Saturday, 24 December 2016

The festive spirit



Just to really get you into the Christmas spirit...

If you fancy watching a BBC presenter and a couple of her (pro-EU, rightwing-bashing) guests have a right good sneer at Nigel Farage, the right-wing press and British people who don't understand 'Europe' then please treat yourself to watching both of last night's editions of The Papers on the BBC News Channel. 

If you don't fancy watching it, please allow me to summarise then: Silly Nigel Farage! Silly Brits just don't understand how Europe works! OMG the Daily Mail! OMG the Daily Telegraph! OMG the Sun!

Miracle on 'Dateline London' Street



Regular readers of our little blog will know that I've been closely monitoring the BBC News Channel/BBC World's flagship Dateline London for donkey's years and have complained, again and again, about the programme's heavy left-liberal bias. 

Many has been the episode - and I do mean 'many' - when all the voices have been from the political Left. 

And when that hasn't happened (and they've often been completely absent), right-wing voices have usually been relegated to being the harassed outsider in the discussion.

Few BBC programmes have been so consistently and relentlessly biased leftwards.

The one thing I've never encountered in over 300 or so episodes is a programme where the panel has excluded the liberal-Left and consisted wholly of people from across the political Right - and I've come, from long experience, to believe that such a thing would/could never happen on Dateline London.

Today, however, it finally happened. The panel consisted of Janet Daley, Alexander Nekrassov, Thomas Kielinger and Mina al-Oraibi. 

And (happily) they often strongly disagreed, being highly varied in their differing (right-wing/right-liberal) outlooks. 

It's a Christmas miracle beyond that in Miracle on 34th Street. I feel like young Susan today. I believe in Father Christmas. Clarence will get his wings tonight. God bless us, everyone!

The oracle speaks (well, tweets)...



Talking of opinionated BBC reporters, here are BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen's latest tweets, expressing exactly the kind of views I'd expect from him (despite him being 'impartial' and all that):


"He came in peace. And was teargassed"


Talking of Hugh Sykes, here's another of his latest tweets:


This publicity stunt by Palestinian activists seems to have become an annual event (news of which is always eagerly shared by anti-Israel activists). It doesn't seem to be quite the peaceful protest that Hugh implies it is though. Here's how last year's 'Santa march' was reported in the International Business Times:
A number of Palestinian protesters dressed like Santa Claus have clashed with the Israeli army while protesting in the West Bank, Bethlehem, on 18 December. Around 50 Palestinians clashed with police, with some throwing fire bombs and rocks at Israeli forces.
I suspect this year's march was no different - as another photo from last week (one Hugh didn't share) suggests:

Sigh


Newsnight's policy editor Chris Cook tweeted the following yesterday:


Hugh Sykes wasn't impressed:


Our Hugh wasn't wrong there.

Tweet, tweet, tweet


A festive Twitter exchange (delivered in a fascinating array of different fonts and font sizes, just because it's Christmas - or maybe because I just can't get the fonts right on Google Blogger):



Donald J Trump (to Twitter): The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

Nick Robinson (to Twitter, re Trump's tweet): How kind. The Donald's Christmas gift to the world 


Tim Montgomerie (to Nick Robinson)America's gift to world; nuclear weapons (and conventional power) that US taxpayers fund has deterred war. We need a strong America

Nick Robinson (to Tim Montgomerie)It's perfectly possible to agree with you but question need for expansion of nuclear arsenal announced by Twitter.

Douglas Carswell MP (to Nick Robinson)Much better if done via pundits and reporters!

Nick Robinson (to Douglas Carswell MP)Or an address of perhaps more than 140 characters to your nation, Congress, the United Nations, NATO ....?

Douglas Carswell MP (to Nick Robinson): ....would the BBC give that honest coverage? Perhaps he tweets direct to folk who hear his views, not the pundits?

Nick Robinson ‏(to Douglas Carswell MP)Ye of little faith & at this time of year. Suspect message for V Putin not J Sixpack -"Don't mess with me ..." etc

Douglas Carswell MP (to Nick Robinson)Merry Christmas! 😎

Hark!


I bought myself a book for Christmas (Mark Forsyth's A Christmas Cornucopia) and then, immediately after it arrived from Amazon, read the whole thing in one evening. I enjoyed it so much that I thought I might actually share the bit about Santa with you here at ITBB, but, as the author has now posted a potted retake of his Santa chapter over at the Spectator, I won't bother. 

Instead, I'll do something about Hark! The Herald Angels Sing, famously with words by Charles Wesley and music by Felix Mendelssohn - except that...

(a) Wesley was aghast that his original words "Hark how all the welkin rings/Glory to the King of Kings" had been changed (by a preacher called George Whitfield) to "Hark, the herald angels sing/Glory to the new-born King!". The Bible insisted that the herald angels said their news rather than sung it to the abiding shepherds, so Mr Wesley said that he didn't want to be held "accountable either for the nonsense or the doggerel of other men". 

