A Tale of Two Interviews

I was going to write something long and detailed about Sarah Montague's interview with Conservative London mayoral candidate Zak Goldsmith on this morning's Today, but Dateline London regular Alex Deane has already said all that needs saying via Twitter:

The interview was certainly a good deal more hostile than Sarah Montague's equivalent interview yesterday with Labour's Sadiq Khan. There was no laughter today, far more questions, far tougher questions and a lot more interruptions. 

Indeed, were I to revive my old 'interruption coefficients', Zak Goldsmith would have scored an IC of 2.5 (being interrupted 20 times in just over 8 minutes) and Sadiq Khan an IC of 1.3 (being interrupted 8 times in just over 6 minutes), meaning that Mr Goldsmith got almost twice as tough an interview (interruption-wise) than his Labour opponent - a stat that neatly matches my general impression of the contrasting nature of the two interviews.

The whole interview with Zak Goldsmith was quite extraordinary, not least the way Sarah Montague first called Mr Khan "a Muslim candidate", then "the Muslim candidate", as if she seemed to believe that he's standing for mayor 'as a Muslim' -  which probably isn't what he'd have ideally preferred her to insinuate (even though he'd not be the first in exploiting it if it suited the circumstance.) 

Sarah Montague's whole line of argument here seemed to boil down to: So because he is a Muslim he can't be labelled 'radical', even if it's meant in the non-religious context (as it clearly was here).

Is that where we're getting to now, with the BBC's help?

"Belgian writer" or "Lebanese extremist"?

Pace BBC Watch....

Douglas Murray has tweeted a question to the BBC in response to an article by BBC Trending editor Mukul Devichand headline How the world was changed by the slogan 'Je Suis Charlie':

The offending BBC passage ran as follows:

The day after that, another - much bigger - hashtag peaked on Twitter, "Je suis Ahmed," which used the name of a policeman, Ahmed Merabet, who was killed in the attacks and was a practicing Muslim. 

"Je Suis Charlie attributed some kind of nobility to the content of the newspaper, which I couldn't really agree with," says Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Belgian writer who tweeted that tag. "My problem with them is that they publish racial stereotypes of Muslims." 

"Of course it's their right," he adds. "But it's the right of people to be appalled by it as well."

BBC Watch points out that, as well as those ties to Hezbollah, Dyab Abou Jahjah also published a Holocaust denier's cartoon in 2006 and made highly inflammatory comments in defence of it, denouncing (for example) Europe's "cult of the Holocaust and Jew-worshipping" and talking of "hoax" gas chambers. 

The Independent describes him as "a Lebanese extremist who was banned from Britain by the last Labour Government".

So Douglas Murray's question is indeed a "pertinent" one, isn't it?



Interjection (Sue)
One of Corbyn's mates, innit? 

Britain's Muslim Soldiers

Those watching BBC One this afternoon might have watched a 40-minute documentary called Britain's Muslim Soldiers. 

Though it turned out to be an interesting and engaging programme, it had an obvious purpose behind it - a purpose made even clearer by the BBC's own synopsis:

This timely one-off documentary follows the story of the restoration of a forgotten and dilapidated burial ground for 27 Muslim soldiers who gave their lives fighting for Britain in two world wars. 

Shot over three years, the film shows the struggle of two understated pioneers - Zafar Iqbal, a Muslim from Woking Borough Council, and Elizabeth Cuttle, a local Surrey history enthusiast - as they battle to get this small plot of land restored and recognised as a symbol of an important and largely unknown part of British history. Using archive material and interviews with historians and surviving descendants, the film also reveals the stories of some of the Muslim soldiers once buried here, and through their experiences the history of the Muslim contribution to the British war effort in World War I unfolds. 

The film ends with the voices of modern Muslims who believe this shared narrative is one of the ways that prejudice and distrust of Islam in modern Britain might be overcome. [One of the latter even used the word 'Islamophobia'].

Looking at the credits, the Executive Producer behind this programme - filmed over three years - is none other than Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC's (Muslim) Head of Religion and Ethics, thus showing his personal commitment to getting it onto the BBC's airwaves.

As this is a "one-off documentary", however, it unfortunately doesn't look as if Mr Ahmed will be giving us Britain's Hindu Soldiers or Britain's Sikh Soldiers any time soon.

Two questions linger in my head after watching it.

The first is trivial: Why do so many BBC documentary makers feel they have to use Philip Glass-style minimalist music in documentary after documentary? (It's annoying and distracting once you notice that it keeps on happening - and has been happening for a least a couple of decades now).

The second is much less trivial: Why do so many BBC documentaries have such blatant 'designs' on us? Why must they keep trying to make us see the world the way they want us to see the world? Why does so much of what they do so often emit a strong whiff of propaganda? 

It seems odd...

This is a fair point, as far as I can see, from Quentin Letts (the BBC Trust's 'very naughty boy') on Twitter:

Guardian editor scores 4/24 on UK Citizenship Test

Helen Pidd

The Sunday Mirror has got its hands on some of the questions from the UK Citizenship Test and has put them to its readers in the form of a quiz. 

