Look before you leap

Just over an hour ago I spotted a tweet from someone citing a Telegraph headline saying that Durham Police have ruled that Dominic Cummings DID breach lockdown rules.

It looked damning, the final nail in Mr Cummings's coffin.

Naturally, being almost as obsessive as a Newsnight reporter with a bee in his bonnet, I checked Lewis Goodall's Twitter feed to see how soon he'd bite.

He bit very soon. He was onto in a flash.

At just after 1pm he put out at least two tweets asserting that he and Emily Maitlis had been proved right, linking in his second tweet to his own Tuesday report. 

Then someone posted in full what Durham Police actually said and I instantly realised that Lewis Goodall had made a fool of himself  again. 

He'd jumped the gun. 

Unfortunately I then got interrupted and by the time I got back onto Twitter at 1:40 pm he'd 'vanished' both 'incriminating' tweets and I was unable to screengrab them.

I had a feeling he'd do that.

Both tweets had been piling up with comments from gloating fans singing his and Emily Maitlis's praises.

Ah but, of course, the good folk of Twitter were too quick for him. They did what I'd wanted to do. They caught those tweets before he deleted them:

Here's the Durham Police statement in full:

On 27 March 2020, Dominic Cummings drove to Durham to self-isolate in a property owned by his father.

Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)

On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.

Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.

Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.

In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.

By way of further context, Durham Constabulary has followed Government guidance on management of alleged breaches of the regulations with the emphasis on the NPCC and College of Policing 4Es: Engage, Explain and Encourage before Enforcement.

Finally, commentary in the media has suggested that Mr Cummings was in Durham on 19 April 2020. Mr Cummings denies this and Durham Constabulary have seen insufficient evidence to support this allegation. Therefore Durham Constabulary will take no further action in this matter and has informed Mr Cummings of this decision.

Monologue

So, Emily Maitlis got angry and was given the night off.

"So grateful to my friend and excellent colleague Katie Razzall for stepping in this evening. She did so because I asked for the night off - knowing tonight’s prog would be in the most excellent hands", she tweeted overnight.

And from the looks of it - as many of you have guessed already - that's almost certainly going to be it as far as the 'repercussions' for Newsnight go. 

They didn't even have to publicly acknowledge their rebuke last night.

Both from how she reacted, and from the Twitter reactions of her colleagues (especially the younger, more hot-headed ones like Lewis Goodall and James Clayton), it's plain that the people who work for Newsnight remain wholly unrepentant about that monologue.

This could become tricky for the BBC because they will, I suspect, simply double, treble and quadruple down over the coming weeks - albeit not going quite so far as Emily Maitlis went on Tuesday for a wee while maybe.

And the rallying-round from many BBC colleagues and from swathes of the left-leaning media, plus the heavy support they are getting from likeminded people on Twitter, will doubtless only encourage them further. 

The problem remains then: Media scrutiny is invaluable, but Emily Maitlis's brand of US-style opinion journalism crosses a line - especially on a licence-fee-funded public broadcaster bound by rules of impartiality. Though it may please a particular crowd now, it surely can't be good for the broader public's trust in the media in the long term. I suspect it's probably ultimately self-harming.

Lewis Goodall stands up for Emily Maitlis

Lewis Goodall is clearly somewhat emotional tonight. He's just tweeted:

So much to say but best to leave it for now given, for obvious reasons, certain people want nothing more than to have a debate about the media. Instead, will just say I couldn’t be prouder to work on BBC Newsnight, a world class programme with a world class presenter, Emily Maitlis.

Lots of people are telling him how much they admire him and encouraging him to keep his chin up and looking at their Twitter bios it's very striking how many of them bear descriptions like "Socialist", or "pro-EU", or "appalled at self harm of Brexit", or "member of the Labour Party", or "anti-Johnsonian", or "Guardian", or have spider emojis. It's an overwhelming trend in fact. 

What is it, do you think, that they so admire in Lewis Goodall?

Update 23:05: Meanwhile, even while Newsnight is being broadcast, he's still actively 'liking' and re-'liking' criticism of the BBC's ruling, including the one cited earlier branding the corporation "spineless". He's deliberately courting trouble I think. 

Final Thoughts (from Alex)

Here's a sound thread from blog favourite Alex Deane:

I make no friends saying this (such a change) & no doubt harm my own paddling-in-media prospects as a commentator saying it, but the sight of many journalists seemingly untroubled by any examination of the issues expressing “solidarity” with Emily Maitlis here is troubling. 

In truth, it’s merely the latest example of a growing, and peculiar, clubbish, circle the wagons, we are special mindset - one that presently seems even worse than it usually is, given recent events so thoroughly & insistently examined by the media itself. 

Because the media’s near-manic desire to focus ad nauseam on the questions raised in a story & demand grovelling public apologies is bulletproof - until applied to one of their own, when it vanishes. 

The sheer number of journalists who think it enough to assert that their criticised colleague is “really good” as if that answers the issue is astonishing, & wholly lacks self-awareness. One need only imagine their reaction if that had been the government’s line to see this. 

The suspension of any evaluation of the issues when the question is about one’s own profession is deeply unattractive. It is especially so when your profession is meant to hold people to account, a function normally revelled in except when shunned for collegiate purposes. 

TL;DR: don’t like people criticising “the MSM”? Don’t do this.

Pause for Thought

Here's an interesting way of looking at the events of the past 24 hours from author of The Northumbrians Dan Jackson: 

This Maitlis furore is an almost perfect example - as per Jonathan Haidt - of the futility of much modern political debate, with both sides completely talking past each other. “She should be impartial!”, “so what, she was right!” etc etc ad inifinitum ...

There's some truth in that I think.

Developments

The Guardian's Jim Waterson reports that Emily Maitlis won't be presenting tonight's Newsnight as planned and that Katie Razzall will be presenting the programme instead. Will Ms Razzall be asked to deliver an apology? 

Jim Waterson also confirms, from BBC sources, that the programme's editor, Esme Wren, did indeed work on Tuesday night’s episode - so it was her who signed off on the Maitlis monologue. The question then is: Does she deserve to survive in post after this?