(b) Mendelssohn died without ever hearing the hymn. His tune - the tune we know - had been written for a cantata commemorating the 400th anniversary of the Gutenberg press. He realised that he'd written a good tune and said that people could add new words to it just as long as they weren't religious words. And then someone (William Cummings) went right against his wishes, after his death, and fitted them to Whitfield's "doggerel". 
And ever since then people have been carolling away unaware that they are going against the explicit, written wishes of both the lyricist and the composer.

Christmas Eve


Tuesday, 20 December 2016

Welcome to Germany

I don’t know if Jenny Hill was aware of it, but I detected an ominous black cloud over Jenny Hill’s report from Berlin this morning. 




Why, it seems like only yesterday when she was reporting the latest arrival of migrants at Munich station, and (somewhat inappropriately) chiming in with the greeting: “Welcome to Germany. ”

Don't be like Obama

Further to the media’s attempts to discredit President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman by painting him as a hard-liner, a religious fanatic, all round right-winger /  warmonger and throughly bad egg, I hope this article, which I read via Elder of Ziyon, will appeal to some of you. 



It’s called “It’s Called a Persian Bazaar for a Reason”. and it’s about the Iran deal, which Friedman calls “undoubtedly the worst international accord since Neville Chamberlain conceded Eastern Europe to Hitler.”


I particularly like this paragraph:
“A phrase commonly used for a negotiation where everything is up for grabs  and there are wide swings between the bids and the asks is a “Persian Bazaar.” The expression refers to the ancient shuks that originated in Persia – now Iran – and remain common today throughout the Middle East, even in Israel.  In a Persian Bazaar, the overriding rule is caveat emptor – let the buyer beware – and there is not even a pretext of honesty, integrity or good faith.

I also like to think that his good advice is relevant to our dealings with the EU. Read it, Theresa May, and think on.

“The Iranian nuclear negotiations were a prototypical Persian Bazaar. The Mullahs repeatedly spoke out of both sides of their mouths, professing, simultaneously, a desire for world peace and for death to America and Israel, making supposed concessions and then taking them back, refusing to consider new issues and then adding new conditions of their own. What would you expect? They are Persians playing a game they invented.  And the United States was badly outplayed.

There are some basic rules to negotiation in such an environment. Simple and obvious rules that America flubbed at every opportunity: 

WALK AWAY: 
When you are not getting what you need, you must leave the table. The failure to do so sends an undeniable message to your adversary that you are not serious about your demands. Most successful negotiations include at least one such episode. 

DO NOT ACCEPT INSULTING BEHAVIOR: 
You cannot allow yourself to be insulted. When the Mullahs call for “Death to America” or refuse to release innocent hostages as a token of good faith, and Kerry sits there with a smile on his face, he is exuding extraordinary weakness. No self-respecting Iranian would smile in such a circumstance. There is nothing worse than to project weakness. 

BE AMBIVALENT: 
Do not crow about how wonderful it would be to limit Iranian nukes, even if that’s what you think. With every comment, your leverage drops. It would be far better to say – publicly and privately -- that you think the world might be better off just ramping up the sanctions and bringing Iran to the point of surrender. 

MAKE NO GRATUTIOUS CONCESSIONS: 
Don’t try to appear reasonable by taking options (like a military attack) off the table. Maybe that will score you some points in Norway or Japan but not in the Middle East. Again, you just appear foolish and weak.
To give this some context, let’s illustrate how a competent person would go about buying, say, a $5 wooden camel figurine in a Persian Bazaar: 

BUYER: 
I see you have a few hundred wooden camels, they must be very difficult to sell. 

PERSIAN: 
My dearest friend, these are very special camels, made by artists who have received the highest honors in Iran. 

BUYER: 
They all look alike to me. How much are they anyway? 

PERSIAN: For you I have a special price of $100, two for $150. 

BUYER: 
No thanks. That is an insulting price – do you think I am stupid, do I look stupid? Goodbye. 

PERSIAN: 
My friend, my friend, wait. What do you want to spend? 

BUYER: 
I don’t want to spend anything after you treated me so rudely. 

PERSIAN: 
I am so sorry, you are right. Even though these camels are worth at least $50 each, because of my terrible behavior I will sell to you for $10 with my apology. 

BUYER: 
$2 

PERSIAN: 
$6 

BUYER: 
$4 

PERSIAN: 
Deal. 

Now, let’s see how our President would have handled this hypothetical negotiation: 

OBAMA: 
Wow, those are some really nice wooden camels. You must sell a lot of those given your huge inventory. I always wanted a camel for the Oval Office. I think this will be covered by my unlimited expense account. 

PERSIAN: 
Mr. President, you have a shrewd eye for great art, but I am not sure that I can let my precious goods fall into the hands of the Great Satan. 