It's a fun test (if you're future doesn't depend on it), so you might like to try it too:

Can YOU pass the UK Citizenship Test?

With a bit of 'inspired' guessing at times I managed 21/24, so I'd be 'in' as you need 18/24 to pass. 

The participants in this morning's paper review on BBC Breakfast - Helen Pidd of The Guardian and BBC presenters Jon Kay and Steph McGovern - might well be 'out' though. 

They were all very keen to stress how hard it is. 

Helen - the Guardian's northern editor - declared the questions to be "bloomin' hard", and other such comments followed:

Helen Pidd: They were really difficult. I only got 4/24. I was quite tired when I was doing this this morning. 

Jon Kay: Some of these you'd have to revise for.  

Helen Pidd: Do you know who built the Tower of London?  

Steph McGovern: I don't think we're UK citizens, are we?
Jon Kay: I don't think we are!
Helen Pidd: Yeah. You should count yourself lucky if you've already got a British passport that you don't have to pass this fiendish test.

Steph find Question 11 particularly perplexing:

What is a responsibility that you will have as a citizen or permanent resident of the UK?
A To keep your dog on a lead at all times
B To avoid shopping on a Sunday
C To look after yourself and your family
D To grow your own vegetables

Which ones did I get wrong? Well, the following...

Which case is held in County Courts?
A Divorce
B Murder
C Minor criminal offences

Is the following statement true or false? Wales united with England during the reign of Henry VIII
A True
B False

...and, very embarrassingly, this one:

When walking your dog in a public place, what must you ensure?
A That your dog wears a special coat
B That your dog never strays more than 3 metres away from you
C That your dog does not come into contact with other dogs
D That your dog wears a collar showing the name and address of the owner 

And on that bombshell!...

Er, no...I almost forgot the point about BBC bias here.

After all of their 'astonishment' at how hard this test is for those poor immigrants trying to become British citizens, at no point did either of the BBC presenters add something that Helen from the Guardian had forgotten to mention from that short Mirror's article - namely the Home Office's statement as to why the test is so tough:

“Becoming a British citizen should be a privilege, not a right, and the requirements are rightly demanding.”

That is something they should have mentioned, shouldn't they? 

The monotheistic BBC

Julian Fellowes, creator of Downton Abbey, has been speaking to the Mail on Sunday, and he's had some interesting things to say about the BBC:

Fellowes says: ‘I have read that we went to the BBC with Downton and were turned down, but it’s not true.  

'They were not, they are not, happy with dramas that do not reflect their own political and philosophical viewpoint.  

'The great thing about making Downton Abbey with ITV was that they let us get on with it. The BBC wouldn’t have done that.’ 

Does he mean the BBC is too left-wing to have been sympathetic to the aristocratic Crawley family?  

‘I do not want to be labelling in that way, they are just more interventionist. They do seem to live in a rather Seventies bubble.  

'They do not seem to see their obligation to reflect the differing viewpoints of the entire population, only the viewpoints of the group of the population of which they approve. 

‘I am not sure that is completely just given that the corporation is funded by public money. 

'I would not wish to see the BBC become a Tory-supporting organisation instead of a Labour one, but I do think they should find a more polytheistic position than they have at the moment.’ 

Anti-Islamic State hackers attack...the BBC

Of course, neither me nor Sue would find this in any way funny. The BBC, after all, is nothing to do with Islam........ic State:

"The BBC's Middle East editor Alan Johnston"

Here's something odd for BBC watchers from tonight's main BBC website article on the incendiary execution by those nice Saudis of a prominent Shia cleric - an act furiously denounced by those nice Iranians:

Eh? "....the BBC's Middle East editor Alan Johnston reports"? 

Isn't Jeremy Bowen the BBC's Middle East editor? 

The last time I heard Alan Johnston (famously kidnapped by the Palestinian Army of Islam [which, I don't need remind you, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam - hence it's name!]) was safe and sound helping sing the praises of Pope Francis in Rome.

Has he moved back to the Middle East again? Surely not as the BBC's Middle East editor though?

To repeat: Eh? 

Or is it just a mistake from a BBC online journalist, destined for a swift, silent re-edit? 

Time will tell.

It would be a lovely New Year gift though to see Jeremy Bowen dispatched from the Middle East to, say, Pyongyang. (I can easily imagine him slurping at the foot of Fat Boy Kim.)

Absurdist antisemitic tragicomedy (with rough transcription)

There has been a lot of coverage of that antisemitic rant. Was it worthy of any coverage?

Most people seemed to think the host should have cut it short, or that the host must have been sympathetic to the caller because he allowed him to go on for 13 minutes.

I didn’t think Simon Lederman was sympathetic in the slightest. He was just out of his depth.   I’m afraid it was like something out of the two Ronnies.  

Inarticulate, faltering rhetoric from the caller and the apparently tenuous grasp of history (from caller and host) turned the whole thing into a parody out of ‘Down the Line’. 