Update 22:00: A little while back Katie Razzall tweeted, "Just for the record, Emily  Maitlis has not been asked by the BBC to take tonight off - and if I thought she had been, I certainly wouldn’t have agreed to present the show".

Esme Wren herself has also recently tweeted in response to The Observer's Carole Cadwalladr (Carole was doing her usual getting-the-wrong-end-of-the-stick thing on Twitter, writing "And this makes no sense.  Emily Maitlis has an editor. The editor takes responsibility for the editorial content. What is this? A punishment beating?"), to which Ms Wren replied: 

I am the Editor of Newsnight Carole Cadwalladr & I am responsible for the output of the programme. Emily Maitlis hasn’t been replaced tonight in response to the BBC statement. Katie Razzall is part of the team and we work as a team throughout. 

Given that Emily Maitlis ended last night's programme by saying she'd see the audience tonight and she's listed in the various TV listings as being scheduled to present tonight (as usual on a Wednesday), people are putting two and two together and smelling a rat. 

I'd say, however, looking at the very careful wording of Katie Razzall's and Esme Wren's tweets that it's almost certainly the case that Emily Maitlis isn't presenting tonight because she didn't want to present tonight's programme (Too embarrassed? Too upset? Too angry?) and so Katie Razzall agreed to present it instead.

P.S. And The Telegraph tonight reports: 

Although the BBC did not go as far as an apology, Maitlis was said to be furious that she and her colleagues had been publicly reprimanded and she did not appear as planned on Wednesday’s programme. The presenter Katie Razzall took her place.’ 

Lewis Goodall liked

It looks as some Newsnight journalists aren't happy with the BBC's ruling:

Lewis Goodall will have to be very careful. He's skating on thin ice now and publicly expressing dissent in this way could have consequences. The BBC's director of news Fran Unsworth wrote last year (in an email to staff):

We all have personal views, but it is part of our role with the BBC to keep those views private. Our editorial guidelines say BBC staff must not advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’. That applies to all comments in the public domain, including on social media. There is no real distinction between personal and official social media accounts.

Update: Others are now noticing Lewis Goodall's risky 'like':

Darren Grimes: BBC Newsnight’s Lewis Goodall agrees that it’s spineless of the BBC to admit that last night’s monologue wasn’t impartial. It wasn’t. It’s baffling to me that these entitled journalists think they can collect taxpayer funds and use it to present their left-wing opinions as facts.  

Rich: If you worked for a private company, what would happen to you if - after having a stern talking to for breaking the rules - you went onto social media and started liking posts criticising management?

Further Update: Lewis Goodall is doubling-down. He's continuing to 'like' tweets criticising the BBC's ruling:

These include:

• Paul Bernal: I can see the point - but it’s nitpicking, really, and disappointing that the BBC felt the need to acquiesce in the way that it did.
• James Armstrong: This is a disgrace. Maitlis is their best anchor & last night's episode was an example of exceptional journalism. I'd encourage everyone to watch, especially  Lewis Goodall 's piece. It's astonishing that this is the story rather than gov't evasion of legitimate questions.

Be careful, Lewis. Be very careful.

The BBC rules that Emily Maitlis and Newsnight did not meet their standards of due impartiality

The BBC has just released a statement about last night's Newsnight, criticising Emily Maitlis's opening monologue and ruling that "it did not meet our standards of due impartiality".

Is "our staff have been reminded of the guidelines" going to be the fully extent of the repercussions for the programme and its presenter from this?

Emily Maitlis may have written the monologue but her producer Esme Wren must have read it and given it the green light - a terrible misjudgement.

As per Sue's post, shouldn't we have at least one scalp?

The media is running the country

I’ve been searching online for a piece that most reflects my feelings on Cummingsgate.

Somewhere, during this absolute waste of my time, I spotted a commenter speculating about what would happen if the media loses its all-out quest for a scalp?  Is it a quest or a crusade?

If it wins, the scent of blood will further empower the media, which seems already to be running the show; but if the PM stands his ground, the puffed-up media might deflate like a burst balloon.

Just to clarify, as Mishal Husain repeated several times as she grilled Robert Jenrick with chilling savagery this morning. In her case ‘clarify’ means ‘crucify’, but my position is that I think dancing on the head of a pin to justify Dom’s shoogley defence is 100% counter-productive. 

I just think, in the scheme of things, the media should never never be allowed to play judge, jury and executioner, nor should the BBC be allowed to act as stand-in for H.M. opposition in the absence of a credible Labour Party.

What does the media, particularly Sky and the BBC, actually want? A Labour government? Do they really think that the same bunch that happily abandoned any principles they might have had to campaign for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister, would have handled the pandemic more competently? I bet they’re wholly relieved that they avoided that unexpected(!) gift of an escape so that they can continue sniping comfortably and sanctimoniously from the sidelines.

Just two relevant examples.

Eric Kaufmann UnHerd

We should be able to distinguish between various degrees of violation of norms, on the one hand, and sentencing, on the other. On the basis of these standards, and the precedent set to date in Anglo societies, he did wrong and should apologise but did not breach the threshold required for him to resign.

Who's to blame? Jonathan Eida

However, the real scandal in all of this fiasco has been the role of the media in deliberately misguiding the public, producing stories aimed to bring down the credibility of the Prime Minister and his office. It also seems, with many outlets, that they had some personal vendetta against Cummings, who himself has been hostile to them in the past.

Mishal Husain was outrageous. It’s not so much the insultingly rude, argumentative interruptions delivered in that exaggeratedly sugary, saccharine “You’re trying my patience” voice, - we’re almost used to that from Husain - it was the undisguised contempt for the government in her line of attack. All the gleeful announcement of that poll.

Other views

Stephen Pollard: I'm very uncomfortable with this. Read these words on a page and they are an op-ed column, not a report. I think there can be a place for editorialising on TV, but not in the intro to a flagship BBC analysis programme. (FWIW I think Cummings broke the rules and should go).

Ed Davey MP: Brilliant journalism from Emily Maitlis.

Dan Hodges: Can we just clear something up re Emily Maitlis and her Newsnight opening on Cummings. And it’s not about her it’s a general point. Is that what we all want now. Editorialisation replacing news. Again I don’t mind either way. But again, I just want to know the rules.

