peaked in the Ottoman Empire, arriving in Constantinople in 1544 via Syrian merchants from Greater Syria. They achieved a global monopoly on coffee. Exports of coffee seeds and plants from Yemen was punishable by death. The likes of the Dutch East India Company eventually got round that. Pope Clement VIII in 1600 is said to have liked the Satanic Mohammedan brew so much that he said he wanted to baptise it. It came to London in 1652 (Cromwell's time) when Pasqua Rosée, the Greek servant of a British Levant merchant, established the first coffee house there. By 1659 two more opened up. By 1663 (post-Restoration) there were 82 coffee houses within the old walls of the city. By the turn of the century there were 3,000. Etc. 

As they say on BBC Two: QI. Well done Abdul-Rehman! 

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra on Turkey joining the EU

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra from the Muslim Council of Britain was the paper reviewer on this morning's BBC Breakfast. Here he is discussing Turkey, the EU and racism:

Sally Nugent: In the Observer, you've picked a story about the referendum, Vote Leave campaign. 

Ibrahim Mogra: I mean, the nation has to have this debate. We need to have the referendum and the people will speak for themselves as to which way we should go. But I'm just very, very concerned about the fear-mongering and the headlines that suggest we'll be flooded by Turks coming into this country. Let's put everything into perspective.... 

Roger Johnson: That's if Turkey joins the EU, and that's a huge 'if' anyway, isn't it? 

Ibrahim Mogra: It is a huge 'if' but it's a very exciting 'if' for me, because it's very rich for us as Western nations to have Turkey as part of NATO, to defend our borders, to defend us against any potential attacks or threats and the like, and at the same time we're very reluctant to even consider having them as part of the EU. I think having Turkey within the EU would be a wonderful thing I believe. We already have significant contributions from our Turkish communities within the United Kingdom, hard working people, and dare I say Turkish places are very, very popular with British people to go and have a meal. And how many of us regularly holiday in Turkey? We see Turkey is a very, very safe place... 

Roger Johnson: Although the numbers are going down. People are more wary about travelling to Turkey. 

Ibrahim Mogra: I think the recent terrorism that has peaked in Turkey has been a major reason why maybe numbers have fallen. But prior to that it's been one of the most favourite destinations. We've holidayed in Turkey several times ourselves. You feel very safe going out at night. No fear of being mugged. So to suggest that Turkish people inherently when they come to Britain will be more prone to criminality, etc, I think it not only borders racism, but I think it is quite racist suggestions. Turks have proved to be hard-working contributors to our country and our society. And, of course, there's always going to be movement from one country to another. So why should it be any different if Turkey does join the EU? I think it would be great.

"The BBC is too Christian", says BBC

Here's something  from The Sunday Times's Social Affairs Editor Nicholas Hellen - an article called BBC says it is too Christian and must diversify:

The BBC is too Christian in its religious output, according to an internal review, and should increase its Muslim, Hindu and Sikh programming. 

Lord Hall, the director-general, is considering findings that show there is a disproportionate amount of programming by the corporation on Christian matters compared with other faiths. 

Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC’s head of religion and ethics, told a Commons meeting on religious literacy he had written a report for Hall that would answer criticisms from non-Christian faiths that they were underserved.

The paper quotes Mr. Ahmed, the BBC's Muslim head of religion and ethics, saying:

We do look at the number of hours we produce, and measure that against the religious make-up of society. We also carry out checks to give us a better understanding of how we represent the different faiths across the various BBC channels and services. 

Christianity remains the cornerstone of our output and there are more hours dedicated to it than there are to other faiths. Our output in this area is not static, though. It has evolved over the years and we regularly assess it.

(I thought they didn't believe in measuring things like that? That it isn't useful to do so? Well, that's certainly what they keep saying about their EU referendum coverage.)

And it also quotes some helpful suggestions from our old friend, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra (who, curiously, doesn't have any suggestions that involve a religion he doesn't share):

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the BBC might televise Friday prayers from a mosque, cover Eid and show children attending madrasahs after school for Koranic instruction. But he added: “We would not wish Christians to have any less exposure.”