It might have been worth broadcasting if the host had been sharper, but the enormity of the caller’s delusional conspiracy paranoia would have stumped many an experienced  debater, so it ended up being an exercise in how not to demolish an antisemitic ignoramus. 

Hello! Men in white coats! Where are you?

Who are the Zionists?

Daphne Anson called him the heavy breather. I think the phone must have been inside his mouth and he began with a theatrical, menacing drawl. “The establishment is controlling us all.” 

“Andy from St. Margaret’s” started his attack on Radio London’s Simon Lederman radio program by stating that the world is “not free” and “they are trying to control us more and more and more. They want to put a chip up our backsides…the elites… A ring through our noses, and a vizor for our horizons… the Rothschilds… It’s about the Zionists.”

Absurdist antisemitic tragicomedy with rough transcription.  Act 1:

“Who d’you mean?” asks the host 

“The Rothschilds! The Rothschilds are controlling us all, and don’t get confrontational with me!”

“I’m not” counters the host, defensively. “Is this how you go through life? Getting arsey when questioned? "

“Yes.”[..] “It’s about the Zionists”

“Who are the Zionists?”

“Good question. The Zionists........ 100 years ago, right, okay, who wanted, who wanted to say.., I want to create a... Israeli state. Right? It was Palestine, right. Okay. And most.. of the Jews...of the world... come from.... eastern Europe! From a place called, originally,  from an empire called Khazaria. And they turned to Judaism about seventh century. They’re not from Palestine” 

Cue long, loud intake of breath. 

“They came from there, and the Rothschilds.. the people who own the Bank of England, the people that own the federal reserve, they’re all Zionist Jews the people that own corporate America, the media, you’ll find, if you just do a little bit of research, that ...all Zionist Jews. We are ruled by Zionist Jews.”

By this time Simon Lederman is flummoxed and  floundering. So much conspiracy paranoia, where to start? 

“How are you... how are you ruled? I mean in terms of the creation of Israel...? (attempts a sketchy/ potted history of the creation of Israel) ......."You don’t believe that’s the case?”

“Well, you have to understand, well for a start, I mean the history of Jews... from Palestine from Khazaria, of Judaism okay, it’s a long long history, okay thousands of years, has nothing to do with Zionism. Zionism, you’ll find a lot - we have been.... not told anything in this country.... in the mainstream media but the - the  - Zionism is about the State Of Israel but if you go to true Judaism, they’re against the state of Israel. The very - those guys with the hats and the curly hair they have huge..”

“These are the ultra othodox.......”

“What? They’re just true Judaists”

Vague  waffling about Neturei Karta.

“Orthodox Jews, from different sects, aah but a-a-a-um, many of that sect, of- of one of various sects, they are against the state of Israel. For philosophical religious reasons spiritual reasons” 

Big inhalation

“And you won’t ever see that on our media.”

“Why do you have such an interest in such a narrow aspect of..”

“Narrow? narrow? A handbag? Because the point about it is, all fundamentally so sparklyfy(?) so hugely wide - it - they - control the Munneeyy. The Munneeey. Finance.”

“It is only Jews that wield control in the world?”

Intake of breath

 “Th-th-thh......”

“Because you haven’t named me any aspects of life"

“80% of corporate America, of the media, is owned. By. Jews! Right, and they’re Zionist Jews. I’m against Zionism, not Judaism. I’m against Zionism, because I believe that the state of Palestine, and the funny thing is  - before Israel was created, and I understand the security of the Jews needing secure but before it was the Europeans that actually oppressed and killed the Jews, not the Palestinians, not the Arabs,... and the Arabs themselves in Palestine they were the safest ever.”

“What would you have done post WW ll? “

“Well yet again the British Empire that was, has created huge problems for the future.”

“What would you have done?”

“Well, I would never..Balfour created essentially the state of Israel it should never have.. it was a land Palestine that the British had a protectorate over...”

“This is what you wouldn’t have done -”

“About what?”

“You said you understood the need for security.”

“Germans were the ones that killed them, right? Eastern Jews.”

“You said the threat to Jews came from Europe and not from the Palestinians”

“Arabs, exactly You mentioned second world war.”

“I’m asking what you would have done at the end of the second..”

“Well we shouldn’t have done anything...I understand what Jews felt at the end and the pogroms, but you have to understand, how many Red Indians were lost in America, how many were cleared out, how many were decimated in America 17m do you know how many Aborigines have been..... we keep going on and on about ‘The Jews” 

“No. With due respect you’re the only one who’s done that.”

This has descended (if it could possibly get any lower) to pure farce by this time.

“No I’m doing it now, but I’m saying in mainstream media they keep banging on about the Jews and the ugh ugh ugh ugh the holocaust. There have been many holocasts “ (that’s what he said)

“It’s in the news because there’s live conflict going on....and not in Australia”

“No because they wiped them out!”

“I understand that”

“17 million Red Indians.”

“I understand the point you’re making.”

“Right! It’s about time we recognised that fact. The bottom line is”

“But I think we’ve spoken about....”

‘What? about Americans being wiped out?”