OBAMA: 
Oh c’mon, we’re not so bad. And I’ve already apologized for the sins of my predecessors. 

PERSIAN: 
Well if you want one of my camels, you will have to pay a fair price. 

OBAMA: 
How much is that: 

PERSIAN: 
$100, 2 FOR $150. 

OBAMA: 
Will you take $99 for one? 

PERSIAN: 
Deal.

These are simple dos and don’ts of negotiating tactics, and are easily transferrable. 
Who wants to be out-manoeuvred by 27 irked, difficult and often dishonest EU counter-parties when there is not even a pretext of honesty, integrity or good faith, just because the Labour Party and a bunch of Remoaners  demand we publicly declare our hand. 
Be like “BUYER”.  Follow the basic rules and don’t flub them at every opportunity.

Sunday, 18 December 2016

Open Thread




We used to laugh at the idea of having an open thread on this blog. Don’t make us look like Theresa no-Maytes, post your observations about the BBC below.

"Enabling/normalising" Nigel


Samira Ahmed is not happy again, this time about Radio 4's Broadcasting House. BBC producer Luke Jones (who works on BH) doesn't agree with her:

A joke



Have I Got News For You joke from this week's show, read by Gary Lineker, set Paul chuckling, Ian twisting his head and the studio audience howling with laughter:
Britain's ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, has announced that a Brexit deal could take 10 years. That's not fair. Most of the people who voted for it will be dead by then. 
Leave.EU weren't impressed though:


"I think you're fooling yourself"



The final Newsnight of 2016 featured part of an interview with The New Yorker's liberal, anti-Trump editor David Remnick and a transcript of the full interview has also been published on the BBC News website. The passage that stood out for me was this one (not broadcast on Newsnight) where Mr. Remnick and Newsnight editor Ian Katz discussed impartiality, and the former had a little dig at the BBC's view of itself:
Ian Katz: But is there a problem that if you hoist your flag - as you did effectively on the night of the election - that actually when you do this really important accountability reporting you're talking about and you call the government out on lies and you deliver this crucially important fact-based reporting, that actually you are dismissible by the other half of America, because you've shown your colours. 
David Remnick: My colours were never concealed. I don't believe in that business - this old 1950s notion of the New York Times, much less the New Yorker - that it was objective, somehow like a science experiment. That scientific method was involved in journalism, I think is a fantasy... What I think is achievable is checking facts. What I think is possible is to have fair argument. What I don't think is possible is to have some fake objectivity - in which on the one side we have 99% of the scientists say... You know on the one hand on the other hand… That's bad journalism. It does the world no good. 
Ian Katz: But you've got a problem in this country which is that there is no place, there is no media organisation, platform, which even a plurality of the country can agree to trust. 
David Remnick: If you think that French state television or the BBC in England is somehow a common narrative of the country, I think you're fooling yourself. I bet you there are a lot of people, the people in the north of England, who think the BBC is a bunch of lefties.

On Woman's Hour


I haven't listened to it myself but Kathy at The Conservative Woman has a fine piece about last week's Woman's Hour power list and the awarding of the top honour to Mrs. Thatcher. Well worth a read.

Hands



I did have to smile at yesterday's Dateline London when Alex Deane found himself, yet again, outnumbered by hand-waving, talking-over-you opponents of Brexit. Alex is pro-Brexit, of course.

"It's just you. There's a surprise!", quipped Gavin Esler. 

"As usual!" said Alex back. 

Indeed. 

Still it could have been worse. Many's been the episode of Dateline London this year where all the guests have been anti-Brexit. 

Friday, 16 December 2016

Anti-Zionism: ‘Antisemitism minding its manners’.

As if Michael Gove hasn’t made himself unpopular enough already! Making mistakes, admitting he made mistakes, stabbing his best friends in the back, appearing with Fern Britton on the BBC, and removing his boxer shorts in front of the camera; and now look what he’s gawn and done! Written this article in The Times (£): 

“The Left’s hatred of Israel is racism in disguise”
Critics of the Jewish state cannot bear the fact that it is a beacon of western values in a sea of tyranny and despotism

For anyone who finds the paywall an obstacle too far, I’ll reproduce some of it here. I don’t think it’s proper blogging etiquette to give you the whole thing without permission.

How do you know if someone’s an antisemite? They don’t all perform stiff-arm salutes for the camera and offer interesting 140-character thoughts about race theory on Twitter. Although those are helpful clues, as the American alt-right, Hezbollah and Iran’s leadership prove. 

But antisemitism isn’t a prejudice restricted to the likes of Richard Spencer, Hassan Nasrallah and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As befits the world’s oldest and most durable hatred, it has many more adherents and has taken many different forms. 

In medieval times, when individuals made sense of their world through the prism of faith, antisemitism was a religious prejudice. In the 19th and early 20th centuries — the age of Darwinism — antisemitism clothed itself in the white coat of the scientist. Biological metaphors were deployed to modernise hate. The Jews were carriers of “racial contamination” who had to be eliminated as a pathological threat to humanity’s future. 

