Trace'n'Track

I’m going to take advantage of the current paucity of comments to return to my niche topic. You might have noticed that ever since the rest of the non-leftist media/blogosphere has (belatedly) recognised how agenda-led the BBC is, I’ve been deviating more and more from the blog’s core raison d’etre. However,  many of the things that have been bothering me are ultimately traceable back to the BBC. Track'n'trace. 

First and foremost, the entire content of the current page of links on the EoZ website is, as a whole, more disturbing than ever. Believe me, I thought that even before I saw this comment:

“Today the thread was more insane and chilling than usual and the threads here usually tend to be quite insane. It managed to surprise and alarm me.”

Of course, “Elder of Zyion” is just about the most prolific the blogger on the block, and true to form, that long ‘linkdump’ article has already been superseded by the next one.

I’m guessing that my interest in this issue is not every reader's cup of tea, but it’s (half) my party and I’ll cry if I want to. For brevity’s sake, I’ll try to stick to the ‘special bits’ like they did when someone was evicted on Big Brother.

Because the issues covered on that site are so huge, I tend to concentrate on UK focused material, but it’s a US-based site and I am interested in developments ‘over there’ too.

The first shocker concerns a man named James Zogby, then president of the Arab American Institute. I haven’t researched it, but I assume it’s a bit like CAABU. 

The headline on EoZ is: 

Historic Video Unearthed: The Arab American Plan to Defeat America’s Jews. 

The link takes you to “Americans for Peace and Tolerance.” (me neither) The word “historic’ threw me at first because the video in question is only about 30 years old. How historic does that sound to you? Not very, as far as history is concerned. The video itself features an interview broadcast on Jordanian TV circa 1998; the article's strapline is as follows:

 The Arab American Institute outlined a plan to undermine pro-Israel support in America — and it worked.

It seems that Zogby went to Jordan to garner support for his plan to undermine the Jewish community in America. He would do so by harnessing the Left’s natural opposition to “oppression” by promoting the ‘Arab’ interpretation of  Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

“Zogby saw the power of framing Israelis as “white oppressors” of innocent, indigenous, darker-skinned Palestinians. And he saw the possibilities of mobilizing left-leaning ethnic, racial, and religious groups against “Israeli oppression.”
The prescient Zogby understood how the Jewish left could easily become the willing lynchpin of his strategy.”

One only needs to look at the current situation to see how effective this was and is to this day.

If you have the stomach to watch it - I’m afraid I didn’t quite make it all the way to the bitter end, I would be very pleased to hear if Zogby explained what the ultimate goal of all this anti-Israel galvanising actually was?

*********

The next item on the link-list is by Melanie Phillips. The Barbarians Inside the Gates

You’ve got to read it. 

Now, as we’ve seen over the past couple of weeks, white society is being vilified by anti-white racists who viciously smear as a bigot anyone who objects. Western culture is being stripped of its historical memory, with the removal by violence or under intimidation of statues commemorating those whose behaviour in a different era doesn’t conform to the enforced orthodoxy of today.

This article really is one of those ‘must-reads’

**********

Next on the list. Celebrities mistakenly or misguidedly posting approving tweets and comments about Louis Farrakhan’s oh so powerful speech. I admit I haven’t heard of a single one of these Hollywood heroines but their abject stupidity is less surprising than the attempts by various antisemites to silence anyone who criticises Farrakhan. (Chelsea Handler? What? Who? Why?)

********

This next item is very like the one above. It features something that many of us have seen already. 

When Rosie met Jim.

"The image went viral on Facebook and Twitter garnering millions of views and hundreds of thousands of likes and shares. An apparent beacon of hope against racism."

It’s about BLM yet again, and the revelation that the cuddly grandpa with the placard “Racism is a virus - we are the vaccine” is really a Holocaust-denying racist named Jim Curran.

"His name is Jim Curran, an Irish nationalist and regular attendee at meetings of the Far Right/Left crossover group, Keep Talking. This extremist organisation was recently exposed by the CST and Hope Not Hate. They detailed how extremists from across the political spectrum (ex-Labour members Elleanne Green and Peter Gregson, Gill Kaffash and Tony Gratrex formerly of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and convicted Holocaust Denier Alison Chabloz and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke compatriot, James Thring) met to obsess over antisemitic conspiracy theories: from the ‘Jews did 9/11’ to outright Holocaust denial."

(to namedrop but a few.) As if the truth isn’t awkward enough, the really frightening thing is the way the “anti-racists” refuse to accept the truth. Undaunted, and in the name of anti-racism, they defiantly double down, spouting antisemitic / anti-Israel rhetoric as if to bolster their virtue.

" Despite the fact that concerns about Mr Curran were now flowing around social media, a series of prominent media and social justice organisations were more interesting in promoting the romantic narrative that than the messy truth. The Labour group, Momentum, posted the picture on their Facebook page with the caption “more of this please” and a leading figure in Amnesty UK shared it."

**** 

There’s more, but I think that’s quite enough for one day.

meanwhile, there's this:

Chris Williamson will be joined by Jackie Walker, Max Blumenthal, Ken Livingstone,Tony Greenstein & Marc Wadsworth
Thursday 18th June at 7.30pm.

Defending Free Speech and Challenging Manufactured Consent.