“We speak about how America came to be”

“We are taking about numbers, right? We’re talking about numbers my friend. Six million Jews. Red Indians approximately 17 million were wiped out.”

“And in which year?”

In.. when.. in.. when.. they conolised America” (he said that)

“In which year?”

“Not in one year!”

“In which era?”

“In America, when the Western powers took over america they wiped out.... it’s the approximations of about 17 million...”

“Tell me when..”

(This is pure farce. It’s a Pinter play. Samuel Beckett)

“Over a period of... I would say... I can’t say specifically but I will try and get as narrow to what your question is ......(vast inhalations) you’re going over, about over, about 150 year period.” 

“Do you not think the reason the holocaust is discussed more is because some of the people who went through that are still living?”

“Naoow it’s got nothing to do with that. It’s got nothing to do with that the bottom line is that..”

“You’re telling me that has nothing to do with the fact that that is discussed more than ....”

“Right. So you’re really trying to tell me...”

“I’m not telling you anything. I’m asking you a question”

“You’re asking me a question fair enough. Are you going to alleow me to speekk?”

“Yes!”

“Because you’ve done a lot of trivia tonight so now you’ve got to listen to something profound.”

“I don’t have to listen to anything”

“This is our station. It’s the people’s station okay?”

“And I’ve given you more than anyone...”

“You’ve given me this point because you know you’ve never heard this before, and..”

“There’s no need to shout at me”

“I’m not shouting at you. I’m being firm with you.”

“That’s fine.”

“Don’t try and dominate me! Okay? Let’s talk on a level playing field.”

“It’s level, it’s level.”

“Thank you so the point is what I’m saying to you, right, the sig... lets get down to the boddom line of what's we are neow”

“You’re not going to answer my last question.”

“Remind me briefly”

“You’re saying that the reason the hollicaust is being discussed more isn’t because the people who suffered in it are still alive?”

“No and I’ll tell you the reason why I said that because there are red indians who have suffered their families from the past suffered”

“From the past”

“So how far d’you wanna go back?”

“The closer....”

“The reason it’s not discussed is because we’re dominated by the Jewish system. The Jewish financial system the Rothschilds control us and the bank of England, the federal reserve is run by Zionist Jews.”

“Now we’re going back to where we started, goodbye”

It would have been an ideal vehicle for Pete and Dud. Pity they're not around.

And the winner is....

By one of those strange quirks of fate - or, more likely, merely by the sheer obsessiveness of the long-distance blogger - I've now become the unofficial archivist for the BBC News Channel's/BBC World's flagship weekly news review, Dateline London.

In that capacity, here are the guest rankings for 2015 - ranked by number of appearances...

Regular readers of this blog will already be able to guess this year's winner (spoilers!).  

He's been the undisputed winner (i.e. the most-invited guest) every year since I properly began monitoring the programme back in 2009.

In fact it really is time that the programme officially made him their President-for-Life...

...and that he was given the keys to the balcony at Broadcasting House so he could step out, at will, wearing a George Galloway hat and sporting a loaded rifle, to greet the cheering crowds below and hail his latest glorious appearance on Dateline as 'the mother of all appearances on Dateline'. 

Yes, he'll be dancing with delight in Trafalgar Square tonight, folks! - almost as much as if Iranian missiles had just struck the people of Israel...

Step forward Abdel Bari Atwan, soon-to-be Life-President of Dateline London. 

We salute your indefatigability, sir!....

....and we salute the indefatigability of Dateline London too in resolutely ignoring masses of complaints over the years about Bari's record of extreme comments - some of which would make Tyson Fury sound like June Whitfield!  and their apparent fond indulgence of him.

Yes, they've stuck doggedly with their man through thick, book promotion, and thin. They just can't get enough of him (for some reason), Israel-hater though he is! 

Here then are the much-anticipated full rankings, by number of appearances in 2015. They are guaranteed to make your eyes bulge too!:

12

Abdel Bari Atwan 

10

Marc Roche 

9

Stephanie Baker 

Janet Daley 

Thomas Kielinger 

8

Michael Goldfarb 

7

Alex Deane 

Steve Richards 

6

John Fisher Burns

Jeffrey Kofman 

Maria Margaronis 

Mina al-Oraibi 

Agnes Poirier 

Polly Toynbee 

5

Yasmin Alibhai Brown 

Greg Katz 

Nesrine Malik 

Stryker McGuire 

Nabila Ramdani 

4

David Aaronovitch 

Ian Birrell 

Eunice Goes 

Owen Jones 

Jef McAllister 

Rachel Shabi

Ned Temko 

3

Stephanie Bolzen

Roger Cohen 

2

Bernard Burrell 

Henry Chu 

Lilit Gevorgyan 

Dmitry Linnik 

Adam Raphael 

Amir Taheri 

Safak Timur 

Guney Yildiz 

1

Sebastian Borger 

Mary Dejevsky 

Abdallah Homouda 

Mustapha Karkouti 

Rashmee Lal 

Vincent Magombe 

Kevin McKenna 

Alexander Nekrassov 

Brian O'Connell 

Annalisa Piras 

Ashis Ray 

Jonathan Sacerdoti 

Dmitri Shishkin 

Sharon Tabari 

Safak Timur 

Diane Wei Liang 

Xinran Xue 

A hoot

This morning we were treated to another guest editor on Today.  “Our guest editor today is the former chief executive of BP, Lord Browne” (sorry the content doesn’t seem to be working) 

So, straight to the bit about ‘coming out at work’. I do realise that this must have been deeply traumatic for this person, but after all, in the end everyone was awfully nice and kind. But I couldn’t help wondering if gay men automatically felt obliged to plead the case for every other minority. 