I suspect Shaykh Mogra isn't going to be waiting too long for such things.

The same coin

This morning's Sunday ended with a discussion about Islam in Britain, following criticism of a Muslim association in Blackburn by Justine Greening for saying that women should not travel over 48 miles without a male guardian.

Sunday invited on two of its Muslim regulars, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain and Lancaster University's Dr Shuruq Naguib. Both of them prevaricated over whether the call should be condemned and refused to condemn it, despite some pushing from Ed Stourton for them to clarify their positions. The professor was much more willing though to condemn Miss Greening, instantly describing her comments as "problematic". Ibrahim Mogra hinted at 'Islamophobia'  as a possible justification for such Islamic guidance, what with Muslim women facing attacks on public transport (at which point he alluded to his favourite story about an attack on the Tube - an attack, he always forgets to mention, that was carried out by a homeless Asian immigrant). The professor also explicitly mentioned 'Islamophobia' in her reaction to Sadiq's triumph in London. Both were delighted at Sadiq's success.

I'd have preferred to have heard a much wider range of views.

Update: Come to think of it, this is a very good point:

The imam returns

BBC Breakfast's favourite imam, Ibrahim Mogra (Assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain), was doing the paper review again this morning.

His first choice of story probably won't surprise you...(it certainly didn't surprise me. He always seems to begin with a 'Muslim story')....yes, he went straight for the "extremely worrying" Independent on Sunday story about alleged British government collusion in rendition and torture at "notorious" Guantanamo Bay.

The PM needs to respond seriously to the charges, he said, "because this is just one other bit of ammunition that can be put into the hands of evil and violent extremists who say, 'We've always told you: the West is against Islam; the West is against Muslims; see how they treat our brothers in Guantanamo Bay'. That doesn't help our cause".

The imam's description of the claims in the article as "facts" may not have helped 'our cause' either.

Rectifying a surprising omission

The paper reviewer on this morning's BBC Breakfast was writer and barrister Zia Chaudhry, founder of the Just Your Average Muslim project (and author of the book of the same name). 

One of the things about keeping records about the BBC - even incomplete ones - is that they allow to to keep track of changes to BBC editorial policy over time. 

A couple of years ago, I listed all the guests from a couple of separate runs of BBC Breakfast weekend paper reviews - one from 2011, the other from 2013/14 - and noted that, between 2011 and 2014, there had clearly been a determined effort (a) to feature more female paper reviewers, (b) to move away from using print journalists , and (c) to invite more religious guests - especially vicars.

A curious thing looking back over those two lists (which you can read here) is that they only included one Muslim guest, Mehdi Hasan - and even he'd (seemingly) been dropped over the intervening period, leaving no Muslims guests throughout the 2013-14 period. That was a very surprising omission for the BBC, wasn't it?

That has clearly changed now. Within the past month alone, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra (on Boxing Day), Nazir Afzal and now Zia Chaudhry have all been on the weekend BBC Breakfast sofa reviewing the papers. A editorial decision has, therefore, obviously been taken - and put into practice - to include more Muslim paper reviewers on BBC Breakfast.

I will return to closely monitoring this for a while. Will any other editorial decisions be discernible?

******

Anyhow, here's part of how the start of this morning's paper review went:

Jon Kay: Zia, thanks for coming in. What's attracted your attention in the papers? 

Zia Chaudhry: Well, the Prime Minister, not surprisingly, in his opening to the new year had something to say to those who don't seem to subscribe to British values. And, of course, he's addressing the terrorist threat and how it's not just those who pull the trigger and who set off the explosives who need to be tackled but those who...in the past he's used the phrase "quietly condone". But it's along the same lines that we need to subscribe to British values. But he's used a phrase, "loyalty to Britain" which is going to be interesting to define because a lot of people say one of the best things about being British is that you can dissent, you can take part in an anti-war demonstration without committing a crime. And it might be that some people interpret "loyalty to Britain" as meaning that we can no longer do that. I don't think that is the position but its perhaps a timely reminder that we need to be clear in the way we define these things and avoid a 'them versus us' sort of narrative that seems to be developing. 