Oz Katerji: Maitlis spoke the truth on Newsnight, Dominic Cummings broke the rules, & nobody instructing a public broadcaster to accommodate lies and spin into their analysis should be listened to. The BBC’s job is not to make a mockery of the truth by taking lies about eye-tests seriously.

Darren Grimes: Look, you all know my view, but whether you liked Maitlis' explanation or not, this is editorialising. Deliberately including certain analysis and excluding others. It reveals her views and in doing so undermines the impartiality of the BBC. She was not clear it was her own take.

Mark Pougatch: Outstanding Newsnight, Emily Maitlis and Lewis Goodall. Fearless broadcasting at its best.

Dr Paul Stott: The Newsnight monologue, which we first saw in April, returns. The idea that Emily Maitlis speaks for the country, or that it is her job to try to do so, is highly questionable.

Robin Ince: I am often quite cross with BBC News, but Emily Maitlis is often its very best asset.

Kate Hoey: Understand that the BBC is being inundated with complaints about Emily Maitlis and Newsnight from last night. I have also put in a complaint and am sure many many more will.

Piers Morgan: Where is the bias? Emily stated irrefutable facts. That’s her job as a journalist. The Govt is supporting hypocrisy & endorsing rule-breaking. This will cost lives. It doesn’t matter if you’re left, right or sideways: facts don’t care about your feelings. Emily didn’t editorialise, everything she said was true.

Madeline Grant: It’s not Emily Maitlis’s job to tell viewers what to think...This is the Fox News modus operandi, just spouting left-wing views,

Sian Berry: Truly excellent from Emily Maitlis exercising the freedom to say two plus two make four.
Charlotte Gill: A moral lecture from Emily Maitlis? No thanks. We’re talking about the woman who Tweeted how “sad” she was that a journalist got fired for accessing private calls.

Jon Jones: The Emily Maitlis Miracle MK2. These words were brilliant and most definitely needed. This needs to be the new norm.

Ben Bradley MP: Come on BBC Newsnight,BBC Politics!? You used to at least TRY to be impartial! This editorial from Emily Maitlis is so far over the line, the line is now just a dot in the far distance!

AC Grayling: Look around the world in this terrible time & you see that it's women who are the leaders: Jacinda Ardern, Angela Merkel - in journalism here it's Emily Maitlis, Marina Hyde. The very worst of male hubris, ineptitude & arrogance is summed up in Johnson & Cummings.

Nick Timothy: It's incredible that Emily Maitlis and Newsnight don't see the damage they are doing to the BBC every time they do this.

Stefan Simanowitz: A great journalist puts into words the things people feel. Thanks 4 this Emily Maitlis.

Ian Leslie: This is weird and wrong and I am amazed the BBC think it's OK (and I say that as someone who essentially agrees with what she says).

Fury, contempt and anguish

I see that Julia Hartley-Brewer, who thinks Dominic Cummings should go, is nonetheless as outraged as I am at Newsnight's blatant breach of the BBC's charter responsibilities: 

I’m sorry but this is TOTALLY unacceptable from Emily Maitlis, Newsnight and the BBC. The BBC is REQUIRED to be impartial. This is a clear breach of their own rules. Commentators (including me) can give their own opinions, BBC presenters cannot.

I hope a real head of steam builds up over this and that Emily Maitlis and Esme Wren are properly held to account over this because it's simply intolerable. 

Emily Maitlis broke the rules. The country can see that. And it would be shocking if the BBC could not.

Update (20:00): More from Julia Hartley-Brewer:

To all the people who are defending the BBC insisting  Emily Maitlis & Newsnight did nothing wrong: YOU ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WILL DESTROY THE BBC YOU CLAIM TO LOVE! You can’t have a broadcaster which is both taxpayer-funded *and* has a political stance. Pick one. You can’t have both.

That brought an interesting reply from Patrick O'Flynn:

I wouldn't mind watching a "Viewsnight" provided Emily Maitlis alternated her lib-Left slant with another presenter who highlighted pro-nation state, socially conservative outlooks. It might work quite well. But the political slant can't all be one way.

Viewsnight

This is the year that any pretence of impartiality from certain quarters at the BBC finally ended, especially Newsnight.

Emily Maitlis, in particular, is now the British equivalent of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, simultaneously a television news programme host and a 'liberal' political commentator who wears her opinions on her sleeve.

Last night's Newsnight began with a monologue that told us what we are supposed to think, and did so at the licence fee payer's expense:

Good evening, Dominic Cummings broke the rules. The country can see that. And it's shocking the government can not. The longer ministers - and prime minister - tell us he worked within them, the more angry the response to this scandal is likely to be. He was the man - remember - who always 'got' the public mood. Who tagged the lazy label of 'elite' on those who disagreed. He should understand that public mood now: one of fury, contempt and anguish. He made those who struggled to keep to the rules feel like fools. And has allowed many more to assume they can now flout them. The prime minister knows all this. But despite the resignation of one minister, growing unease from his backbenchers, a dramatic early warning from the polls, and a deep national disquiet, Boris Johnson has chosen to ignore it. Tonight we consider what this blind loyalty tells us about the workings of Number 10. We do not expect to be joined by a government minister. But that wont stop us asking the questions.  

How it this not a flagrant breach of the BBC's charter, and shouldn't Emily Maitlis and her producer Esme Wren now resign?

Distanced!

The media has taken on the role of Her Majesty’s official opposition, which is quite understandable, given that the Labour party is still in intensive care. A place-holding position, if you like.

I’ve just heard Victoria Derbyshire cornering Dan Hodges into defending the least credible parts of the Cummings tale, particularly, the dodgy eyesight driving test manoeuvre. What the Cummings family did was definitely not cricket, and being forced into the defensive on a dodgy wicket is where the BBC has the sensible people (who see this as a broader issue) over a barrel. A principle is involved!

The fact is that anyone who has to live and work in a multicultural metropolitan hell-hole would prefer to get away somewhere airy, especially if they were feeling apprehensive, under the weather and / or aware of the looming catastrophe that might be about to befall the human race. 