I’m talking about the new specially protected species, “trans”. Not so long ago we were allowed to laugh at the likes of Les Dawson in drag. Pantomime dames and great chunky fellas in dresses were comical. Not any more. You have to take any masculine-looking chap with a gravelly bass voice who claims he’s always found himself to be in the wrong body and is now a lady, as an actual lady. You mustn’t laugh. 

.

On the plus side that probably puts the kibosh on most of David Walliams’s repertoire

Come to think of it, I myself have often felt I was in the wrong body. I feel more like an owl. From now on kindly address me in toowit-toowoo.  Not quite sure what to do about toilets yet. I haven’t decided when to go for the surgery, but I’m hoping to get it on the NHS.

Back to those 'Today' guest editors....

Just going back for a while to this year's Today guest editors....

As the week went by it became a little more apparent as to why the BBC chose who they chose (if you're of my way of thinking about the BBC). 

Working backwards....

Today's guest, former BP boss and crossbench peer Lord Browne, was there as an advocate for action on gay rights and global warming (though not necessarily both at the same time). 

Yesterday's guest, former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and crossbench peer Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, was there as an advocate of rights for disabled people.

NewYear's Eve's guest, British architect David Adjaye, creator of the Stephen Lawrence Centre and the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, was there to discuss architecture and race from an ethnic minority viewpoint.

Last Wednesday's guest Miriam Gonzalez Durantez was there as Nick Clegg's wife and to discuss 'gender' - men and women - and power, and promote positive stories about immigration to the UK.

Now, yes, actor Michael Sheen on Monday had no single angle to push (though he pushed several, being a left-leaning, political active actor) and Labour-voting cyclist Bradley Wiggins on Tuesday really only wanted to talk about cycling and fame (though he did get to speak to Jeremy Corbyn), but none of the above lessens my suspicion that the guest editor selection here has been highly indicative of exactly where BBC Radio 4 is coming from, both generally and on specific issues - namely from an engrained left-liberal stance.

The exception was the progamme's guest business editor through the week - much of whose contributions came early on in the show (including before 6.30 am): former David Cameron business guru Rohan Silva, the highly successful son of immigrants from Sri Lanka. 

Rohan was on to promote entrepreneurship - and did so very effectively. He also got Kevin Connolly to do a positive piece about Israel (on New Year's Eve) - a fascinating piece about Israel's world-beating/world-helping success when it comes to start-up businesses.

Who will we have on next year?

How about Scottish composer James MacMillan (to talk about music, Roman Catholicism and Scottish politics), Canadian cultural commenter Mark Steyn (to talk politics and culture), Nobel Prize winning biochemist Sir Tim Hunt (to talk science and media witch hunts), philosopher Roger Scruton (to talk about anything he fancies), actor and former footballer Vinnie Jones (to talk about Britishness and the monarchy) and Richard Dawkins (to talk about science and Islam)?

For balance, Owen Jones could guest edit the Sports news.

Sorted?


Update (3/1): Here's former Today editor Rod Liddle's take on this from The Sunday Times:

Apparently, the reason BBC programmes such as Radio 4’s Today resort to guest editors at this time of the year is to get their shows talked about in the press. 

Well, it certainly works: the papers are indeed full of stories about how staggeringly awful each programme has been. Especially the one presided over by that immaculately self-regarding entity, Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, a lawyer and the wife of that chap who used to run the Lib Dems. 

A government minister, Anna Soubry, was so discomfited by the wittering idiocies of this particular programme that she tweeted that maybe guest editors are a bad idea per se. 

One problem is that the people chosen to guest-edit these shows are always achingly right-on, so it is often hard to tell the difference from the usual show. Maybe if they invited someone like Marine Le Pen of the French National Front to have a bash at editing, we all might sit up and listen for a bit.

Tommy rot

Did you know that before Craig and I forsook fame and copious feedback - and all for the  noble principles of autonomy and obscurity (i.e., creating this blog) - we were well aware of the plight of Tommy Robinson aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?

Memory lane. I typed ‘Tommy Robinson’ into the Biased-BBC’s search engine, and up popped the evidence.  July 26 2011, September 8 2011, November 25 2011, and February 28 2012. (I also discovered that all my olden day contributions can be resurrected by clicking on ‘Sue’ in the header)

I’m not one to boast, (no, really) but just this once I wish to point out that even back then I saw potential in the lad. 