Steph McGovern: Hmm, and interesting as well because, of course, it will be this year when we have the EU referendum. So that kind of plays into that as well, doesn't it?

Maybe it's the after-effects of all that New Year cheer, but I really didn't quite follow Steph's logic there. Did you?

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra v bigoted British people

The paper reviewer on BBC Breakfast this morning was Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra. 

He was captioned 'Iman and Scholar' rather than 'Assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain'.

BBC Breakfast invited him to discuss the aftermath of Paris, especially its impact on British Muslims. The silky shaykh duly engaged in his usual slipping and sliding, inevitably shifting the focus onto the suffering of Muslims and the failings of Western foreign policy. 

Towards the end, however, even the BBC's Roger Johnson sounded rather uneasy about Shaykh Ibrahim's sincerity...

...and that came after the following question and answer, where Ibrahim Mogra characteristically side-stepped what seemed to me to be an attempt (on the BBC presenter's part) to get him to speak about the suffering of the people of Paris and moved straight back to his preferred theme of the plight of Muslims instead:

Roger Johnson: But give us a snapshot of how Muslims are talking to you about what happened in Paris.

Ibrahim Mogra: Well, there is solidarity with the Muslims.

Anyhow, for your interest, here are some extracts this morning's BBC Breakfast paper reviews:

*****

Naga Munchetty: Ibrahim Mogra, imam and scholar is here to tell us what's caught his eye. Good morning.

Ibrahim Mogra: Morning.

Naga Munchetty: Before we start...we will go through the front pages, but you can imagine what's on them now is what happens with Syria, what happens in the battle against Islamic State - all of this, of course, just over a week on from Paris. Can you just give us your thoughts on how you feel...if you feel...the world has changed now in terms of interactions between groups and attitudes amongst people when it comes to Islamic State and how this has reflected on the Muslim community.

Ibrahim Mogra: It's been devastating for us on many fronts. I mean, as human beings we feel the pain of loss of innocent lives. And then to know that it's co-religionists, fellow Muslims, who have been responsible for these horrendous murders and killings. It's even more painful that they've falsely then claimed to have been doing it in God's name.

Naga Munchetty: Hmm.

Ibrahim Mogra: Far from it. This is the work of Satan. They're doing the Devil's bidding. So we distance ourselves from their evil actions. And sadly many of our innocent British Muslim citizens who go about their daily lives are now the target of bigoted people's inability to make a distinction between the 3 million plus law-abiding Muslim citizens of our country and maybe a handful...of course a handful too many...who have perpetrated these crimes.

Roger Johnson: Have you heard...sorry to labour the point, but as you mention it...have you noticed a noticeable increase in hostility towards your community in the last week?

Ibrahim Mogra: Right. I...to be fair, there is a mixture. I think the British public has been wonderful. And we saw that in the aftermath of the London bombings and how people really rallied around and stood with us in solidarity and made that distinction between us and these evil terrorists. And I think the same is happening. And this is one of the, if you like...I hesitate to use this phrase...but the silver lining on this dark cloud that looms over us - that each time these terrorists have perpetrated an act of terrorism it has actually brought us closer together, despite our diversities. So there's a lot of solidarity with Muslims. But at the same time we hear more and more cases of, for example, Muslims who are visibly Muslim, particularly women who wear the head scarf, have been spat at, have had bottles thrown at them. One's been pushing in front of a moving tube train, etc. So we need to be alert to these things and stand up against these bigoted people, otherwise we will be driving more and more people into the hands of the ISIS and terrorist recruiters.