Join us on Resistance TV
Watch live on Youtube or Facebook#FreeSpeech pic.twitter.com/KaHLSTISVa

— The Festival of Resistance (@TheResistFest1) June 13, 2020

Sorry for today's YouTube videos overshooting the sidebar  - there seems to be a technical issue with Blogger and YouTube. (Same as yesterday)

Subterranean refuge required

I understand there’s a Twitter storm about this appointment. 

I think we need to talk about the current cultural revolution. How massive is it? Before Brexit, we were made to understand that Brexiteers were just a small minority. (of racists and xenophobes) Same thing with Conservative voters. We were made to believe - to actually fear - that Jeremy Corbyn was about to move into number ten.

Now that everything is so woke - so BLM - that non-lefties are cowering in terror. Dreading Joe Biden becoming POTUS, Sir Keir Starmer becoming PM and BLM imposing an entire cultural revolution upon the whole wide world. 

I understand that the UK black community, (if there is such a thing, which I doubt) makes up a mere 6% of the UK population. Is that correct?

Here in the deep south-west of England, there’s an undeniably monocultural population. On second thoughts, it’s more mono-ethnic than monocultural, because there are a huge number of hippies and lefties to counterbalance the Conservatives, stick-in-the-muds and conventional ‘poor people’, but they’re mainly white, or sort of pinky- grey. All privileged, of course.

Yet, lo and behold, the local press featured a splash front-page report about a BLM protest in Truro! 

No place is safe from progressives and BLM protesters, and most of them are supremely ignorant about the wellspring of ideas from which these movements have sprung/ evolved/ emerged. 

So I don’t know what to think. As more and more people engage in polarised politics, is there anywhere to hide? Will there be a day of reckoning? - a surprise? - a backlash? - or is The Long March Through the Institutions due, at any moment, to arrive at a destination near you?

Underground bunkers were popular when the nuclear scare was at a peak. Should we be digging again?

Does the BBC suffer from a left-leaning bias?

Well, does it?

Over to Them

I remember talking about ‘the swing of the political pendulum’ in 2009. Then there are Craig’s analyses of Cardiff uni’s insanely biased study of the BBC’s bias.
Richard Sambrook! What a choice!

Not to mention over a decade of hollow screeds from us about the BBC’s left-wing, anti-Israel, anti-anti-anti……. you know.

Yesterday I was going to write about the pissing man. Two weeks in custody!!
The other day I started something about Piers Morgan’s atrocious bullying of a US lawyer named Earl Gray. “That was the worst interview I’ve ever heard” declared Piers afterwards. Yep. It certainly was, but not in the way you meant.

In the new world of opposites, where all meanings are reversed I set off on a stream-of-consciousness post about BLM:

"The slogan “Black Lives Matter” is such a platitudinous statement of the bleeding obvious because of course they matter! duh! As do lives of all shades and sizes.
As Andrew Doyle said "who, in this day and age, could disagree?"
Its very obviousness carries a built-in implication - namely, only black lives matter. So not “inclusive”, then, in the woke sense. 

As a slogan, it’s pointedly not ‘all lives’ and you can get yourself into real trouble for suggesting that it ought to be. So no, just the one skin-shade. Not even ‘as much as everyone else’s lives’,  and -  conspicuous by its absence - not BAME lives. Just the Black ones. 

Black Power! The Nation of Islam! The most racist outfit imaginable. Raised fists!.
Look at the new language. These days anti-racism IS racism so we must get used to opposites being the new normal. Someone has decided that anguage is officially allowed to mean the opposite of the old meaning. Consistency is the key. Oh, and inconsistency.
Example.
28 injuries to policepersons occur during a peaceful incident.
Another incident results in injuries to 2 police officers.
Which was the more violent incident? Obvious!
Once you get used to it it’s fine.

How long-winded that was - and that was the edited version of the beginning of a beginning.  I scrapped it.


Then I saw this on YouTube. So I just thought Bollox. Why bother? Let Mahyar and Konstantin take the floor.

Fixed!

For some reason, YouTube (Or maybe just this video (?) ) seems to be (temporarily I hope) out of order with Blogger, so here's a grab of the image. (You can access the video (direct) via YouTube)

 If I can, I'll try again later. See above.
(Note: I'm a swearier person than Craig)

Of Gandhi and Gladstone

I'd say that the BBC journalist responsible for the website report Calls to remove 'racist' Gandhi statue in Leicester is unsympathetic to those calls, given that all the people quoted argue the same thing - that the statue should stay. 

In contrast, the BBC journalist responsible for the report headlined William Gladstone: University of Liverpool to rename building over slavery links writes like an anti-Gladstone campaigner, with not even the faintest whiff of an opposing view. 

This latter article includes the following:

Liberal politician William Ewart Gladstone was born in Liverpool in 1809 and is the only person to have been prime minister on four separate occasions.  

He is described as having "ultra-conservative" views... 

Being startled at Gladstone of all people being 'described as having "ultra-conservative" views', I looked for the source of that claim and found it at www.gov.uk. Here's what it says there:

Liberal politician William Ewart Gladstone was born in Liverpool in 1809 and is the only person to have been prime minister on four separate occasions.  

Gladstone was elected Tory MP for Newark in December 1832, aged 23, with ultra-conservative views.   