Yesterday Daphne Anson posted a video of the Ezra Levant show featuring our Tommy and his new book Enemy of the State, and I followed the links like a good girl, (Edgar Davidson,  Israelly Cool) 

And I read most of the btl comments as well, so I did! 

A commenter who uses the handle “John Smith” says Tommy is a fraud, that he’s only in it for the fame and fortune, he’s not really in danger, ‘it’s all about me me me”  -  and he claims that the whole Tommy Robinson phenomenon is nowt but a cynical exercise in self-promotion. 

The thing is though, that even if that were the case, and who am I to know whether there’s anything in it - it doesn’t alter the fact that he’s doing something that needs to be done, taking a stand against the Islamisation of the UK.

They say Tommy’s book deals mainly with how he’s been treated by the state. His claims may be exaggerated; there may be a whiff of conspiracy theory-ism about it all. But, as they say: “just because I’m paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me”  - and let’s face it, by backing the Islamists and punishing the patriots the authorities and the BBC are undeniably taking the line of least resistance. That’s Ezra Levant’s way of saying “appeasing”. What was happening was pretty obvious to some of us ever since that infamous “You’re not helping”  remark that came from a representative of the BBC, way back when.

“There wasn’t a piece of paper between us”

Adrian Chiles has been talking to the Independent about his new TV series called My Mediterranean with Adrian Chiles. 

He will apparently begin his series by laying out its mission statement:

On my journey around the Mediterranean I want to show that religion actually does more good than harm. I won’t be seeking out the religious zealots – they get quite enough airtime if you ask me. I just want to find the majority; the nice, normal, gentle people who happen to be religious.

Sounds very nice.

According to the Indie piece, many of his TV/BBC colleagues didn't sound overly enthusiastic to begin with, but something apparently clinched the deal with the BBC - and that 'something' turns out to be 'very BBC':

BBC2 controller Kim Shillinglaw commissioned the programme after Chiles told her how he and a Muslim taxi driver had a late-night discussion, bid each other farewell with a “God bless you”, and, he concluded, “there wasn’t a piece of paper between us”. 

That tells you a lot about a certain kind of BBC thinking, doesn't it?

Anyhow, Adrian Chiles's own attitude seems scarely less 'BBC' than Ms Shillinglaw's - despite all his time at ITV. He's a Catholic but proudly says that he's got: 

...more in common with a liberal Jew and a liberal Muslim than I have with even a conservative Roman Catholic.

That could almost be a part of the official guidelines for Thought For The Day. Edward Stourton's Sunday programme might even adopt it as its own official motto. 

In fact, Ed is surely bound to give Adrian a 'high five' next time their paths cross in Salford, and maybe he'll even invite the big man to join the Sunday presenters rota if we're lucky.

I'm sure Adrian Chiles would work his usual magic on the programme's ratings.

'Victim'-blaming

Matthew Parris of the Times - and BBC Radio 4 - isn't usually the sort to accuse the BBC of being biased. 

His thought-provoking piece in today's Times, however, makes a few criticisms of the BBC along the way.

(It was prompted by an interview he took part in with one of Today's guest presenters, the severely disabled Lady Campbell...not to be confused with Lady Colin Campbell from I'm a Celebrity.)

Here's a short extract:

There’s an easy, lazy habit into which (especially) our news media and (particularly) the BBC have slipped during my lifetime. We make an identifiable, flesh-and-blood individual — a “victim” — the centrepiece of any report on questions of social policy and public spending. The victim — the social housing tenant whose elderly mother will be unable to visit if he loses his spare room; the flood victim who has lost everything; the mobility-impaired mother calling for buses adapted expensively to her needs — are presented as cases in point. They make appealing witnesses. The audience’s sympathies are engaged on the side of the victim. 

A politician is then interviewed and repeatedly and aggressively asked what he or she is going to do about it, why they didn’t make provision for it, and how they can live with themselves in the knowledge of it. We may be given a picture of the politician’s own comfortable circumstances. The audience’s sympathy for the victim turns to anger against the politician. Nobody points out that it is not the politician’s own money the victim is asking for, but the audience’s. 

Something approaching a media convention has arisen, that the interviewer or reporter doesn’t beat up the complainant, but only the politician. On the BBC’s Question Time panel I once contemplated asking a wheelchair-bound member of the audience who (to applause) was berating a (Labour) minister on the underfunding of the NHS, why she had been smoking in the car park twenty minutes previously — but I thought better of it, probably wisely.

The media interviewer who grills the politician on the government’s housing priorities wouldn’t dream of asking the social housing tenant why he doesn’t go to visit his elderly mother rather than demand the right for her to stay with him. I have yet to see a roving reporter interview the drunks clogging up an A&E department and demanding to know what right they have to prolong the wait of everyone else. To ask a flood victim whether they’d thought of the risk when buying a house on an estate that has flooded often before would seem below the belt.

That's a very interesting series of points - and the ones about the media and, above all the BBC, are spot on...