*****

Ibrahim Mogra: Where do we go from here? Well, we know where we've been before. The question is do we want to go back there again. And there is a big call once again to use bombers in Syria and, of course, we're already bombing in Iraq. We've done that before in Afghanistan, we've done that before in Iraq, and more than a decade later we know exactly where we are. Those places are still really in turmoil. So is bombing the right strategy? There is a lot of anger, for example, with regards to drone attacks. Drone attacks cannot be as precise as you want, and this horrible phrase 'collateral damage' is something that we, perhaps, sitting here can afford to use but for the people on the ground...the terrorists themselves have said, 'You kill one through a drone attack, you are creating a hundred others who will replace that one person you've killed'. And then whether we are willing to put boots on the ground, to use an American phrase, whether we will commit our troops to fight on the ground, because following a bombing campaign there's got to be something else done there. ....

*****

Ibrahim Mogra: It's something strikingly different between Muslims and Christians. For example, many of my Christian clergy friends without any hesitation will say they doubted the existence of God and they questioned 'Where was God'?, etc. It's very different for us as Muslims. We have kind of this absolute faith in the presence of God, in good times, in bad times. For Christians...I guess many have said to me it's a sign of their faith if you like to be able to question this.

*****

Ibrahim Mogra: Yes, we're really up against it because I've had young people say to me, "Shaykh Ibrahim, forget all the fatwas, all the rulings that you're giving us from your theological arguments. What do we do when we see innocent people also being killed?" So, in a way, the more force and violent means that we are using to tackle this problem the more we are alienating younger people. And just to add to this complex issue is the fact that we are beginning to see society turning on Muslims who've made this country their own and now are being seen as a threat or as an enemy within. And this can further alienate them and disenfranchise them.

Roger Johnson: Interesting point. And for those not watching an hour ago, we talked at great length about the experience of the Muslim community in the last week and as you say...backlash is too strong a word, but the way in which reactions have come your way, Just, if you can...you kind of touched on it...but give us a snapshot of how Muslims are talking to you about what happened in Paris.

Ibrahim Mogra: Well, there is solidarity with the Muslims, People I hope are finally able to hear our loud condemnation. We have condemned terrorism over and over again, despite the fact that many young people are saying to us "Why are you apologising for things we haven't done? Why are you taking responsibility for something that we haven't done?", but we do it as our religious duty. It is our obligation to condemn these things. At the same time we find alongside the solidarity of the British communities there are numbers of bigoted British people who are targeting innocent Muslims on our streets, on public transport, and that is totally unacceptable. This is yet another way in which these young people will feel that if they're not welcome here, if they're not trusted here, then they might as well go over there and fight.

Naga Munchetty: Again though, as you've said, it's a handful, and a tiny numbers of Muslims who have claimed it's in the name of Islam that they are committing these atrocities and again it's a handful of Britons who are turning on..,and not reflecting the bigger picture that actually there has been a show of solidarity and community in the wake of Paris.

Ibrahim Mogra: It's always a handful of people who spoil it for the rest. In all walks of life we find...I mean if you look at our football stadiums, it's always only a handful who give football a bad name.

Roger Johnson: Ibrahim, can I just pick you up on one word you used before? You said, "It's our duty to condemn it." You're not saying...you're not saying you're only doing it because it's your duty? You're saying it because it's a genuine heartfelt condemnation?

Ibrahim Mogra: Oh absolutely. Absolutely. As human beings...I mean before I'm a Muslim I'm first a human being, and I feel for the loss of life. And at the same time it's a duty to God. The Koran calls on Muslims to speak out against injustice, even if it's against ourselves, our parents and our relatives. So we do it not because there's an expectation from the government or an expectation from the British public or the world that Muslims will condemn this. We do it without being called upon.

Someone's opinion

Should BBC presenters challenge their paper reviewers if they say something partisan (or false)? Or should they let them speak and allow heir viewers to judge for themselves?

I was wondering about that question during this morning's paper reviews on BBC One's Breakfast, featuring Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain as their guest reviewer.