Ah, so the BBC churnalist who copied and pasted that didn't even copy and paste it accurately. Though he may have entered Parliament as an "ultra-conservative" the great Liberal PM famously didn't remain one. The Gladstone of 1832 wasn't the Gladstone of 1882. 

One week on

Last weekend - when bikes were being flung at police horses, far-left mobs were injuring dozens of police, the statue of the war leader who stood up to and defeated Nazism was being defaced, and a rioter tried to set the country's flag alight on the Cenotaph - the BBC chose to under-report the violence of BLM/far-left protests and called them "largely peaceful". Predictably, this is the main headline on the BBC News website this weekend:

Note the unflinching use of the word "violent" and the highlighting of a piece of bad behaviour by a protestor - and the unclipped images of aggressive protestors. The contrast could hardly be sharper. 

Was this weekend's violence worse than last week's though? Mahyar Tousi writes:

I see tweets suggesting today was more violent than last week’s BLM protest. I was there and filmed it. I can confirm it was not more violent. The only reason you think that is because today’s violent footage was more widely reported by the mainstream media than last week.

And I think Dizzy sums up the double standards problem quite neatly:

The controversial Geeta Guru-Murthy

Unusually for me, I've suddenly started intervening on Twitter. I thought I'd share this conversation with you as I think it's very telling. I found the 'offending words' via TV Eyes.

Alastair Stewart OBE: "The controversial statue of Winston Churchill". As described in a BBC headline...
Adrian Hilton: I'm not disbelieving of Alastair Stewart, but does anyone have a screengrab of this?
Alastair Stewart OBE: It was BBC Breaking so I am not sure you can get that on 'catch-up'. It would take an odd soul to sit there with an iPhone...you'll just have to take my word for it, I guess.
Adrian Hilton: As I said, I'm happy to take your word for it, because I know you to be an honourable man. My appeal was simply for visual evidence, so I may illustrate.
Craig Byers: If anyone can find video footage, it was on the BBC News Channel at 3pm: "This is BBC News with the latest headlines for viewers in the UK and around the world. I'm Geeta Guru-Murthy. Groups including right-wing activists have clashed with police in central London as they gather near Parliament Square and the controversial statue of Sir Winston Churchill".
Adrian Hilton: I'm slightly irritated by this (h/t Alastair Stewart OBE). If a tiny group of protesters object to something, and the BBC magnifies or affirms their grievance by rendering it 'controversial', then BBC News must call itself 'controversial'. There is no controversy for the vast majority.

Is this the way things are going?

I intended to share this earlier, but today is probably a better day to share it, given what's going on. It's a Twitter thread posted on Wednesday by comedian Konstantin Kisin, and it's already starting to come true:

You're going to hate me for writing this. You're going to resist what I say because you don't want it to be true. You're going to pretend that I want this to be true when, in fact, there is nothing I hate more than the fact that is has come to this.

Here is what happens next:

If protestors continue to deface monuments like Winston Churchill's statue and burn British flags on the Cenotaph, you will see groups forming to defend them. These groups will be composed primarily of young, angry white men and led by people with links to groups like the EDL and Tommy Robinson. This is already happening.

The groups will gather in city centres to "defend our country". They will have names with words like "patriotic", "British", "defence" in them.

Inevitably, they will clash with the current protestors and the police. Under pressure from the media and political class, the police will overreact. They will treat these groups differently to the BLM protestors. They will use force. They will detain people for breaking lockdown rules. They will issue stiff sentences.

The media will do the opposite of what they did with the BLM protestors - instead of talking about how "27 police officers were injured in "largely peaceful" protests", they will run major front page headlines like "27 police officers injured by far right violence".

At this point, the majority of the public will lose the ability to be nuanced. The double standards will be too obvious to ignore. Fuelled by a constant stream of images of white people kneeling, washing POC feet and publicly apologising, as they already are, they will conclude that their very identity is under attack. At this point, all their sensible aversion to supporting thuggish far right groups will evaporate. They will believe they are in a war for their survival and extreme measures are justified.

At the next election, which will likely be brought forward for one reason or another fuelled by mass unemployment resulting from the economic depression, far right parties will make significant inroads. When I say “far right”, I am not talking about what the far left call “far right” such as anyone who talks about controlling immigration. I’m talking about genuine far right parties that talk about *reversing* immigration and deportations.

These parties will not win seats or get anywhere near Government but they will put a UKIP-like pressure on the Conservatives. Boris Johnson will likely be ousted as too soft and liberal and replaced by a law and order hardliner.

From here, I’m afraid, the journey is all too obvious.

The only way to prevent this is to reverse the re-racialisation of our society. Either we learn to live together or the very idea of a multi-ethnic society is over. 

Double Standards

Tim Montgomerie makes the obvious point: 

Every word of this Tweet is true but did Victoria Derbyshire tweet “left-wing thugs attack police” last week? A BBC journalist needs to be consistent and needs to be seen to be consistent.

June Open Thread

Events, dear boy and girl, events...

This has always resonated with me from W.B. Yeats - despite him famously being an awful idiot:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

And on that happy note...

Here's a splendid, spanking-new open thread. 

Sorry for all the silences - the blogging equivalent of social distancing? - but thank you for your continued support and comments. 