Dom obviously does think there’s one rule for “us” and another for “everybody else” because there is one rule for us and one for everybody else. There always was and always will be. And why not?

Not everyone is despised by the entire media class, for a start. Not everyone’s every move is scrutinised to within an inch of its life by a hostile press.

The media abides precisely by such double-standards, so it has no legitimate business criticising others for doing the same thing, especially as it does so with such disingenuous and politically motivated sanctimony. 

 When the media threatens “This story is not going to go away! Cummings should resign so that the government can get back to proper business” they really mean “we will continue to ferret out details, discrepancies and assorted minutiae about Dominic Cummings, therefore obstructing ‘proper business’ ourselves, and blaming Boris for ‘making Cummings the story’ until we’re distracted by the next scandal.

Here's Rod Liddle: Why couldn't someone ask Dominic cummings a decent question?

"Is it entirely beyond the wit of our gilded political correspondents to ask a different question to the one asked by the previous interlocutor? One after the other they lined up to ask Dominic Cummings the same question, over and over again. Does Peston think he’s asking it better than Kuenssberg? Does Beth Rigby think that asking it for a fourth time will be more elucidatory because she asked it with open contempt in her voice? And how magnificently puffed up they all were. When they were en route to the press conference did they all think the same thing: that they had the killer question and nobody else would have thought of it? Dimbojournalism.

Liddle hints that his article has been ‘edited’. Gosh!

Update:
This thread is full of fun.
I urge you to read Melanie Phillips too. Although I don’t feel motivated to defend Dom C’s conduct with as much conviction as others have done, the bigger picture - that the left-leaning anti-Brexit press is hell-bent on derailing the political destination chosen by the voters  - is the real scandal.

Remember; the news we get is written and dished up by journalists and media hacks, and interviews are conducted by them too. They’ve closed ranks, even many of the ‘good’ ones, as they would; and all we can do about it is sit and watch.

Here’s Maggie Foster miming a fine Sir Keir. Ah! Shame it won't play! (Oh yes it will! The problem must've been at my end)

Keir Me Out pic.twitter.com/5ncHqfYmBC

— Meggie Foster (@meggiefoster) May 25, 2020

Try this instead.

Who's the biggest liar?

We’re supposed to be talking about the BBC but I think Sky surpassed the BBC (and itself) on today's bias Olympics.

After Dominic Cummings’s press briefing/ debriefing Alastair Campbell was given free rein (uninterrupted) to spout utter bile.

"Campbell described Cummings’ statement as a “car crash” and said that it is “beyond belief” they are focused more on media reaction to Cummings than the coronavirus pandemic.

Hang on. Surely it’s the media that’s focused more on Cummings than on the coronavirus pandemic!

He explained: “Whether he was in breach of the lockdown rules, I don’t have any doubt about that whatsoever.

“And I think it is clear from the tone and tenor of all of the other questions, and I think they were reflecting... what viewers are thinking about the utter hypocrisy at the heart of this.

Hang on. I think some viewers might actually be thinking about the utter hypocrisy at the heart of the media?

“The other thing that is beyond belief here is that we are in the middle of crisis. The prime minister and the cabinet, their full attention should be on how to get us through this crisis, which they’ve handled so badly from start to finish.

Hang on, surely it’s the media that’s interfering with everyone’s attention on how to get us through this crisis?

“But they were all, all afternoon, sitting at their television looking at their Twitter feeds trying to work out what the right-wing media are saying.

The rest of Campbell's rant was plain nasty and doesn’t merit being broadcast at all.

“They are the most pathetic, craven bunch of people, and they do not deserve to be there.
“I am moving to the place where I sort of hope he stays, because they’re all done now for this if they’re not careful.
“So I don’t care what Johnson does, he’s been exposed for what he is, he’s a liar and a charlatan, and not up to the job.
“Cummings - you’ve seen what he is today.
He added: “I find it shameful that this is our government at this time of crisis. I find it utterly shameful.”

Whether or not Cummings believed he broke the guidelines (he did) he’s muddied the public health message and is distracting from the govt’s pandemic response. The only honourable thing to do would have been to apologise & resign. pic.twitter.com/UBvJwbsfjx

— Sonia Sodha (@soniasodha) May 25, 2020

I mean——- just——- - - does this animated spitting-image-like portrayal of indignation really reflect public opinion? She complains that Cummings has been occupying the news agenda for the last three days and has "distracted the machinery of government from the most pressing issues". Well, whose fault is that madam? I think you'll find it's yours.

On the other hand: (Brendan O'Neill - Spectator /Facebook)

“The media’s Dominic Cummings story has completely collapsed. He did NOT go to Durham a second time, which was reported on the front page of the Sunday Mirror and the Observer. He did NOT have any physical contact with family members. The police did NOT talk to the Cummings family about the Covid lockdown guidelines. Cummings did NOT carry on doing things that everyone else had stopped doing — he even missed the funeral of his uncle who died from Covid. He did NOT leave his London home for leisure reasons — he left it because he was receiving death threats as a result of media demonisation. He was very ill, his wife was ill, and at one point his child was taken to hospital in an ambulance in Durham.
His family has had a really rough time and the media have told lie after lie about him. The scandal is not Cummings’ behaviour — it is the collapse of ethics and objectivity in the British media.

So who’s the biggest liar? Cummings or the media?

I didn’t think Dominic Cummings had a pair of completely water-tight legs to stand on, but looking at the way the media has inflated this increasingly irrelevant tale to bursting point, I think I’ll go with Brendan.

Balancing act

“20 years ago today the Israeli army killed my friend and BBC colleague Abed Takkoush in South Lebanon. They fired a tank shell into his car from their side of the border wire. They claimed we were terrorists. Abed left a wife and 3 teenage sons 

I’d decided to stop to do a piece to camera. I got out of the car with cameraman Malek Kanaan. Abed stayed in the car on a phone call to his son. A minute or two later a Merkava tank crew about a kilometre away fired at the car. 

It was the middle of a bright sunny day, with perfect visibility. They were close enough to see us clearly with the sophisticated optics in a Merkava tank. Yet they claimed we were terrorists. 