That belief led to history’s greatest crime. The extermination of six million powered by hatred of one thing — Jewish identity. It should have been the case that antisemitism died in the furnaces of the Holocaust. But the hatred survived. And, like a virus, mutated.
Antisemitism has moved from hatred of Jews on religious or racial grounds to hostility towards the proudest expression of Jewish identity we now have — the Jewish state.

No other democracy is on the receiving end of a campaign calling for its people to be shunned and their labour to be blacklisted. The Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions movement is a growing force on our streets and campuses. Its campaigners argue that we should ignore ideas from Jewish thinkers if those thinkers come from Israel and treat Jewish commerce as a criminal enterprise if that business is carried on in Israel. 

This is antisemitism, impure and simple. It is the latest recrudescence of the age-old demand that the Jew can only live on terms set by others. Once Jews had to live in the ghetto, now they cannot live in their historic home. 

Surrounded by enemies who sought to strangle it at birth, continually threatened by war and constantly under terrorist attack, a nation scarcely the size of Wales with no natural resources, half of whose territory is desert, has become a flourishing democracy, a centre of scientific innovation, one of the world’s major providers of international humanitarian relief and the only state from Casablanca to Kabul with a free press, free judiciary, a flourishing free enterprise economy and freedom for people of every sexual orientation to live and love as they wish. 

And that is the reason it attracts such hostility. Not because of what Israel does. But because of what it is. 

Antizionism is not a brave anti-colonial and anti-racist stance, it is simply antisemitism minding its manners so it can sit in a seminar room. And as such it deserves to be called out, confronted and opposed. 

Because the fate of the Jewish people, and the survival of the Jewish state, are critical tests for all of us. The darkest forces of our time — Islamic State, the Iranian leaders masterminding mass murder in Aleppo — are united by one thing above all: their hatred of the Jewish people and their home. Faced with such implacable hatred, and knowing where it has always led, we should not allow antisemitism any space to advance, or incubate. 

Instead we should show we’re not going to be intimidated by those who want to treat Israel as a second-class state, we’re not going to indulge the antisemitic impulse to apply the double standard. Israel is the only state where we don’t locate our embassy in the nation’s capital and the only ally the Foreign Office has refused to let the Queen visit. So let’s celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration by moving our embassy to Jerusalem next year and inviting Her Majesty to open it. What are we afraid of? Earning the enmity of those who hate Israel? To my mind, there could be no greater compliment.
There you are.
That’s the bulk of it. Anyone who has access to the Times online will see that the comments below the line are a mixed bag. Supportive; and the usual. The primary objection raised by the antis is “wharrabout the Palestinians?”

And sad to say, this is where the BBC comes in. Every misinformed argument put forward by the antis is the fruit of seeds sown and nurtured by the BBC ever since its birth in the 1920s; still being fertilised and still flourishing. 
As a counterbalance to the BBC’s institutional anti-Israel stance, I’m augmenting Michael Gove’s principled article with two pro-Israel videos, contenders for the Elder of Ziyon blog’s ‘Hasby’ awards 2017.






Note: No Jews were harmed featured in the making of this post. 

(Michael Gove / Dumisani Washington / Kasim Hafeez.)

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Poor Sally

Cutting Edge comedy from Kardashian-bottomed, camp comedian Joe Lycett.

Think Julian Clary meets Frankie Howard, and, should you bother to read this stream of consciousness monologue, imagine lots of squealing and “Oooh missus”.
The only funny thing about it was that it came on BBC 2 straight after “Muslims like Us”. That almost made me laugh, anyway.




“I wanna talk about Birmingham ‘cos I’m from Birmingham.  Anyone from Birmingham in? I know I don’t have the accent - never had it - I was watching Fox News the other week - the reputable news source that is Fox News - and they described Birmingham as one hundred percent Muslim. Salaam Alaikum - Alaikum Salam, that’s what you say in, don’t worry we’ll work it out. 
I was interested in that, you know, ‘cos, one hundred percent Muslim, true you know, all cultures, multicultural, we’re good at it you know. One of the most famous Muslims in Birmingham is Malala Yousafzai, I don’t know if you’re familiar with.. ..yes, yes, she is. 
If you don’t know who she is, she’s an 18 year old schoolgirl who was shot at by the Taliban for wanting to be educated. 
She now goes to Edgbaston High School for girls. It’s a private school - I don’t think she pays the fees - I’m certain we would hate to go to school with Malala Yousefzai ..
Can you imagine ‘show and tell’ day with Malala? Like, okay class what have you brought in, Sally let’s start with you, and Sally goes I’ve brought in a papier mache cat - okay, um, has anyone else brought anything in … Malala, did you bring anything in? This Nobel Peace Prize” (applause)_ Sally, you’re a piece of shit yes - I’d hate to be a teacher as well, you’d never be able to tell Malala off for anything -  what are you going to do? What are you doing Malala? Texting Barack Obama actually, Oh, well um, Sally, you’re a piece of shit.
Poor Sally, no I made her up. No, I was annoyed about that, I was annoyed when they said we’re a hundred percent Muslim because when they say things like that there’s a subtext to that isn’t there, when they say they’re 100% Muslim - what they should be saying there is that we should be worrying about that - that there something terrifying - about Muslims. 
I think we’ve got a problem - I think we’re  using the word ‘Muslims’ far too quickly to describe people doing atrocities when they don’t represent Muslims any more than I do. 
And I think we should be using a more accurate word for those people, which I’m going to argue, is knob-head. (rapturous applause) 
A political rally this is  - different levels of knob-head - the moderate knob-head all the way up to fundamental knob-head and if we all did it the news would have to catch up, they’d go ‘today two knob-heads bombed a car’ - and it wouldn’t necessarily be to do with terrorist activities - not just that. Any non knob heady activity would get the knob-head word. I thought of some - um- people that wear a festival wrist band. After a festival!
What a wit, eh?