Please bear with us and keep on having your say.

First they came for the statues

First, they came for the statues. 

“TAKING A KNEE” TO THE DESTROYERS OF WORLDS

Melanie Phillips has written an excoriating analysis of the current crises. 2020 is the real 1984. Eloquent, forensic and deeply insightful.

There is one aspect that needs closer examination though. The question of whether the ‘thuggish’ and ‘far-right” groups who are planning to defend the status quo (monument-wise) are reprehensible for their principles, or merely for their methods.

After all, Tommy Robinson’s Luton-born compatriot (who cut her documentary teeth on “My Hometown’ ("sorry, episode currently unavailable"!!) is currently one of the BBC’s most esteemed luvvies. 

The weakness of the Conservative government, the police, the media and the powers that be are leaving an opening - a vacuum - into which ‘Tommy Robinson’ and his motley supporters *thuggish groups around the country” are bound to fall. All this is troubling, but it raises another question. 

When highly educated and intellectual voices like Melanie Phillips reflexively condemn Tommy Robinson who, by the way, does an excellent job of discrediting himself, are they aware that he is not exactly the ‘ignorant racist thug’ they dismiss him as?

 Or, is it simply that the ‘mob’ who seem to rule the roost these days, would, in turn, condemn her by association, (even more than they do already) should she or anyone like her be caught expressing the slightest smidgeon of sympathy for T.R.

We can’t all be Oxbridge graduates. Personally, I’m full of admiration for the eloquence and perspicacity of figures such as Melanie and writers like Brendan O’Neill and Douglas Murray, (bended knees!) so I would really like to understand whether they are right to dismiss T.R., or are they fearful of the Twitterati mob……. or merely being snobbish? 

Genuine question.

Banned!

BANNED!

A Typical black Person.

The racist movie (above) was withdrawn.  Graven images of slave traders (suitably labelled) will soon be available in a museum near you, for example, the portrait of a notorious slave master known as Papa Lazarou (illustrated below) 

portrait of slave-master (historic)

Brendan O'Neill brings us news of further dystopian developments.

I assume the BBC has compiled a list of things you can make fun of. Let’s call it a shortlist.

1. White men.
2. Conservatives. (Fatcher, Boris, etc)
3. Trump.
4. Christians.

Ermm…….

Dystopia

In the brave new world:

• TV channels (the BBC, Sky, al-Jazeera etc) give us 4-hour non-stop coverage of a certain funeral. 
• Al Sharpton tells us that the dead man’s “only crime” was to be born black. 
• On the Today programme Chris Patten (!) suddenly becomes the voice of reason.
• 1q§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§qq (The cat typed that)
• The Times (!) (£) prints: “Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, released a two-minute racist outburst in which he accused police of being “soft-handed” at the protests because there were “too many people who aren’t white”.
• Hmmm
• I don't think Boris is very well. The other day his voice was weak and he looked frail. (No wonder)
• Wake me up when it’s over.

Be vigilant !

Questions and answers. The 'other' racism

The ‘other’ racism

Dawn French’s comedic response to an “are you or are you not” question was an emphatic “Not!” which was very funny. If the BBC were to be asked, under oath, if it is an ‘ideologically’ anti-racist organisation or not, I’m afraid the answer would also have to be ‘not’.

Can we take it that racism is generally considered to be bad’? That’s a very clumsy statement but it will do for now. If we can take it that anti-racism is ‘good’, do we believe that the BBC, as an institution, includes or excludes ‘hatred of Jews’ in its interpretation of racism? Jeremy Corbyn uses the phrase “antisemitism-and-all forms-of-racism” therefore, impliedly, he sees it as a separate and possibly lesser, ‘ism’. 

Since Islam is firmly established in multicultural-Britain as just one of a number of ‘diverse’ religions, and the racist element within it is studiously ignored,  I’m asking whether overt antisemitism (or antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism) is acceptable or just an opinion and therefore sort of okay?

We are often told that being (ideologically) ‘anti-Israel’ is a legitimate position. What does that mean? A generous interpretation could be, say, stopping short of disputing Israel’s ‘right to exist’, yet critical of most retaliatory or self-defensive acts by Israel. (Because of support for the Palestinian cause)

Is anti-Israel activism a prejudice, though? Israel-bashers argue that hatred of Israel is a logical response to a nasty, totalitarian regime, and given the way it has been portrayed by the mainstream media for the last seven decades, incurious people are bound to see it that way. A circular self-propagating mash-up in which the snake eats its own tail.  

I don’t buy the idea that being ‘anti-Israel’ is “just an opinion” and a mere matter of ‘picking-your- side’ between two equally innocuous teams and where your choice might be random, traditional or you just like the colours of their strip. Why not?  Simply because when one takes an interest in proper, pre-1967 history, unlike the lazy and historically illiterate BBC, the opposing sides are neither equal nor innocuous.  Let’s simplify it and reduce it to choosing between goodies and baddies. 

If the BBC were truly ideologically opposed to ‘pure’ racism, would it really tolerate, let alone revere, so many fundamentally antisemitic (generally hard left) contributors and pundits?