Israel was pulling out of a long occupation of Lebanon because Hezbollah had made it too costly for them, by killing Israeli soldiers. They were on high alert but we were miles behind their retreating forces. We were journalists doing our jobs. 

Abed should be celebrating the end of Ramadan with his family. They suffered a grievous loss. Israel has every right to defend itself. But we were no threat, civilians covering the story, moving openly in bright sunlight. It took many hours before Abed’s body could be recovered.”

Jeremy Bowen’s (extremely distorted) reminiscences have set off an anti-Israel Twitter-mob that comprises many Muslim names, including the BBC’s former Head of Religion, Aaqil Ahmed.

I remember that like it was yesterday. I hope Abed’s family are ok after all these years?

— Aaqil Ahmed (@aaqil1969) May 23, 2020

Of course, it’s “not all Muslims” etc. Or is it? On that theme, I offer you this interview with historian and expert on Islam, Raymond Ibrahim.

I seriously fear creeping Islamisation and the seemingly inevitable Islamic influence over Britain. I fear for myself and my family and I grieve on behalf of my deceased parents and for the memory of my grandparents who fled to  Britain for safety from persecution in the late 1800s.

Many prominent pro-Israel figures, including the most eloquent and articulate, are afraid to express their true fears and feelings about the rise of Islam because of a very rational and justifiable fear of being dismissed as “racists” and “ ‘phobes". Perhaps that’s why Melanie Phillips is always careful to qualify her substantive criticisms of Islam with the caveat ‘it’s not all Muslims’. 

Recently, I've been sensing that I'm not completely alone in having such concerns. It’s a fine line between bravely ‘speaking out’ and falling into the trap of being marginalised into insignificance by the politically correct mafia, and that’s one hell of a balancing act.

What the people want

I wish Andrew Marr would level with and just say “we’re campaigning to have Dominic Cummings sacked so that we can usher in that nice Sir Keir who can forensically nit-pick his way towards reversing Brexit.” (It’s what the people want.)

Did the BBC really invite Grant Shapps onto the A.M. show to discuss transport? 

I wish Maggie Foster would do one of her ten-times-more-entertaining-than-anything-the-BBC-has-produced-for-the-last-ten-years lip-sync impressions of Andrew Marr’s warm-up before the interview with Grant Shapps

 “This morning the Sunday Mirror and the Observer reported two sightings of Dominic Cummings out and about in the North East!” 

as well as the press briefing I watched the other day, which was 100% devoted to forcing that sacking/resignation.. (It’s what the country wants) and I’d quite like to see her facial expressions while emoting Sam Coates’s ranty question.

Last night TVs all over the country literally vibrated from Sonia Sodha’s indignant screeching. (about Dominic Cummings) When Dan Hodges is the one voice of sanity, one has to …..... I don't know, what?

And by travelling hundreds of miles to be close to extended family in case he needed childcare Cummings showed disregard for the safety of healthcare workers (NB I really *didn’t* say Cummings wanted them to die as I was then accused of!) pic.twitter.com/Gu1BydKNVz

— Sonia Sodha (@soniasodha) May 23, 2020

 Oh! Look at Dan Hodges’s Twitter as people pile in with assorted *wrong* assumptions.

I think Andrew Marr and Tony Hall are terminally and irreversibly deluded. Tony Hall’s appearance alone is enough to make you wonder just what sort of a man is this? What does he look like? Contrary to popular belief, hair-dressing is not rocket science. 

Still after the youth market, Tony? I don’t think so mate.

Now for something completely different - (H/T Guest Who, B-BBC.) Jeremy Bowen has instigated a whole barrage of one-liner, virulently anti-Israel Tweets, merely by ‘remembering’ the incident that cemented his hatred for Israel.  Responses are always revealing. How the BBC sees fit to keep this individual in the influential position he’s in,  and still claim they represent ‘impartiality’ is beyond belief.

Rod Liddle has done a baffling about-turn. He thinks the BBC has had a good pandemic! Body hell! 

Does coronavirus affect people in more ways than we’re being told? 

Alarming news

I haven’t watched the BBC for a few days, but the radio alarm (literally) woke me up with the *alarming* news about Dominic Cummings. 

Having read the piece in the Spectator (£) written by the spouses of some of their regular columnists (I have to confess that I never knew he was Mary Wakefield’s other half) it seems that Dom isn’t the kind of unemotional automaton that the Boris-bashing press would have us believe; rather he seems (almost) a human being. 

I now suspect that he hadn’t behaved quite so outrageously and criminally as the BBC (and the press) obviously wishes he had, and that their determination to have him horse-whipped is politically motivated. Who’d've thunk it? 

I don’t remember the press ever going in such relentless pursuit of the arch manipulator and brain behind Jeremy Corbyn - that antisemitic Machiavellian rogue Seumas Milne. He seems to have got off lightly. Where is he now? I don’t know. Talking of ‘where are they now’, Rod Liddle has had an entertaining go at Shami Chakrabarti, which I mention solely so I can use the lovely photo to decorate this post.  

What shall we do?

When artists describe themselves as ‘self-taught’ - which they often used to announce boastfully - one could interpret that as a warning that they’re just ‘not very good’. Of course, when art colleges swapped traditional teaching for conceptual ephemera, all that changed. Nowadays, ‘self-taught’ all but evokes self-motivation and personal commitment. 

I can’t remember why I started off in that vein. It was either because I’m permanently conscious of my own deficiencies, or because I wanted to explore the woeful state of ignorance surrounding my favourite topic. (A bit of both - not an either-or.)

I’ve been watching some webinars. They make pretty painful viewing because technical bugs plague both the audio and the image. Constant freezing; fuzzy sound that keeps getting out of sync with the picture and I’d have liked proper captions to identify the speaker. 

One of the webinars I watched yesterday ‘Propaganda in Schools’ (H/T David Collier) was about the aforementioned ‘woeful ignorance’ surrounding Middle East history and the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. The misinformation and bias, or what we now call ‘fake news’  has been passed down from generation to generation, gathering ever more ludicrous moss as it goes along. 