...but I suspect I'm not alone in being a bit uncomfortable with his main point - whilst, at the same time, both understanding and largely agreeing with it!...

...the idea that the media, especially the BBC, should 'go after' those without power as much as those with power would ring alarm bells with most people - so it's a good thing former MP Matthew Parris isn't actually saying that. 

What he's actually saying, as I read it, is that the difference in treatment shouldn't be quite so stark or quite so rigid as it now is, with no questioning whatsoever of those without power - especially if those without power have behaved irresponsibly, and particularly if they then go on to demand that their fellow countrymen compensate them for the rotten fruits of their own irresponsibility (out of public taxation). 

I can't remember quite where I read something the other day but it was an online report on one of the top UK media outlets (not the BBC, but possibly Sky). The story involved a Lancashire man with a megaphone going to a neighbouring village and  yelling about the lack of media attention and government assistance he felt his own village had received during the recent floods (in comparison to other villages nearby)....

....a reasonable point (if true, as it appeared to be)...

...except that he then went on to demand that the government - i.e. the taxpaying British public - should cough up the money to compensate him, despite him (as the report mentioned in passing towards the very end of the article finally mentioned) not having any home insurance!

Many a deeply unsympathetic commenter below the line at that website pointed out that the man with the megaphone had brought his own financial losses on himself by fecklessly choosing not to take out home insurance. He'd done nothing to help himself, they said, so why should he expect us - people who do pay our house insurance and our taxes  - to pay for his fecklessness?

And those commenters, however 'below the belt' it might seem to others, were entirely correct about that, weren't they? The man was deeply remiss in opting not to take out insurance, wasn't he? If he'd paid a few hundred pounds each year to protect himself, his family and his property he wouldn't be in the financial mess he's now in, would he?

Yet would the BBC or Sky ever point that out? Ever challenge the man over that? 

Shouldn't they be doing so?

It is a good question, I think.

Rectifying a surprising omission

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

One side fits all

My first encounter with BBC News this year came with the first The World Tonight of 2016.

Its first segment dealt with the latest murderous gun attack in Israel - an attack by an Arab-Israeli on a Tel Aviv bar.

Disconcertingly, the programme then moved straight on to another Israel story - one bashing the Israeli government's "controversial" decision to ban a prize-winning novel depicting a love affair between an Israeli woman and a Palestinian man from the country's high school curriculum. 

So, Day One of 2016 and The World Tonight is already heaping criticism onto the Israeli government - less than ten minutes into its first programme of the year!

Is it starting as it means to go on?

The presenter (twice) noted the sarcastic criticisms of the decision made by left-wing Israeli novelist Amos Oz; played a clip of the aggrieved author Dorit Rabinyan condemning the "extremists" in her country's "regime"; and then interviewed left-wing Israeli journalist Bradley Burston from Ha'aretz.com, who talked of the "extreme", far-right elements within the Israeli government and called it "a blow against democracy" in Israel. 

No attempt was made to give the other side of the story. Everything was filtered through the perspective of the decision's strongest critics. 

Shouldn't some attempt have been made to let Radio 4's listeners hear - however briefly - the other side's justification - in their own words - for their seemingly disturbing actions? 

From outer space

To paraphrase Kodos from The Simpsons (cunningly disguised as as speechifying Bill Clinton)...

I say we must go onwards, not sideways; downwards, not onwards; and keep twirling, twirling...er...blogging against BBC bias until either the BBC stops being biased or an asteroid hits the earth or (whichever comes first)...

The asteroid hitting the earth scenario might come sooner than we think. It was among Bridget Kendall's wilder predictions for 2016 on last night's BBC Correspondents Look Ahead. 

Looking on the bright side though, Bridget thought that asteroid (along with other forms of natural catastrophe) might focus the human race's mind and make us all stand back and bit and stop bickering. 

Well, it might happen.

Here's to 2016!

New Year review

I suppose it’s the time of year when it’s customary to look back over the past year and sum up what you’ve achieved. The good the bad and the embarrassing.

I’m not as methodical at that kind of thing as Craig is, so come on Craig -  if you think you’re clever enough, as that Bradley Walsh chap on ‘The Chaser’ always says. 

I did try to look back at something I spotted only yesterday - or was it the day before - on the BBC website -  because I would have liked to mention (and link to) a couple of positive technological “heads ups” featured by the BBC recently, and one human interest story. 

But I can’t because of technical difficulties on the BBC’s website. I merely thought I’d draw your attention to them because they happened to be about Israel, and in an unusually positive fashion. They’ll probably give rise to no end of ammunition for those people who complain that the BBC is biased in favour of Israel, which they believe should be permanently no-platformed. 

The first one seems to have disappeared from the BBC website, but it briefly topped the sidebar on this very blog - under BBC News;  it was headed “Diet app”. 

The story was about a smartphone app that you could point at “food” and it would instantly detect and analyse the bad stuff therein. You know, calories, fats, sugar, gluten, sarin etc. The thing is, this piece of kit was an Israeli product. You’ll have to boycott it of course.