Ridiculing a radical

You don’t have to know much about television to realise that production companies function from the premise that everyone is gagging to appear on telly. This assumption gives film crews a sense of entitlement which inspires everyone, from the producer to the lackey in charge of charging up the batteries, to be as dismissive and insulting to the…let’s call them actors…..as they choose.

Someone named Jim White has written a review of ‘Muslims Like us’ in the Telegraph. It’s headed: “Muslims Like Us is a Wake up call for Islamophobes everywhere.” 
He has obediently taken this project in the spirit in which it was intended, i.e., a vehicle for making Muslims look whacky and cool and ‘just like us’. Jim White willingly plays along with the theory that getting the ‘just like us’ Muslims to ridicule a radical would be enough to make us all realise that, phew, the Muslims are fundamentally just like us - et voilà! Instant cure for Islamophobia. 
It was heartening to see that most of the below the line comments weren’t quite so sure.


On the other hand, Christopher Stevens in OMG The Daily Mail strap line says:
Bigoted. Nasty. Cynical. The BBC's 'Muslim Big Brother' - including a zealous convert who would 'rather be in Syria than Britain'- won't unite cultures, it'll divide them: 
This review gets closer to reality.  He begins with:
“A woman in an elegant headscarf, knotted almost like a turban, is explaining her beliefs. Her name is Humaira and she is, she says, a sort of ‘radical moderate’. She seems articulate, educated, rational.
And then her throat tightens, and she adds: ‘British values for me are colonialism, institutional racism and theft, and genocide.’
The disturbing fact is that Humaira really is one of the more moderate voices in Muslims Like Us, the two-part BBC2 reality show that puts ten Muslims in a house in York and gleefully films their furious arguments over faith and Islamic culture.”
For me, there was far too much emphasis on the deluded Abdul Haqq, whose radicalisation was triggered by a childhood ruined and humiliated by his given names: ‘Anthony + Small’  - and who could blame him? 
I mean, what else could one do under the circumstance, other than turn to Islam? Not just any old Islam but the full English M & S Islam of the most foul incarnation, in an absurdist - or do I mean absurd - quest for meaning and manliness?

All the handwringing and agonising over the ethics of including Abdul in this TV extravaganza was disingenuous in my opinion. The BBC and Love Productions put him in for two reasons. 
Without him it might be: a) a bit boring, and b) it might make the Muslims look less ‘like us’ than the BBC intended.
It’s simple. They put him in for contrast, if you like. Didn’t work though, did it? They still looked unlike us with or without Abdel and his leaflets on Islam at its most absurd.

The second episode was much worse, in documentary terms. Not only was it chaotic and badly crafted, but the Big Brother format was showing badly. Bigly and badly. You could almost hear the brainstorming meeting with the company throwing around their best, most hackneyed Big Brother tactics. It would be exactly like W1A. Siobhan would suggest provoking more action by introducing some random local infidels. Cue four locals, an atheist, an actress, a prostitute and a vicar, (or something) striding purposefully along the pavement towards the B.B. house. If the perennial cliché (meaningful camera shot of their feet) was absent, I must have included it mentally.

I suppose it was an excuse to discover which of the Muslims would refuse to honour the war dead. Most of them duly obliged. Then a trip to York Minster so they could fail to be moved by the perpendicular architecture and have a great big row on a parapet. 

The remainder of the programme was a series of rows, squabbles, accusations and anger. Everyone was at loggerheads with everyone else and the (Shia) Muslima got upset when she tearfully provoked a confused Abdul (Sunni) into more or less admitting that he believed she should be shot.
The  least devout participant of all who, throughout, had tried to distance herself from some of the goings-on suddenly had  a little indignant rant about English people’s inability to learn unfamiliar, ‘foreign’ names, and she found their automatic tendency to anglicise them insulting. She didn’t see it as a friendly gesture, as might have been intended. 