The hour-long webinar tackles various aspects of the problem and probably has limited appeal, but what was particularly fascinating to me was the detailed description of the contents of Palestinian textbooks; explicitly Jihadist, blatantly inciting violence, glorifying martyrdom, and all to the tune that ‘Palestine’ is rightfully Muslim ‘from the river to the sea’ and that’s it. The icing on the cake was the reminder of the painful fact that we - the British taxpayer - help fund this bile through UK foreign aid. Keep an eye out for Marcus Sheff.

Melanie Phillips reports the gradual defrosting of relations between Israel and certain Arab leaders,  who are almost at the end of their tether with Mahmoud Abbas’s increasingly strident and stubborn intransigence.

 “Saudi writer Abdulhamed al Ghobain, a political activist who reportedly shares the viewpoint of the reformist Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, told BBC Arabic TV: “There is a deluge of opinions against the Palestinian cause… Unfortunately, the Palestinians have lost. The Palestinians have not contributed anything. We can say that they are emotional people whose behaviour is governed by their feelings…

“People say out in the open that they do not care about the Palestinian cause and about the Arabs in general, and that we must steer our relations in keeping with our interests. Israel is an advanced country and we can benefit from it. We should deal with reality. The relations with Israel have become warm. It is no longer just about normalization.”

One of the worst offences a Palestinian can commit these days is to show any sign at all that they’ve ever thought about ‘normalisation’ with Israel. This self-sacrificial position even precludes accepting generous offers from Israel, including direct help connected with coronavirus.

An interesting piece by Manfred Gerstenfeld in ‘Artuz Sheva’ (who looks alarmingly like Jeremy Corbyn in the illustration ) but don’t let that put you off(!) recounts that Israelis are not fully aware of how bad their image is overseas. Top in every field of excellence to which Israel cares to apply itself, but nil points for its own self-publicity.

“A few months ago, I had a brief talk with a former Israeli minister. In all sincerity this Minister believed that some Israeli ministries deal competently with antisemitism and anti-Israelism. They have been given funds to do so. The idea that ministerial employees and ministries with all their constraints can possibly deal with a complex problem like this is however absurd. 

The basics of strategy is that attack is the best defense. Palestinian extreme hate mongers are an easy target. Their leading party, Hamas, is a genocide promoter and the second largest Fatah -- and the Palestinian Authority it controls -- are murder glorifiers. The employees of a new Israeli anti-propaganda agency in their first days of employment would only have to go through the Palestinian Media Watch website to get a rapid indication of how to expose the Palestinian Arabs. Hate speech, demonizing, antisemitic cartoons, and misuse of Western funding are just a few among many topics.”

An underlying theme of the webinar was ‘what can be done about it?” I hope, by drawing the problem to the attention of people whose eyes normally gloss over at the first sound of “Israel/Palestine” that, in my self-taught clumsy, learn-as-you-go fashion, I am doing my bit. While my family (much to their irritation) would complain that I can’t be faulted on ‘personal commitment and self-motivation’ I can’t tell how effective I’ve been, if at all, over roughly a decade of trying. 

Political choices. Part 2.

While I’m aware that this topic represents something of a minority interest and many visitors to sites like this will scroll past as soon as they see what it’s about - I still feel that, well, someone’s gotta do it and it might as well be me.

And I haven't forgotten the reason I started writing about bias against Israel (and/or antisemitism) in the first place, and why I chose to do so on a general ‘BBC bias’ platform, rather than below the line on a dedicated “Zionist” blog, like, say, Elder of Ziyon or Harry’s Place. 

I know that this specific issue isn’t necessarily at the top of every bias-watcher’s agenda, but such people aren’t likely to visit ‘Jewy’ blogs at all, so in the hope that I might catch the eye of someone who might otherwise avoid listening to me, I keep soldiering on.  

I’m not apologising in any way. I’ve said this many times before. I’m not religious. I’m secular through and through. I don’t belong to any association, group or community. But I do feel compelled to make a fuss about a massive injustice that has been going on forever and seems to be getting worse the more ludicrous it gets.

Yesterday I just scraped the surface of it, but the piece grew a bit too long and unwieldy for a blog post. Brevity is a virtue - I wish I knew how to achieve that.

So let me recap. 

I began by asking myself whether singling out the BBC’s undue respect for someone with such unpleasant “political views” as John Ashton was justified when it was really nothing out of the ordinary.  The BBC routinely promotes virulently antisemitic individuals without so much as a whisper that their views might be in any way controversial.

The people who immediately came to mind (Chris Gunness, Richard Horton, Abdel Bari Atwan, etc) were but the tip of a giant iceberg. And that’s before we got to the long and terrifying list of (mainly Labour) MPs. Lo and behold, David Collier came up with just such a list, and all the more sinister for the fact that these individuals were ‘democratically elected’ and their ferocious anti-Israel activities are regarded as ‘political choices’. 

One of these people - Sarah Champion (MP for Rotherham) is routinely lauded as a “champion” for the victims of the Pakistani grooming gangs and the MP who selflessly sacrificed a front-bench position for the cause.

However, calling her courageous for naming the perpetrators as “Pakistani men” in a Sun newspaper article is ‘benefit of the doubt too far’. Because, well, this crime was being perpetrated for quite a while before she ‘spoke out’ and she was by no means the first MP to do so. 

As we have pointed out before, Sarah Champion has long been pandering to the virulently antisemitic ‘political choices’ of her constituents, and as Collier points out:

"How many times did she critically mention Israel? – and how many times did she critically reference the world’s serial human rights abusers?
Israel: 60
Syria: 7
Iran: 5
N Korea: 2
Pakistan: 1
DRC: 0

That’s dealt with section one. 

Next, there’s the mountain of a communication problem to overcome regarding those wretched “annexations” which the BBC and its international ilk are determined to misrepresent in their default “It’s all settled” manner  -  i.e., as yet another of greedy Israel’s characteristic land-grabs. 

As I said yesterday, legally, the land is already Israel’s, and here is another easy-to-read and a particularly accessible piece which I enjoyed, despite my own recently acquired short attention span syndrome.