The shaykh was talking about an article in The Observer which warns us about what we'd lose if we left the EU (and which was read from at some length). He ended his commentary by saying this: 

My personal view is that I think a united Europe is a stronger Europe. I think we'll be more prosperous. We've seen the Irish and Portuguese examples of how they've managed to use EU money to modernise their countries. I was so delighted when I visited the Republic and saw how they had really managed to tap into the EU resources to take their country forward. So I think there is merit in supporting one another. Clearly some countries have to carry a bigger share of that burden, but then that's our duty to those who may have less and less capabilities. In the end, we all benefit.

I have to say that I was expecting the presenters to point out that their have also been some dramatic downsides to the economies of Ireland and Portugal in recent years, and that Greece, Spain, Italy, etc, aren't exactly proof either that EU membership always helps your economy in the long run. 

Yet no such intervention came. Should it have done?

Incidentally, Breakfast didn't show the front page of The Sunday Times this morning:

Will that story get much coverage on the BBC in the coming couple of years?

(The BBC itself famously receives some funding from the EU).

“On” a lot more?

I heard a snippet of the Media Show (about 20 minutes in) yesterday afternoon. I understand the topic was bias in the media with regard to the referendum, or the Scottish Spring as I like to think of it. 

One of the guest experts was Greg Philo, (Glasgow Media Group) and, as is his wont, he had to drag the Israel-Palestine issue into it all of a sudden. 

He said:  “It’s clear the Israelis are ‘on’ a lot more than the Palestinians”

I mean WTF?  What-planet-is-he-on? 

Now, let’s ask, just for one second, what evidence does Philo (what an apt name) have for that statement? First of all, how many Israelis make regular appearances on T.V? 

Mark Regev, Daniel Taub and occasionally Peter Lerner. Danny Danon was on HardTalk the other day. So was Yuval Steinitz.  Not Israeli, but “philo-Israel,” Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips are on quite a few panels. Maureen Lipman?

Then there are some Israeli lefties that are harsh critics of  the Israeli government. Gideon Levy, Ilan Pappé and  people who write for the Guardian. Mira Bar-Hillel. (Only joking) Is Philo including these?

So how many Palestinians? Well, if not actual Palestinians, there are certainly a fair few pro-Palestinians. (PhiloPalestinians)

Mustafa Barghouti, on at least as many times as Mark Regev during O.P.E.  Hanan Ashrawi ditto. Dateline’s top contributor ’arry Batwan, and we saw quite a bit of Manuel Hassassian. Regular guests on programmes like “The Big Questions”: Mehdi Hasan, Mohammad Shafiq, Mo Ansar, Ajmal Masroor, Myriam Francois-Cerrah. All there to have a dig at Israel at the slightest opportunity.  Yasser Abed Rabbo, Fawaz Gerges, Chris Gunness, Dr. Mads Gilbert,  guests on HardTALK. Regular talking heads: Chris Doyle,  George Galloway, Ghada Karmi and Owen Jones, always ready willing and able to propagandise on behalf of Israel’s enemies.

Lucy Winkett, John Bell, with their infamous anti-Israel sentiments,  all contribute to religious broadcasting. Sheihk Ibrahim Mogra, Yasmin Alibhai Brown,  frequently brought in to speak on behalf of the religion of peace, not to mention dozens of Middle East experts that are never off our screens; last but not least, the BBC’s own staff pro-Palestinian advocates and activists - Jon Donnison, Orla Geurin, Zeinab Badawi and Yolande Knell, Jeremy Bowen and the entire cast list from BBC Watch, and the many regular experts who outweigh by far pro Israel spokespersons on current affairs programmes like Dateline, Newsnight, and don’t forget Greg Philo himself. 

I know, I know, I’ve left out hundreds of them. But how can Greg Philo just get away with saying, in passing, in that  there are more Israelis ‘on’ than Palestinians? 

********

For your edification, here’s a small transcription of the snippet.

Steve Hewlett

Steve Hewlett

"What about the basic allegation that the “Yes” is being under or  mis reported in some ways?"