The whole exercise was quite absurd; its aim, its execution and its vacuousness. I did enjoy the girl with the most unIslamic dress code, the highest heels and the reddest lips (Mehreen) being disarmingly honest, personal and sort of charming, by admitting, to camera, that she used to have a monobrow, and adding sheepishly “and a moustache….. and a beard”. "Asian girls can be hairy", she mused.


Tuesday, 13 December 2016

Theresa May, friend of Israel


It would be easy to speculate about what motivated Theresa May to make this speech and we should never look a gift horse in the mouth. Full transcript here and here.

“………….the fact that we have, in Israel, a thriving democracy, a beacon of tolerance, an engine of enterprise and an example to the rest of the world for overcoming adversity and defying disadvantages. 

As most of us here know – and as I realised during my visit in 2014 – seeing is believing.
For it is only when you walk through Jerusalem or Tel Aviv that you see a country where people of all religions and sexualities are free and equal in the eyes of the law.
It is only when you travel across the country that you realise it is only the size of Wales – and appreciate even more the impact it has on the world………….” 

Monday, 12 December 2016

What I Have Mostly Been Watching


I watched Fern Britton’s interview with Michael Gove yesterday.”Fern Meets” etc.

The religious content usually puts me off this programme, but my curiosity was aroused when I discovered Michael Gove was the subject.

The details of wee Michael’s early life were fascinating, and he came across as a nice man, with a refreshing willingness to admit to his own mistakes and offer (carefully considered) straight answers to some tough questions. This seems to be a fashion embraced by the current crop of political mavericks. 

Of course it could have been a cynical and calculated exercise in personal rehabilitation on his part, (and who could blame him) and I’d love to know who approached whom with the idea of appearing as a guest on what is, after all, a programme that normally features B-list celebrities.

Fern Britton’s ‘listening face’ was a picture. One minute sympathetic, next minute quizzical. Uber-empathy gawn mad.  And what’s that new buzzword? Oh yes, metacognition. (awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes)
Actually I’m not quite sure what “buzzword” means now, so I’ll have to look that up too. 
Ah: 
a word or phrase, often an item of jargon, that is fashionable at a particular time or in a particular context. 
That’s the one! 


********

I’ve been watching Scandi Noirs on BBC Four. Everyone loves a chilling, Scandl noir. One thing’s for sure. Whenever a BAME character shows up in a Scandi Noir, you can discount him/her as the villain. Ethnics and immigrants are always whiter than white. Hideously. (So to speak) 

Scandi Noirs are so leftie and so PC that you can’t help playing a form of P.C. I-Spy instead of enjoying them for their cinematographic artistry. Sometimes they feature predictable sub plots about local politics, where lefty politics either win the day or occupy the moral high ground, while the capitalists and conservatives will be the evil, corrupt bullies. That’s the rule. 

The current Saturday night double-biller is called Modus. The villain is a Christian homophobic cult who set out to terrorise and kill gays. The cult leader is based in the US, but the main action is set in Sweden. There are several sets of heroic gay victims and a certain amount of artistic gay snogging is included.   It also boasts a tedious variety of potentially dangerous situations, known to the viewer but unknown by the most vulnerable character (a child) so that the viewer is in a constant state of anxiety.

The star, as usual, is the location and the snow is as white as ever and I will continue to watch them as long as the BBC puts them on, till they become unbearable.

*********


рождественские поздравления 

Christmas message to our Russian readers. (a tribute to those inexplicable spikes)


***************

I’ve been watching “My Mother and Other Strangers’ - BBC One on Sunday evenings, and very enjoyable it has been too. 
A welcome change from those BBC dramas that switch back and forth in time, with plots so convoluted that you don’t understand what’s going on, even at the end, when it’s all supposed to have fallen into place. 

The time I’ve disagreed most with an Andrew Billen review (Times (£) ) was when he praised “The Missing”, which I couldn’t make head or tail of. I couldn’t understand or care less about who anyone was or what was going on, and I thought the casting was terrible as well as the acting. 
Long hair, short hair, burnt neck, not burnt neck; in Iraq one minute, Germany the next, then somewhere else. Probably not the intended response, but I couldn’t help laughing at the girl with panda makeup and the trembling lips. Pathos gawn mad if you ask me.

Not that the abrupt, unresolved  ending of “My Mother “ was entirely satisfactory. I had to check just to make sure that was the end. But the acting was good, especially the wee boys, and the locals were suitably menacing and rustic. Again, the location was the star. You could lose yourself in the nostalgia and follow the plot without straining your brain; just the ticket for Sunday evening.