“The Palestinians have adopted a paradigm of the conflict in which Israel is entirely at fault. Justice, they say, requires that we vacate “their” land – in fact, if you asked them, they would say that this includes everything from the river to the sea; they believe they are being generous by just asking for Judea and Samaria (at least, for now). But this paradigm is wrong. In fact, we are the ones who have been excessively generous in repeatedly offering them large parts of the land, offers that were rejected because they did not provide a clear enough path to an Arab state in all of the land.

Within the article, there's a link to  Why Israeli Rule in the West Bank Is Legal under International Law in which Professor Eugene Kontorovich explains the legal (not the political choice) aspect of it.

Professor Eugene Kontorovich

Lastly, I’d like to expand on the final section of yesterday’s post. Matthew Sweet’s piece in UnHerd. Anti-Semitism runs deep in Britain.

Antisemitism is not exclusively ‘on the left’. I read some interesting comments generated by this article on Harry’s Place. Commenter Fritz Wunderlich linked to several detailed and extremely lengthy historical accounts of Britain’s role in the establishment of Israel in 1948 and I’m afraid it doesn’t look good for Blighty.

Two conclusions can be drawn from research into these documents, which are relevant to the role of British intelligence in the war in Palestine. 

The first is that, in the 1940s, Britain conducted a two-track policy in the Middle East: one, a well-documented, official policy defined by Whitehall under both the Conservative and Labour parties; the second was informal and secretive, which can be termed “regional,” implemented by “agents in the field,” which left few traces in British archives. 

It was perpetrated by a small, influential group of Arabist secret agents who manipulated the cabinet in London and implemented their own policies, which deviated from the official position. These agents enjoyed a unique status as intermediaries between Whitehall and local Arab leaders. Either intentionally, or because of deep-seated personal beliefs, they provided biased assessments. 

They did not merely gather and interpret information and recommend policy, but controlled the flow of information and implemented their own policies while keeping the London decision makers in the dark. They joined forces with Arab rulers, whom they portrayed as voicing the Arab view, in order to mislead their government. Their tactics, which were backed by senior military officers in Cairo, gathered momentum under the post-WWII Labour government and during the crisis in Palestine in 1947-48. 

The second conclusion is that the British secret agents succeeded in implementing their policies due largely to their use of indirect control over local “agents of influence.” They employed undercover political operations, clandestine diplomacy and covert propaganda to manipulate Arab leaders and public opinion – methods widely used in the Middle East during World War II.

British Prime Minister Clement Attlee and Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin

Britain’s antisemitism runs deep indeed. It looks like our covertly (right-wing) Arabist agenda and our arrogant meddling planted the seeds of an increasingly intractable conflict. So the ongoing situation in the Middle East is our fault? Not entirely, though. The religiously-based hatred of Jews emanating from the religion of peace probably had something to do with it as well. 

Political choices

Antisemitism is just a political choice. Remember that! (One has to wonder, though, if the same can be said of Islamophobia and all other forms of racism)

When Ms Unsworth did her best to justify the BBC’s commissioning of a known antisemite to appear on the “Tory Takedown” episode of Panorama, various BBC scrutineers took up the case. Guido Fawkes  had:

Back in 2012 when Ashton was campaigning against health reforms, CCHQ got sick of the BBC, issuing the statement “The BBC has a responsibility to report news objectively. They should always inform their viewers if the person they are interviewing has political motives”. Eight years on and the BBC are still refusing to adhere to their own guidelines…

And the Campaign Against Antisemitism had

CAA INVESTIGATION REVEALS EVEN MORE RACIST TWEETS BY PROF. JOHN ASHTON AS WELL AS HIS TROLLING OF THE BBC TO INCLUDE GAZA IN A HOLOCAUST COMMEMORATION, WHILE HUNDREDS SIGN OUR PETITION TO TAKE HIM OFF AIR
After antisemitic comments made by Prof. Ashton were revealed in the Jewish Chronicle last week, Campaign Against Antisemitism launched a petition to urge the BBC, ITV and Sky News to stop inviting him to appear as a regular commentator on their news programmes. 

As well as his comments revealed last week (in tweets he has since deleted), which included phrases such as “time for Jews to reflect” and “Zionists behave like Nazis”, we have now uncovered further comments which show the extent and venomousness of his obsession. 

In light of these revelations, and the BBC’s and Sky News’ dismissal of Prof. Ashton’s antisemitism as mere “political views”, we call upon others to join the hundreds who have already signed the petition to get him off our television screens. 

Although this seemed to me to be an obvious breach of the BBC’s obligation to identify their guest speakers’ political affiliations and advocacies, it set me athinkin’.

In what turned out to be a never-ending exercise of whataboutery, I was able to list dozens of known antisemites, Jew-haters and Israel-bashers who appear fairly regularly on our screens without even having to wrack my brain cell.

For one example, take emotional-meltdown-prone, exBBC staffer Chris Gunness. Formerly Gaza-based head of UNRWA, the discredited Palestinian aid agency, Hamas affiliate and recipient of $squillions of international aid, having had his Twitter account suspended for tweeting an obnoxious poem, Gunness has reinvented himself as a music critic. The biggest mystery of all is how he got away with both being gay and collaborating with Hamas. 

Perhaps, for Hamas, the perceived benefit of his anti-Israel advocacy outweighed their inherent homophobia. At any rate, he escaped being dragged behind a motorbike or thrown off a building or whatever they like to do to gay men in Gaza.

Then, of course, there’s QT panellist Richard Horton of the Lancet. He’s well known for his ‘political choice’.

We mustn’t forget Dateline London’s most frequent guest, Abdul Bari Atwan  Usually introduced simply as the editor of Al Quds magazine, our ‘Bari’ is famous for his Jew-hate and for saying he’d ‘dance with delight’ in Trafalgar Square if Iran attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon.

That’s quite strong for a political choice, wouldn’t you say, and worth a mention in the introduction to any platform the BBC might be offering him.

Ken Loach, Miriam Margolyes a multiplicity of pop stars and thesps, they’re all at it - they’ve been spoon-fed the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian fiction for so long that no kind of enlightenment whatsoever is likely to dawn on any of them 'anytime soon'. 

So without boring myself rigid with further lists and links, I’ll say what I originally set out to say. With the pro-Palestinian narrative firmly embedded as the default ‘political choice’ of the many (not the few), I keep asking myself how did we get to this? 