Peter Oborne’s relationship with the BBC is a case in point.  There is a relationship because, for one thing, Oborne is a regular presenter of The Westminster Hour. A responsible position, I’d say, suited to someone respected by the Beeb. But Oborne makes little secret of his prejudice. We can easily bracket Oborne with a particular breed of ex-BBC staffer. The ones that morph into full-on anti-Israel campaigners the moment they’re unleashed from the constraints of impartiality under conditions in the BBC’s charter. People such as Tim Llewellyn and Alan Hart deceased. 

I’ve tried to apply due diligence in my exploration of the BBC’s indulgent blind-eyed approach to Peter Oborne’s racism as I don’t want to appear indolent, but I have to admit that I don’t start with a clean slate. I find him strange. His authoritative, self-assured manner somehow lends incongruity to his pro-Islam fixation, even though that particular brand of Arabist, anti-Jew sentiment typically sits comfortably with such characteristics. This cosy, mutually ego-massaging tete a tete with Owen Jones seems especially incongruous! Here the pair are defending Islam and calling Jeremy Corbyn a breath of fresh air.

A kind of debriefing, post-defeat interview with Jeremy Corbyn has featured on various websites recently, including the Campaign Against Antisemitism,

"Jeremy Corbyn says EHRC is just “part of the Government machine” in first interview since stepping down as Labour leader in latest attempt to undermine investigation into Party’s antisemitism 

It was conducted by a man named David Hearst with Oborne looking on and occasionally chipping in. Hearst is a man with whom Arabist / antisemitic credentials not only sit comfortably but invite themselves in, take their boots off and make themselves at home. The Corbyn interview can be seen on the anti-Israel ‘Middle East Eye’ website

“Jeremy Corbyn questions impartiality of EHRC antisemitism inquiry.
In first interview since stepping down, former Labour leader says allegations he tolerated antisemitism are 'wrong and extremely unfair'

The most informative critique of this bizarre interview is by Mark Gardner in the Jewish Chronicle:

“Out of office, Corbyn is creating an antisemitic myth to explain his defeat."

Hearst and Corbyn have more than Mr Milne in common. They were, for example, amongst the leading British cheerleaders for Sheikh Ra’ed Salah, who infamously preached a blood libel in Jerusalem. 

The themes of Mr Corbyn’s interview will repeat in far-left propaganda for years to come, from university academics in sociology departments throughout the country, to street demonstrations and the mad, sad and obsessive losers who pollute social media. 

The narrative is simple, yet dangerous. Mr Corbyn was a singularly good man who wanted to save people from the harm that is done to them. He wanted to tackle endemic poverty, end racism, stop wars and save the planet. Because of this, the establishment ganged up on him, bullying him with so much slander that his defeat was inevitable. The general public was hoodwinked by evil forces into rejecting their saviour and antisemitism was one of the primary lies wielded against him, which is why this is very dangerous for Jews.

Coincidentally, this topic has just appeared on Harry’s Place. Snap! 

The evolving pattern of Peter Oborne’s causes and crusades is chequered. Here he is in May 2019 in the Daily Mail, criticising Nigel Farage and praising the Beeb. Nigel Farage's blustering about BBC 'bias' exposed his gaping flaws.

In June the BBC gives him another ‘Week in Westminster’ slot.

In October 2019 he’s on Channel 4 talking to Krishnan Guru-Murthy about “Smears, Lies and Fake news.” (This time criticising the BBC.)

  

Back in 2009, however, he was praising the BBC and passionately defending certain reporters against accusations of bias. Naturally, Oborne would jump to the BBC’s defence as the subject was an accusation of antisemitism.  

“Some journalists we spoke to had been accused of antisemitism, and felt inevitably it had done some damage to their careers. Others, like the BBC’s Orla Guerin, against whom this very serious and damaging charge has repeatedly been made by the Israeli government, wouldn’t even talk to us off the record. It is easy enough to see why. Guerin is a brave, honest and compassionate reporter. Yet the Israeli government has repeatedly complained to the BBC that Guerin is “antisemitic” and showed “total identification with the goals and methods of Palestinian terror groups.”

He also leaps to the defence of Jeremy Bowen on the rare occasion that the BBC Trust upheld a complaint about “breaching their rules of accuracy and impartiality in an online piece, and their rules of accuracy in a radio piece.”

Read the full text to experience the bitter taste of Oborne’s account of the BBC’s 'pro-Israel' bias. I give you the concluding paragraphs:

“Not only has Bowen’s hard-won reputation been sullied, but the BBC’s international status as the best source of trustworthy news in the world has been gratuitously — if unintentionally — undermined.”               

 [...]The Trust’s ruling was met with dismay in BBC newsrooms. A former BBC News editor, Charlie Beckett, told us “the BBC investigated Jeremy Bowen because they were under such extraordinary pressure... it struck a chill through the actual BBC newsroom because it signaled to them that they were under assault.

No wonder Peter Oborne approved of Jeremy Corbyn’s “the EHRC is all part of the government machine” line of defence. Sadly, it’s impossible to make progress when faced with a brick wall of an argument. 

The most egregious example of an overtly racist anti-Israel polemic was a Channel 4’s  2009 Dispatches titled “Inside Britain’s Israel lobby. ” It was so badly produced and poorly researched that I suspect Oborne would be ashamed of its superficiality, should he be held to account for it now. But like Baroness Chakrabarti, he isn’t likely to admit that the work was shoddy, and retrospectively, something of an embarrassment.