Greg Philo, sounding like a down-market Will Self with a smigeon of Ken Livingstone,  responded:

“Well yes, Salmond was on as far as I can see, as I understand it Salmond and the SNP were on a lot, but the issues were not bein’ discussed. It was being personalised whatever and I mean my own view, I mean I don’t want to comment or not because I haven’t studied it but my own view is that if you said to Alex Salmond “Look we’re not going to have you on so much ” (chuckle) I don’t think he’d be very happy. And I would guess that, I mean it’s very difficult to argue, um prima facie anyway, that someone who’s on such a lot, wall-to-wall, that is in some way puttin’ ‘im down. You know, it’s clear that if you look at the Israel Palestine stuff, it’s clear that the Israelis are on a lot more than the Palestinians, you know, and that fits the map.....it’s..”

SH

"But it hasn’t happened in this case..."

GP 

"No. I would have thought, I haven’t counted it, but you don’t get that impression."

'Newsnight' - 23-27 June

Newsnight production team meeting (Chris Cook, bottom left; Ian Katz, second from bottom left) - picture courtesy of J. Paxman.

So what stories Newsnight chose to report this week, how did they frame them and who did they interview?

Monday 23/6

1. British Muslims fighting with ISIS: "They're young, British and fighting for ISIS. Who's persuading teenagers from Coventry to fly to Syria and pursue jihad? We ask their parents." 

Rahim Kalantar: "The imam of the mosque who lives in our area, he organised classes for them after evening prayers. He encouraged them. He sent them down this road."

Studio interview with Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, Muslim Council of Britain; Lord Carlile, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation 2001-11; & Shiraz Maher, International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation. 

2. Journalists jailed in Egypt: "Now this was the day the three Al-Jazeera journalists imprisoned in the notorious Cairo Jail for six months had expected to walk free. Instead they were met with seven-year prison sentences, one longer - a stark reminder of the baffling, incomprehensible Egyptian legal system and its attempts to censor press freedom. The men had been accused of supporting the ousted Muslim Brotherhood and of spreading falsehoods through their reporting. Al-Jazeera has called the sentences "outrageous" and they've been condemned by the U.N. Secretary General and more." Interview with Michael Greste, brother of Peter Greste [the ex-BBC reporter imprisoned today], then with Sue Turton, correspondent, Al-Jazeera [sentenced to ten years, convicted in absentia]. 

3. Interview with Mandela's former private secretary: "And she was the Afrikaner racist who went on to become Mandela's most trusted confidante. She watched him deal with Thatcher, Zuma and Jeremy Clarkson." 

Zelda la Grange: "First of all, when Jeremy walked in he said, "Oh Mr Mandela, have you ever had a lap dance?" Now a person of that age doesn't really know what a lap dance is".

Interview with Zelda la Grange, former private secretary to Nelson Mandela.

4. Polish-British tensions over Europe: "The f-word is flying in Polish. We hear what Poland's foreign minister thinks of our PM's Europe policy." Interview with Peter Lilley MP (Conservative) & Roland Rudd, chairman, Business for New Europe.

5. Chinese tennis player: "Li Na is the second most highly paid female athlete in the world. She's Chinese and her rise in the tennis world has followed the same trajectory as China's rise on the world stage. She's already won two grand slams. She graced Centre Court earlier today. In her only television interview she talked to Katie Razzall ahead of Wimbledon". Report including interview with Li Na, tennis player. 

Tuesday 26/6
"A special edition of Newsnight on the phone hacking trial"
"A scandal for once worthy of that name. Hacking closed the country's biggest paper, told how the secrets of the royals, the wealthy and the vulnerable were stolen, and may have put one of the Prime Minister's former lieutenants in jail. 

David Cameron: "I was given assurances that he didn't know about phone hacking. That turns out not to be the case, and I was always clear if that happened I would apologise, and I do so unreservedly today".

"He may be happier that his close friend Rebekah Brooks is cleared. She said she didn't know what was going on. So how did she get to the top of News International?"