Tell you later

Black macaque reserving judgment

When I first started blogging I often used go through my ‘prose’ and take out all the “I”s and “me”s because I thought too much first person in a blog was naff. As you can see, I no longer bother. Let the naff all hang out.
I’m not intentionally trying to make myself look virtuous - you, know, virtue signal alert - but the reason I tend to confine my opinions to the one issue is because - on broader, party political issues - I keep seeing both sides of the story. That might sound like a boast, “look what a good person I am”, but in fact it’s a bit of a drawback.

The one issue I don’t see the other side of is antisemitism and anti-Zionism. 
I hate being labelled, particularly when the label is ‘right wing’ and when it’s just because I defend Israel against the BBC’s unfair depiction of it. 

Here’s what Charles Moore has to say about labels:
“I am not offended by being called right-wing, because I don’t agree with the left-wing view that right-wingery is a mark of personal turpitude. I don’t much like the term, though, because it suggests a rigid ideological position.”

And a bit further down he says:
“Those who protest at immigration levels ten times higher than 30 years ago are treated as racists. Even the ballot box itself is seen as ‘populist’.
This piece and the comments beneath it are worth the sub to the Speccie. If you can’t access it, tough.

Muslims Like Us.

I think I’ll reserve judgment on the upcoming two-parter ‘Muslim Big Brother’ that’s going to be aired on BBC 2 tonight and tomorrow. I’ll see it first. However, I did hear an item about it on Women’s Hour earlier. I didn’t like the sound of it. 

There were a couple of participants - ‘housemates’ - in the studio, and the BBC’s commissioning editor (the person who nursed it into existence)
“On the surface, Britain's 2.7 million Muslims are united in faith. In a two-part BBC Two series, Muslims Like Us, ten British Muslims with contrasting world views move into a house together. Their passionate debates, honest disagreements, humour and insights reveal what is like to be a British Muslim today. Jane is joined by Zohra and Saba, two of the women who were filmed for the show and BBC Commissioning Editor, Fatima Salaria, to explain why she wanted to create the programme in the first place.”
Don’t just sit there reading this, listen to it.

Fatima Salaria explained to the listening ignoramuses what she actually does, in her job as a BBC commissioning editor:
“I have really good ideas”
(such as commissioning a Muslim version of Big Brother.) It turns out that the idea came, in fact, from “Love Productions” the controversialist production company who stole back their most lucrative creation (GBBO) from the BBC and sold it to Channel 4, oh, and they also produced “Benefits Street’. Oh my. 
It just occurred to me that this could payback - stealing the Big Brother concept from Channels 4 and 5, adding Islam for extra ratings, and tendering it back to the Muslim-friendly BBC. 
One of the carefully chosen housemates was a convert aged “nearly 77”, who said her motive for participating was that it is “high time to normalise Islam” and “To see that Islam is for the entire planet “ (!)
However, the general idea was to show that the one radical housemate (a fundamentally good person) doesn’t represent real Muslims and ideas such as his are really challenged by the Muslim community, but “We do it behind closed doors.”
As you can see I’m reserving judgment.



Antisemitism



This labelling malarkey can be most unhelpful. The BBC has been headlining Theresa May’s latest ideas about antisemitism. The government is to adopt the latest definition of antisemitism, as determined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

So, once it’s labelled, then what? Is it going to be made illegal? I hope not. That would have all sorts of ramifications. Every time someone clamps down on Islam it has a knock-on effect on ‘the Jews’. 
Not that I wish to defend extreme religiosity, not at all. In fact, what I gather from the little I know about it, orthodox Judaism seems to be constructed solely for the maximum inconvenience of its adherents.
I’m no expert on the topic but I do know that the orthodox Jew is not the same as the ultra orthodox Haredi type of Jew, images of which the BBC always chooses to illustrate ‘The Jews”. Some may say that the BBC has itself committed a tangentially antisemitic act by using the illustration here.

Jews

“A Downing Street statement said the intention of such a definition was to “ensure that culprits will not be able to get away with being antisemitic because the term is ill-defined, or because different organisations or bodies have different interpretations of it”.
So what does this announcement hope to achieve? It is a nice idea to proclaim that there will be ‘zero tolerance’ of antisemitism, but there is still potential confusion over where anti-Zionism stands in the equation. I think there is also a possibility of creating martyrs, and I’ll be quite surprised if the ‘culprits’ in the Muslim community will be held to account in exactly the same way as others might be, following this government announcement. And will it make the BBC try any harder?

I’ll reserve judgment on that too.

Sunday, 11 December 2016

Complaints from two sides


Bias

As Sue noted the other day, it seems as if the world and his wife appears to be noticing BBC bias at the moment - particularly over the past couple of years, and the last year especially (post-Brexit, post-Trump). 

The BBC appears to be facing a populist uprising (as they themselves might put it).

The interesting thing, however (for me), is that it isn't just from 'our side'. The 'other side' seems to be just as riled about the BBC - though, it has to be said, given their ideological propensities, they appear much less willing to call for the BBC's scrapping, or privatisation, or the abolition of the licence fee!