If one were ever in a position to put the original question to the BBC, “Fess up! Are you an anti-racist organisation or not?” I’m afraid the honest answer would have to be a very firm ‘Not’.  

Does the Rule of Law Matter?

I rarely watch Channel 4 news and Krishnan Guru-Murthy’s interviewing approach is hardly my cup of tea, but having heard Justin Webb questioning Bristol’s Black Mayor this morning, I must say that I thought Channel 4 was the more probing of the two. Was Marvin Rees in favour of ‘direct (mob) action’ or was he in favour of upholding the rule of law? 

Isn’t there a little inconsistency in a black mayor, who (let’s assume) had been democratically elected, speaking so unequivocally about institutional racism against black people? I suppose this is a case where the exception (dis)proves the rule, but nevertheless, someone might have pointed out the irony there. 

“We have a statue of someone who made their money by throwing our people into water…and now he’s on the bottom of the water.” – Labour’s Marvin Rees, the directly elected Mayor of Bristol.

Militant black power (strongly connected to the Nation of Islam) is one of the most racist anti-white organisations that has ever been created. Having listened to Any Questions and Any Answers (which left this topic to the last minute) I gather that white people are collectively responsible for the murder of George Floyd, but it's unclear if anti-racism covers all forms of racism, or is merely a skin-shade type of thing.

What if you're a little more olive-skinned than your average whitey? When schools used to send us those over-priced whole-class photos that we were expected to buy, our children’s little olivey-complexioned faces always stood out amongst a sea of pale-pinks and the occasional little black one.  Can you get a Pantone shade-card that determines whether your life matters or not?

I think I’m excluded from both white privilege and black victimhood, and these anti-racist demonstrators seem remarkably unconcerned about a whole lot of race-related injustices that affect people of all hues or are perpetrated by blacks.

Oh, and watching Labour’s democratically elected Dawn Butler complaining about racism on the BBC whilst the Labour Party is being investigated by the ECHR for antisemitism is another of the inconsistent messages that the BBC routinely lets the most hypocritical and obviously opportunistic BLM advocates get away with.
 
Update:
Brendan O’Neill

"The idea that the tearing down of Colston's statue was a reckoning with the historic crime of slavery is especially ridiculous. Britain has had its reckoning with the horrors of slavery. The entire West has. I bet you could not find a single person in this country who thinks slavery was anything other than an abomination. 

[...] "Everyone knows how immoral slavery was. There is something deeply patronising in the idea that we all needed to witness the performative iconoclasm of the woke Taliban in Bristol yesterday in order to understand how terrible slavery is. Believe it or not, British people are not racists biting at the bit for the return of slavery. 

[…]"Colston lavished money on Bristol. He funded alms houses, schools, hospitals. Some of these institutions are still standing. Tear them down? After all, they were built with the blood money of a slave trader.

Will Heaven has also written about this in the Spectator and ITV has even produced a shortlist of persons and institutions that, it could be argued, should be torn down and erased from history in accordance with the revisionist ‘black revolution’. Edward Colston and of course Cecil Rhodes, Sir Robert Peel and a plethora of street names.

Is BBC bias getting worse?

Beyond belief

The statue of Sir Winston Churchill was defaced today. Someone attempted to set the Union Jack alight at the Cenotaph, which has also been defaced. Unarmed police have been attacked again around Whitehall and Parliament. 

I saw all this on social media. 

Meanwhile the BBC continues to trot out that "largely peaceful" phrase as if it's a sacred mantra. (TV Eyes shows at least 15 uses of it on BBC One alone from BBC journalists).

And Sky is copying them.

And their reporters have been putting out reports that would have embarrassed Comical Ali (Tom Symonds and Chi Chi Izundu among them).

And the BBC have been caught cropping images to remove the thuggishness of a thug. And Sky have been caught showing a tiny clip captioned 'Police draw batons' from the widely-seen footage of the remarkable scenes around Whitehall where an unarmed, massively outnumbered group of people fended off a hostile mob, retreating, and sometimes appearing to run away. 

BBC and Sky News are effectively censoring the riots. 

If it weren’t for social media, how would be know what's actually happening?

A lot of people are, therefore, getting angry with the media tonight.

Understandably.

I spotted a new Twitter campaign this evening called Defund the BBC. It only started around 5pm. Just over 5 hours later it has around 20,000 followers - which is a lot in a short space of time. 

Largely

The BBC says:

This has sparked a lot of criticism, some of it taking the form of alternative headlines:

• Mr Lincoln shot during largely peaceful production.
• 27 matchday stewards injured during largely peaceful football match.
• 40 million people killed during largely peaceful World War 2.
• Iceberg largely undamaged during Titanic maiden voyage.
• Evander Holyfield has one good ear after largely peaceful fight with Mike Tyson.
• Jackie Kennedy enjoys largely peaceful car ride in Dallas with largely alive husband. 

Anyhow, as Titania McGrath, notes:

• And apart from the injuries themselves, those 27 police officers were largely uninjured.

The new DG of the BBC

So they went for an 'insider'. Tim Davie is the new Director-General of the BBC.