Most antisemites, anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian advocates must know there’s ‘another side’ to the story. (surely?) Aware of it or not, they choose to dismiss it. Let’s call that a political ‘choice’.

What baffles me is why anyone in the post-Christian, liberal/libertarian largely secular democratic Western world would align ideologically with radical Islam? Why would they simply believe the infantile lies, the more absurd the better it seems, of the fanatics and religious bigots who simply loath Jews?

And the anti-Israel narrative is so embedded in Britain, sad to say, that anyone trying to explain the case for Israel is asking to be ridiculed and scorned. The most recent example I can give is Israel’s strategic decision to annex settlements in the West Bank. 

The legal argument for this is set out by Michael Calvo here,:

“According to international law, the Jews are the indigenous people of the lands referred to as Judea, Samaria, Palestine, Israel and the Holy Land, and therefore fulfill the criteria required by international law. The Jews are the ethnic group that was the original settler of Judea and Samaria 3,500 years ago, when the land was bestowed upon the Jews by the Almighty. Leaders of this world, who chose to make abstraction of history, misleadingly refer to Judea and Samaria as the "West Bank" of the Jordan River (which includes Israel) or the "Occupied Palestinian Territories”.

but who’s going to bother with trying to get to grips with that?

“With the Mandate for Palestine, accorded to Great Britain in August 1922, the League of Nations recognized "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". The Jewish people's right to settle in the Land of Palestine, their historic homeland and to establish their state there, is thus a legal right anchored in international law. 

UNDRIP reaffirms the right of the Jewish people as the indigenous people, and "especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources."

That’s not going to be very popular, is it? So the Israel-bashers in the UNGA  get round it by making hundreds of non-binding declarations and treating them as though they’re legally valid.

“Recent UN General Assembly Resolutions stating that the settlement of Jews in Judea Samaria is contrary to international law are no more than recommendations and have never led to amendments of existing binding treaties. 

“UN Security Council Resolutions, stating that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal, are not binding. Only resolutions taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are binding on all UN member states. For example, Security Council Resolution 2334 was adopted on December 23, 2016 by a 14–0 vote. Four permanent members of the Security Council -- China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom -- voted in favor; the US abstained. This resolution was not adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not binding. That resolution states that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law. It has "no legal validity". 

We’re in there, look! The UK voted in favour of another ‘non-binding’ resolution crafted to undermine Israel’s legitimacy in favour of the Palestinians and their fairy-tale fantasy!

“This position is political, not legal. Despite UN resolutions to the contrary, the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not inconsistent with international law.

Will the case for Israel ever be heard with a sympathetic ear? Not very likely, is it?  And just as I was thinking all this, and realising how hopeless it would be (for anyone) to try, in the face of such a resistant audience, to persuade the British establishment to be reasonable, this popped into my inbox. Unherd

Anti-Semitism runs deep in BritainThere is a strong native tradition in this country and it cuts across party linesBY MATTHEW SWEET

He starts off with an anecdote. It’s the kind of anecdote that I could easily have recounted myself. This sort of thing has happened to me many times over. I think it’s why I blog. He’s describing the belly-blow one feels when someone who seems perfectly nice and ‘relatable’ turns out to be a raging, antisemitic, ignoramus. His contention is that embedded antisemitism isn’t confined to the left. It’s also a feature deeply ingrained in the right (left and centre.)

“The journal Political Quarterly has just published the first academic study of Labour’s anti-Semitism crisis. Its authors are the sociologists Ben Gidley and Brendan McGeever, and the historian David Feldman — all attached to the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck University of London.
[…]
Their conclusions will comfort few. Conservative voters, the data suggests, are more likely to assent to an anti-Semitic proposition than their Labour equivalents. These numbers are alarmingly large: added together, they work out as about 30% of the population.

I’m not totally convinced by all the reasoning, but 30%! That sounds pretty bad. 

“They suggest that most of the participants in the crisis — from Jeremy Corbyn to Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis — are guilty of the same intellectual error. They have chosen to characterise anti-Jewish racism as a poison, a virus, a disease — a foreign pollutant that has breached the defences of a 120-year-old British institution. “Figures on all sides,” the article concludes, “conceive antisemitism as an exogenous force which contaminates and spoils the political body it inhabits.”

I had to look up exogenous. It means “external force”. I can’t see that it is such a big blunder to mischaracterise a “reservoir: a deep reservoir of stereotypes and narratives, one which is replenished over time and from which people can draw with ease”  as an exogenous force, or to confuse one for the other. 

Whatever it is, exogenous force or deeply embedded reservoir, it’s real, and the examples of cultural (and casual) antisemitism he cites are all too familiar. 

It’s in the literature of John Buchan, Graham Greene and the antisemitic sources upon which many of our favourite black and white movies were based. It seems that these movies were ‘sanitised’ before release by Jews running the big studios of the time.

Interestingly, Matthew Sweet declares:

The deadlines for peer-reviewed academic journals are long. Gidley, McGeever and Feldman were committed to print before the new Labour leader issued his thoughts on the anti-Semitism crisis in his party. Keir Starmer’s language was much the same as that of his predecessor, though he did add a slightly confusing horticultural layer: “Antisemitism has been a stain on our party,” went his victory speech. “I will tear out this poison by its roots.”

and concludes:

“Prejudice does not show up on an X-Ray. It can’t be collected on a swab or in a blood sample. It lives in our actions and utterances and encounters, and in the culture they generate — on pages and screens, in workplaces and social media feeds. We are, however, a metaphor-loving society. The present moment demonstrates that. Covid-19 is a virus that we discuss in terms of war; racism is a form of human conflict that we discuss in terms of virology and toxicology. 

When words fail, sometimes our ideas are at fault. It is an opportunity to find better ones. Better deeds, too. And better friends.

This brings me back to the BBC. (At last)  Can antisemitism be seen in terms of war? Is it something nasty and pervasive to be rooted out? Is it a virus that someday a vaccine to prevent it or a treatment to cure it can be found?  Or is it deeply embedded in our reservoir of memes and tropes, and (unlike any other form of racism) for the BBC simply a matter of political choice?