That 'other side' is, of course, the Left or far-Left - whatever you want to call it. And it likes the soggy-left, 'left-liberal', Blairite, "Tory" BBC about as much as 'we' do.

It particularly dislikes Laura Kuenssberg. 

And that 'other side' is now doing what 'we' were doing and saying about the BBC a few years back and often in much the same language, albeit from the opposite ideological direction - often uncannily so (including disparaging talk of the 'MSM').

The left-wing Huffington Post reports that the BBC has yet again had to remind its staff that they ought to be impartial on Twitter.

Previously, that's come about because of left-wing tweets from BBC types.

Not this time though, as a freelance Question Time audience producer (i.e. someone who assembles QT audiences) recently appeared to share posts by Britain First on Facebook and promote messages supportive of Vote Leave (two things which the Huff Post blithely appears to link together).

This all came originally via the far-left Canary website. I checked out the QT producer's tweets at the time and found them wholly innocuous but the Huff Post insists that her Facebook feed was much as the Canary site suggests. 

That said, the Huff Post article suggests to me that the sharing of Britain First's call for people to wear the poppy of remembrance was indeed shared innocently (out of reverence for the poppy) by the QT audience producer - but maybe that's just me being 'right-wing' and giving her 'the benefit of the doubt' because of my own bias.

The article also notes that QT has been accused of favouring MPs critical of Jeremy Corbyn "after it was revealed no member of his shadow cabinet had appeared for five weeks". Checking the QT lists, that run ran from 3/11 to 1/12 and featured non-Corbynite Labour MPs Lisa Nandy, Yvette Cooper, Chris Bryant, Chris Leslie and Alan Johnson. 

Looking at QT since its summer return, however, I'd count the pro-Corbyn/anti-Corbyn ratio (Labour-backing-politician-wise) as 7 for Mr Corbyn and 8 not for Mr Corbyn (if you include Yanis Varoufakis as being a 'Labour-backing-politician'.) Check it for yourselves here.

Complaints from two sides.

Not 'both sides', very importantly to note, but 'two sides' - against the central centre/centre-left/left-liberal BBC standpoint. 

The way things are

Donald Trump’s presidency means that the end of the world is nigh (as any fule kno.)
This is gist of the consensus, which has just reached our Christmas cards. 
“Merry Christmas and a happy (Trump) end of the world” goes the hand-written greeting. I received one yesterday.


Canny political activist and actress Juliet Stevenson managed to insert an anti-Trump / anti-Brexit allusion into her interview with Nick Robinson on the Marr show. It was supposed to be about playing either Queen Elizabeth lst or Mary Queen of Scots at the whimsical toss of a coin, but she shoehorned Brexit into it complete with the disappearing £350 million, as well as Trump and the post reality world.


“What seems to be the case just isn’t! What appears to be the case becomes reality. The Brexit campaign we’re told, you know, £350m will go to the NHS and people vote according to that pledge and as soon as that vote goes through that promise disappears like mist in the morning. I mean the Trump campaign built on all sorts of constructs and pledges that again magically disappear after he’s achieved power, and the idea that ‘seeming’ and appearance, and spin, and PR is basically what is controlling the electorate but then that doesn’t have to be maintained or supported in the event. So the difference between ‘seeming’ and reality is the line that Elizabeth says when she says “the way things appear *is* ‘what they are’.
(says the actress (!)) She knows it’s okay to say this because, in the post reality world (pre the forthcoming apocalypse) it’s understood.

Also on today’s Marrless Marr show was Michael Fallon, trying to redirect the vulture-like media away from feasting greedily upon the division in the Tory party. Yum yum. However, his attempt to make the case for the Saudis was doomed from the outset. Explaining that the Saudis are perfectly justified in defending themselves against the al-Qaeda-affiliated Houthis was never going to work. No-one’s gonna care. It’s the killing no-one can stomach, stupid. Never mind the rights or wrongs. 

The whole thing bore an uncomfortable resemblance to anyone’s doomed attempts to make the case for Israel during any of the so-called Gaza wars. You know, their spokespersons ask desperately “What would your government do if thousands of rockets had been fired at London from, say,  Wales?”

Doesn’t work. 

When it comes to images of dead children, no-one’s interested in hearing a justification, particularly when applied to Israel, given that our state broadcaster is incapable of explaining the situation impartially, even if it wished to do so.

If it doesn’t work for an unjustly reviled country like Israel what hope is there for a country with a deservedly awful reputation like Saudi Arabia?  Even coming from the super sober Fallon. 

Diane Abbott isn’t as stupid as people think. She’s quick-thinking and quite capable of sticking up for herself and her leader. What she doesn’t quite get is the very thing she claims to care so much about - the feelings of what she calls “the British people”. It’s her facial expressions that one marvels at. She’s the spitting image of something or other. Oh yes,  Spitting Image.