The reactions on Twitter are intriguing. Some of the people on the Right I usually see criticising the BBC are being strongly positive about him - unlike the BBC's left-wing critics, who most definitely aren't.

He's not someone I know much about. He's never earned his a 'label' on our blog, so hasn't done anything 'naughty'.

I'm now reading that he's a former deputy-chair of Hammersmith & Fulham Conservative Party, so that probably accounts for why the Left aren't welcoming him with open arms.

Other black marks against him, I read, are that he went to a private school and then to Cambridge, has a commercial background (Proctor & Gamble and Pepsi) and has no background in journalism (even at the BBC, despite being head of radio, then BBC World, then BBC studios).

And who'd have thought it? He's a white, middle-aged man too.

All eyes will be on him. I wish him well.

The white smoke is coming soon

So it's not going to be James Purnell after all. (That's my crystal ball being flogged on eBay then.)

The four contenders to succeed Lord Hall as BBC director-general are two BBC insiders, head of BBC studios Tim Davie and director of content Charlotte Moore, and two non-BBC outsiders, former Telegraph editor/Dow Jones chief executive Will Lewis and the UK boss of Amazon Doug Gurr. 

They've all been interviewed this week and an announcement could come today. (How exciting!)

Tim's apparently the top tip among those supposedly in the know, though I'm sure many also expect it to Charlotte on diversity/identity politics ground. 

Are they the safe choices? 

I ask because today's Times places Mr Gurr front-and-centre and throws the spotlight on his "inflammatory" warnings about a no-deal Brexit - something which will inevitably get heads shaking among the pro-Brexit chunk of the population. 

As, just as inevitably, would the appointment of Mr Lewis, who has "Conservative connections". The Times says that his appointment "would ease tensions with No 10" - something that's unlikely to go down well with left-wingers in the media and on social media (or at Newsnight) especially as he's been with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp for the past decade. (I admire him for his key role in breaking the MPs expenses scandal, so that's probably the kiss-of-death for him). 

We'll soon know. 

Thoughtful Tweet

I tried to write about the current outbreak of 'anti-racist' civil unrest, but the sensitivities one faces as 'not a person of colour' overcame me and I gave up. But then I saw this:

Confession: #GeorgeFloyd is neither a martyr or a hero. But I hope his family gets justice. https://t.co/Lnxz0usrp5

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) June 3, 2020

May Open Thread

The moon rises on another open thread. Thanks for your comments and support. 

Watch this space

Referring to his own Spectator article and Charles Moore's piece in the Daily Telegraph, former ITV newsreader Alastair Stewart's Twitter feed yesterday evolved into an interesting conversation. It sounds as if Alastair has been having some interesting conversations with people high up in the BBC.

(The one slight snag with this thread is that it is unusually full of people called Alastair.) 

Alastair Stewart: Charles Moore is a high-Tory & former Editor of the Telegraph. That said, this is powerful: "The best thing for Boris Johnson to do right now is to let the BBC stew in its own existential juice & strike when Covid-19 has passed". Agree or disagree with Mr Moore's analysis, his suggestion to Boris Johnson about dealing with the BBC, post-Covid19, will not fall on deaf ears. Those who have brought this upon themselves might well reflect how they have played into their enemies' hands.
Alastair Bruce: The British Army has Values and Standards to guide conduct of all soldiers. Perhaps this is what you are suggesting here? When I joined Sky News I was taught similar lesson by my mentor & it’s stood me pretty well. Your reference to similar guidance chimes with that sage advice.
Alastair Stewart: Broadcasting has its 'Values & Standards' equivalents: Ofcom regulations & broadcasters' Editorial Guidelines.  Many fine political & investigative journalists have demonstrated important work can be done within them. Their breach is not an act of heroism; it is a suicide dash.
Mike: I used to argue against scrapping the licence fee, as I felt that would help worsen and ingrain bias in broadcasting. But, sustained biased behaviour over the past two years have convinced me we are already in that situation and the fee is indefensible.
Alastair Stewart: You capture, perfectly, the risk that some are taking. I am a passionate supporter of the BBC and want it to survive and thrive. Recent events will not help.
Jonathan: Do you think that the problem of perceived impartiality is magnified somewhat when it’s involving a state broadcaster, one that is paid for by something akin to a tax?
Alastair Stewart: The debate over the license fee leaves the terrain open. I've just had a note from a senior figure at the BBC, terrified that Charles Moore is spot on.
Alastair Newey: I'm with Mike. BBC produces fantastic content but you can sense anti-Tory bias in many of BBC journalists social media presence. Lewis Goodall is a perfect example of that. The question is, why people higher up in BBC don't see it as a problem.
Alastair Stewart: Many do... watch this space.
Really2020?: Who on earth is mentoring the current crop!!!
Alastair Stewart: Impartiality should be front and centre of any journalism/media studies curriculum. If it isn't, institutions taking those students' fees are acting under false pretences.
Nikki Clinton: Important points made by Alastair Stewart on why it’s imperative broadcasting media leave their partiality at the door and give it to us straight, leaving us to draw our own conclusions. We never needed a balanced opinion more than now.
Graham Dish: Agree, but what will drive this to happen? Practically speaking, what policy or regulatory changes will give us this desirable outcome?
Alastair Stewart: Enforcement. Period.
Chris Crampton: May I ask if you've had feedback from within the BBC supporting your view?  It would really help to know if there were at least some of them deeply concerned by all this.
Alastair Stewart: Yes.