The other techie feature was on the Today programme, in the early morning business section. It was about start-ups. Israel is known as the start-up nation, and this was about a start-up that was all about start-ups. It just surprised me to hear about this in such a positive manner.

The other thing I heard, which surprised me even more was an interview with a young Israeli mother who apparently  became known as “Glocker Mom”  - a play on “soccer mom” if you care -  because she carried a gun (Glock) when she drove her children to and from school.  The interview was played ‘straight’.  I think something’s up with the BBC website, but if you get the “content doesn’t seem to be working” message as I did, you’ll have to take my (unreliable) word for it that (as far as I remember) no attempt was made by the presenter to play devil’s advocate and justify the stabbing, shooting and murder-by-car incidents, as, say Tim Willcox might have done, or to criticise the interviewee’s need to take precautions in such an extreme, contentious and potentially risky manner, or even to dispute that extreme circumstances dictate extreme measures. 

It was just a personal account of one mother’s fear of being attacked, you know, a personal tale, like the tales of Palestinian suffering the BBC brings us on a regular basis. Different though, in that a little context was included this time, unlike the contextless Palestinian grievances we’re used to. 

As for our hopes and wishes for this blog, well, it seems more likely that it will have an effect - (what do I mean?) than if we stopped blogging and attempted instead to make and pursue barrages of complaints through the BBC’s impregnable complaints procedure. 

In the unlikely event that a complaint from the likes of us should slip through the BBC’s iron dome and be upheld, (in yer dreams) the announcement of the decision to uphold, or partially uphold it, would be buried somewhere dark where no-one would notice it, leaving readers still believing something wrong! What? something wrong on the internet? Whatever next.

Complaining to the BBC isn’t going to change anyone’s mind, eh?

Forget the knee-jerk “complaints from both sides” malarkey. Palestinians and their supporters complain at the drop of a hat. They claim that the BBC is biased in favour of Israel. They base that on things like the BBC’s lone, uncharacteristic decision not to air the DEC appeal for Gaza.  Or on the outrage of Mark Regev being given the opportunity to be sneered at by one of the BBC anchors who hates Israel. (Israel should be no-platformed)

So what can you do? On the plus side, Craig has been taken up by The ConWoman. (The website, not ‘A con woman’ - i.e., some of his posts have been cross-posted on their website; they haven’t stolen him.) (Or have they?) 

This site has had a lot of hits and page-views, some of which were real, not just those annoying bots that confuse your stats.

When we set out we had hoped for a bit more btl interactivity. Comments and so on. But when you look at the content of some of the other blogs that started off with high hopes, it makes you grateful for the few thoughtful contributions from interested parties ‘out there’. 

Quality over quantity every time.

On the whole, it’s been just another year. Onwards and sideways, as Craig would say.

Happy New Year.

Impregnable consensus

Have German officials been watching Homeland? I have and so has Melanie Phillips.  Times (£)

“The fifth series of the American TV show Homeland ended last month. The series dealt with the West’s Isis nightmare in startlingly pointed fashion. The plot involved an attempted sarin gas attack by Islamists on Berlin’s central train station, facilitated by the cynical Russians with the suggestion that they believe such an atrocity is the only way of opening the West’s eyes to the Islamist threat.Running through the series was the view that the West is refusing to take the draconian measures necessary to deal with the Islamist terrorists. In one episode the CIA hitman Peter Quinn tries to tell myopic CIA bigwigs the facts of life about Isis.Quinn: “They’re there for one reason and one reason only: to die for the caliphate and usher in a world without infidels. That’s their strategy and it’s been that way since the seventh century. So do you really think that a few special forces teams are going to put a dent in that?CIA official: “Well what would you do?”Quinn: “200,000 American troops on the ground indefinitely to provide security and support for for an equal number of doctors and elementary school teachers.”CIA official: “Well that’s not going to happen”

Try and read it all. Later Melanie says:

“For years many British intellectuals have been consumed by a lethal sense of national and western self-loathing. They subscribe to an impregnable consensus around utilitarian ethics in which all hierarchies of values have been abolished and demonised as prejudice. What rules instead is moral and cultural equivalence - through which, at the same time, core western values always lose out.”

That’s absolutely spot on.

Not that I’d immediately think of the BBC (collectively) as British intellectuals, but I certainly think of it (collectively) as part of the impregnable consensus, and the rest of that particular paragraph from Melanie's article perfectly describes the moral stance to which the BBC subscribes. 

The BBC is one of the most influential sources people turn to, yes, for information education and entertainment. The BBC’s all consuming efforts to acclimatise the public to Islam and to persuade us that followers of Islam are “just like us, only more virtuous” is a theme that runs through all its output, from CBeebies, through news and current affairs, drama, soaps, to politics, Newsnight and religious broadcasting. It’s the thin edge of a very toxic wedge that will surely split us asunder. 

If you believe that it’s only Isis that we need to worry about because it’s a perversion of Islam, (which is the religion of peace) the impregnable consensus has got to you. Remember, the averted terrorist attack on a German city was not just fiction.