Michael Wolff, biographer of Rupert Murdoch: "Rupert did say to me, and this would be an exact quote. He said, "She social-climbed her way up my family."  

"On tonight's Newsnight we'll hear from victim, politician and the journalist who first broke the story". 

1. Discussion with Steve Hewlett, The Guardian/BBC Radio 4 Media Show.
2. Report from David Grossman, Newsnight's Technology Editor, about the day's events.
3. Interview with Harriet Harman MP, Labour & John Whittingdale MP, Conservative.
4. Report from Steve Hewlett profiling Rebekah Brooks.
5. Interview with Nick Davies, The Guardian.
6. Interview with Ulrika Jonsson, hacking victim.
7. Report on the possible consequences of the Hacking Trial by Steve Hewlett.
8. Panel interview with Rich Peppiatt, filmmaker and former tabloid journalist; Nick Ferrari, journalist; Baroness Onora O'Neill, philosopher; & Isabel Hardman, Spectator.


Wednesday 25/6
1. Phone hacking Trial: "Rupert Murdoch flies into town tomorrow. What repercussions for his business here after yesterday's verdict? The Murdoch Empire has gone from strength to strength. Tonight we ask what fallout this trial will actually have. One of his fiercest critics is here." Interview with Tom Watson MP (Labour) & Felix Salmon, Senior Editor, Fusion.
2. Iraq: "Iraq's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has rejected calls for a national salvation government to help counter the offensive by ISIS. In his weekly televised address he warned that forming an emergency unity government could go against April's parliamentary elections and represented an attempt to end the democratic experience." Discussion with the BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse.
3. British Muslims fighting in Syria: "Some call them terrorists. He says he's there to help. An exclusive interview with the British man who fled to Syria to fight".

British Muslim fighting with al-Qaeda: "For who that think foreign fighters are terrorists I'm not going to sit here and debate with you or ask you not to call me a terrorist."

Interview with unnamed extremist British Muslim fighting with al-Qaeda in Syria. Then interview with Prof Fawaz Gerges, LSE.

4. Wonga: "Wonga invents a fake law firm to write threatening letters to its customers, so we invent one of our own and write back".
5. Right to die: "Campaigners seeking the right to die without risk of their loved ones being prosecuted lost their challenge in the Supreme Court today, but in a significant ruling the Supreme Court concluded it does have the power to declare the law which criminalises acts of helping someone to take their own life as incompatible with human rights. And the court issued a direct challenge to parliament to consider legalising assisted suicide or see judges stepping in." Report including interview with Paul Lamb, 'Right to Die' campaigner.
6. The biting footballer: "The teeth marks on Chiellini's left shoulder beg two possible explanations: either he walked backwards into Luis Saurez's mouth or else the Liverpool striker has been at it again. Suarez has form when it comes to biting. It appears to be the third time he's chomped an opposition player in anger. He could now face a ban from the rest of the World Cup, even for two years some people are saying - and no doubt aching frustration from his team-mates. But there could also be a hefty economic cost to the biter as sponsors threaten to abandon the striker they have now nicknamed 'Jaws'." Interview with Andrea Furst, sports psychologist.
7. 'Newsnight apology': "A clarification now: An earlier feature of the programme suggested Rupert Murdoch was flying to this country to be questioned by police. Although it's understood the Metropolitan Police are planning to talk to Mr Murdoch it was wrong to imply any interview was imminent."


Thursday 26/6
1. Iraq: "Bombs land in Iraq, dropped by Syria. As the country's future looks more bleak was our past involvement in 2003 a mistake?"

Jack Straw: "It was in retrospect, yes, I say, but what I'm also seeking to do is to evade or avoid my responsibilities for having made that decision".

"The Foreign Secretary at the time tells us, 'We got it wrong'. We're live tonight in Baghdad".

Gabriel Gatehouse, BBC: "The Iraqi Prime Minister has told the BBC he welcomes those Syrian air-strikes as he struggles to hold his country together". 