Always on Twitter

Twitter-happy Lewis

The Sunday Times quotes a number of former BBC figures today on the subject of the Maitlis affair, of which the most damning comes from an old-school BBC legend:

Sir John Tusa, founding Newsnight presenter: "No editor of Newsnight that I worked with would have allowed that to go through. No presenter would have written anything like that. It is self-indulgence and it does no service to viewers. You can either choose to be a celebrity or you can choose to be a journalist. You can’t be both." 

The paper summarises that into a striking headline:

Emily Maitlis was chasing fame, not the story, says BBC veteran

Other blasts-from-the-past focus on a particular problem with Newsnight, though one that was  ultimately first set in train by BBC management:

Roger Mosey, former editorial director of the BBC: “The BBC’s traditional restraint has been swept away in the age of social media. On-air staff have been actively encouraged to engage with their audiences and to show their personality.”

Peter Barron, former Newsnight editor: “People at the BBC are concerned that journalists are more interested in breaking stories on Twitter than their own platforms. The nature of Twitter is driving broadcasters to be more eye-catching and that is leading into problematic territory.” 

The Sunday Times also includes a column by Matthew Syed. This is the paragraph that particularly stood out for me from it:

Matthew Syed, The Sunday Times: “This is why the corrosion of the BBC’s reputation for impartiality is of unusually grave importance. I happen often to agree with the editorial stance of Newsnight, but even I can see how its bias is wrecking the credibility of the entire institution. This isn’t about the coverage of Dominic Cummings per se, but a slow-motion car crash that has been unfolding for months, its journalists making the tragic (but common) mistake of conflating the virality of its social media posts with the credibility of its analysis. This could yet destroy the BBC itself, turning a great organisation into a facet of polarisation rather than a bulwark against it.” 

That "slow-motion car crash" looks set to continue unless senior management at the BBC get a grip on it. Some Newsnight journalists are still posting on Twitter, heavily, seven days a week - which, it must be said I passing, surely can't be good for their mental well-being. The programme's policy editor Lewis Goodall even put in a Saturday night appearance this week to have his say on Dominic Cummings again - and only on Dominic Cummings. (I don't think he's had a day off for weeks).

Did the BBC prevent John Sweeney from profiling Seumas Milne?

"posh, minor aristocrat Stalinist" Seamus 

I didn't know, until Sue informed me yesterday, that the famous John Sweeney now co-hosts a podcast called 'Last Call'. 

He presents it with an American journalist called Michael Weiss, and the pair of them call their double act 'Two Boozy Hacks'. (As far as John Sweeney is concerned, I think we can all guess why!) 

Their latest episode is called 'Labour Pains' and features former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson as a special guest. It last about an hour.

Unexpectedly, I must say that I enjoyed it. They all came across as rather charming.

John was on the pinot grigio, if you're wondering.

(In fairness, I did once write, "Do you know who I'd really like a night-out with? Yes, Panorama/Newsnight star reporter John Sweeney. He sounds great fun. I'd specifically like to be his all-expenses-paid-for guest", and I stand by that.)

The serious bit comes in the last quarter of an hour when they turn to Labour antisemitism. As you'd perhaps expect, having spent 18 years at the BBC, John Sweeney seems to have fully imbibed the general BBC resentment towards the State of Israel, and even has a Jeremy Bowen-like personal grievance against it, but was still distressed at the influx of the antisemites into the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.

Also interesting was their discussion of Mr Corbyn's director of communications, Seumas Milne. This was John Sweeney's boozy ramble on the subject:

I need to share with our three listeners my class hatred here in that I was brought up...we lived in in Manchester, and then when I was ten we moved down to Hampshire and I went to a grammar school. And Seumas Milne went to Winchester College. And it is comically posh. And its also where...most of the Cambridge spies when to Winchester. And then here's this almost comically absurd Stalinist who went to Winchester College. He is the voice of the Labour Party. And the problem I had when I was a BBC journalist was 'Can I please do a profile of Seumas Milne, in the way that I was allowed when I worked at The Observer, to do profiles for the BBC about Alastair Campbell and his shenanigans with Rupert Murdoch, blah, blah, blah, blah?', and it was impossible to get through. So, although Seumas was a posh, aristocratic Stalinist, people were afraid of him and it was impossible for me at the BBC to do a proper profile of the guy. 

Now that's very interesting, isn't it? The BBC didn't want to let John Sweeney do a proper profile of the avowed Stalinist-communist director of communications for the leader of the Labour Party. Was it just because they were afraid of Seumas Milne (and the Corbynistas)? Or was it also because, for some strange reason, the man's extreme politics didn't particularly worry them?

It's especially rum, isn't it, because the BBC hasn't shown any reluctance to 'properly profile' the Conservatives' director of communications. He was on the end of a full-length, thoroughly one-sided hatchet job earlier this year, fronted by Emily Maitlis. 

(What is it about his public antipathy towards the BBC and his role in winning the EU referendum for Leave and the 2019 general election for Boris Johnson that so excites the BBC's hostility towards Mr Cummings?)

Anyhow, cheers!