2. Jimmy Savile: "The decades of Jimmy Savile's depravity are revealed by an official inquiry. We'll ask how he was able to get away with it for so long." Interview with Esther Rantzen, founder of Childline & Dr Peter Jefferys, Independent Inspector of Broadmoor 1983-89.
3. BBC Monitoring: "What have your license fee, the intelligence agencies and this posh house in the country got in common? More than you might think"..."Eastenders, Radio 3, Newsnight of course,websites, natural history programmes and even The Great British Bake-off, if you're into that sort of thing. There's a very long list of what your £145.50 license fee pays for. What might surprise you is what is also on that list - an information-monitoring service that does work for the government intelligence service, including providing information that most BBC journalists cannot see. BBC Monitoring has existed for decades but last year the government stopped paying for it leaving you to pick up the bill and now Newsnight has learned BBC bosses fear that's compromising the corporation's independence." Interview with James Purnell, Director of Strategy and Digital, BBC.
4. Cameron facing defeat over Juncker: "What happens if you vow to fight something to the end then it ends badly? Well, David Cameron is probably about to find out when the candidate he deplores becomes, as expected, the new President of the European Commission - that's despite his objections and concerns over Jean-Claude Juncker's drinking, splashed on the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph." Discussion with Mark Urban.
5. Jack Straw: Interview with Jack Straw MP (Labour), Foreign Secretary 2001-6, about Cameron, Juncker and Europe, & the whether the invasion of Iraq is responsible for the current turmoil in Iraq, whether it was a mistake, and what should now be done about Iraq.
6. America and soccer: "And they may have lost to Germany but they have done rather better than England. Is it time at last to get behind America's bid for World Cup glory?" Interview with Rodney Marsh, ex-England and Tampa Bay Rowdies striker & Marc Fisher, Senior Editor, The Washington Post.
    [Closing credits; Will Farrell in Brazil].


Friday 27/6
1. Cameron, Juncker and the EU: "Well that went well! The new President of the European Commission is a card-carrying, cognac-swilling fully-paid-up member of the Brussels federalist Establishment. So where's your reform agenda now, Mr Cameron?"

David Cameron: "If I say I'm not going to back down, I won't. This is going to be a long, tough fight and frankly sometimes you have to be ready to lose a battle in order to win a war".

"Conservatives old and new will be hear to tell us what the Prime Minister does for an encore." Interview with Esther de Lange, Vice President EPP group, then interview with Sir Malcolm Rifkind  MP (Conservative) & Daniel Hannan MEP (Conservative).
2. Why London's state schools are England's best: "London state schools used to be a byword for mediocrity and under-performance. Now the capital is the best place in England to go to school, especially if you're from a poor background. We're not exactly sure why. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is about teachers' love lives. Chris Cook reports".

3. The importance of portraiture: "Who gives you the visual truth in the age of Photoshop and cosmetic surgery - a snapper with the camera or the artist with the brush? 

Jonathan Yeo, artist: "25 years ago portraits were so far out of fashion there was genuine debate about whether they might become extinct. I believe, in a snapshot-saturated world, people are looking to artists to reveal something deeper about themselves."

A report by Jonathan Yeo. Then interview with Nadav Kander, photographer & Jonathan Yeo, portrait artist.
4. Dylan Thomas: a newly-discovered poem (a drinking song?) read by Tom Hollander, beginning...

When Mr Watts-Ewers

(Licensed to sell

Beer, wine and spirits

And tobacco as well)

Advertised in the papers 

He would open that night

His brand new hotel

The town had a fright.

Mr Out-Measure, 

Who kept the Bull's Head,

Wept like a baby

And took to his bed.

Mrs Lil Jenkins 

Of the Old Pig and Swill

Sacked all the barmaids

And was sick in the till.

Incidentally, before Tom Hollander read that poem Andrew Neil (for it was he) made the following quip:

That's it tonight, because the 13 year olds have got to get to bed. And if they are 13 year old let me tell you there's lot of underaged drinking going on here and they're not aging well.