Who brought the race into this row?

Broadcasting House.

It has been drawn to my attention (I didn’t listen to it live) that radio 4’s Broadcasting House covered the Mail on Sunday’s piece about the feud between Michael Foster and the Corbynistas  in their paper review. 

The guest reviewers were: popular Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, anti-Israel campaigner Rachel Shabi and Kenton Allen, TV producer and former sound-effects person on the Archers. (I wonder if the Ambridge character ‘Kenton’ was named after him.) 

The topic in question came after the discussion about the Archers and I thought it was almost worth transcribing it, as it neatly encapsulates the contributors’ attitudes. to the topic in question. 

Paddy O’C:

Rachel Shabi, move the page. The Mail on Sunday -  what’s happening? 

RS:

“Well. It’s a bit um annoying to see the Daily Mail frame the story in this way. 

The headline ‘Corbyn purges top Jewish donor’ of Mail on Sunday article, and ‘reignites race row.’ Well I think it’s the MoS that brought the race into this row, um, this is about Michael Foster who was barred by Corbyn after he mounted an attack on the Labour Party leader though the MoS, and he likened the  Corbyn supporters to stormtroopers. So the, hehe, the violent, intimidating Nazi forces that helped their rise to power in 1930s Germany - um to call - to suggest that this is a purge of somebody who is Jewish, I think is …incredibly dangerous and damaging and unfair and the worst way to frame this subject. Antisemitism is a real and serious issue and the last thing we wanna do is to dilute or detract or in any way weaken people’s perception of what antisemitism looks like, and feels like and sounds like - um - Michael Foster has not been barred because he’s Jewish, he’s been barred because he’s likened Corbyn supporters to stormtroopers, which, at a time when the Labour Party is using, you know, theres’s abusive language all round, it’s the very last thing he should have done and it’s clearly a mistake.” 

Paddy O’C:

Well he’ll be giving his account of that on TWATO, thanks for bringing it to our attention. Jacob Rees Mogg, where would you start? 

JR-M:

Well just on that. I thought that was an excellent story by the MoS and it’s worth looking at the dateline that they produce, of serious problems in the Labour Party with antisemitism, and Maureen Lipman with whom I’ve reviewed the papers on your programme in the past, a very sensible intelligent lady, has raised these concerns, so I think just to brush them under the carpet is a mistake, ugh, but I would start with the Sunday Express…… 

Paddy O’C:

Rachel wants you to know she doesn’t want to brush it under the carpet… 

RS:

Actually the last thing I’m suggesting we do is brush the matter under the carpet and I just think that’s a really erroneous way to frame the debate. It is an issue, let’s make it an issue of antisemitism and not just a way to attack the Labour Party… 

KA: 

Well maybe the way to deal  with it is not just to expel the Jewish member who brought it to your attention…

RS: 

The Jewish member who brought it to your attention has been expelled or suspended for…

KA: 

That would be a moronic thing to do…

RS:

 ….for calling Corbyn supporters stormtroopers.

KA: 

Prone to hyperbole, he’s a former showbiz agent. I’m sure he’ll apologise for that, but to expel the Jewish member for just raising the issue of antisemitism seems to be a bizarre thing to do.

RS: 

Well I think that antisemitism is really important and I wish we could discuss it in a sensible way, without using it as a stick to either bash or, you know, not bash, the Labour Party. 

Paddy O’C:

Ok, we’ve got the passion here.

Well, at the risk of reigniting the race row yet again, I’ll refrain from using this to bash, you know, not bash, Rachel Shabi.

Breaking News

Breaking News  (Baking News) Oh calamity! Bake-off has been stolen! The BBC has been gazumped!  Oh well. 

Or as Windsor Davis used to say on the racist sitcom ‘It ain’t half hot mum’, "How sad. Never mind."

Corbyn's dilemma

Okay, this is Nothing To Do With The BBC but here it is anyway.

"Eid Mubarak to all British Muslims and Muslims everywhere!" ...and  "Chag Kasher VeSameach" to whom it may concern

British Labour leader Jeremy Corbin (sic) asked to remove a Hebrew greeting from his Passover message because it made him sound “too Zionist”, his former policy adviser claimed over the weekend. 

The Labour leader’s office denied the claim, however, saying it was categorically untrue, according to a report Sunday in The Independent. 

The allegation was made in a newspaper article on Saturday in which the former adviser, Joshua Simons, wrote, “After six months working as a policy adviser for Jeremy Corbyn, it was clear to me that the way Corbyn and those around him think about Jewish people is shaped by a frenetic anti-imperialism, focused on Israel and America.” 

“Without a hint of irony, one senior aide asked that I remove the greeting 'Chag Kasher VeSameach' from Corbyn’s Passover message, for fear that Corbyn’s supporters might think the use of Hebrew 'Zionist'”, charged Simons. 

Simons, who is Jewish, also said the Labour leader's office did not want Ken Livingstone disciplined after he claimed Adolf Hitler had once supported Zionism.

But, oh noes!

Oy Vey!  

More refugees please

I suppose the practice of having a limited number of anchors handling any number of issues inevitably leads to a ‘jack of all trades, master of none’ scenario. 

It seems that, say, Mishal Husain routinely gets the Muslim-related interviews and so on, but mostly it’s down to any given presenter to approach each item as best they can. This can lead to some annoying interviews, when the questions you might want raised, just aren’t.  

A good interviewer is supposed to ask the questions that we, the audience, would like to ask if we had the chance. They’re doing it on our behalf so the story goes. The problem is, of course, that you often get a generalised, one-size-fits-all product at the end of the day. Or at the beginning of the day, as is the case with the Today Programme.

This morning I listened to Sarah Montague talking to Rabbi Julia Neuberger about a letter she’s co-signed with other religious leaders asking the government to take in more refugees, particularly children. 

This is not especially about the letter itself, the minutiae of which I know not.  It’s about Sarah Montague’s line of questioning, which was pretty much confined to trying to get Julia Neuberger to commit to a ‘number’, which she obviously wasn’t prepared to do. She said so, in so many words, so asking her again and again was a bit of a waste of time.

I might not be your typical listener - on this matter at any rate - but if I were given the opportunity to chat with Rabbi Neuberger, I would take issue with her on other, perhaps more awkward aspects of this.

The most obvious problem was her ‘Muslims are the new Jews’ hypothesis. She made the simplistic comparison between the current refugee crisis and Jews fleeing Nazi persecution. 'They had been given sanctuary in the UK in the late 30s,' she reasoned, 'therefore the same privilege must be extended to child refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries now.'  This is not an ideal comparison for a number of reasons, but I understand that many people think it’s a vivid way of making their point, and I accept that. However, I'm still going to argue against it.

I would have been more impressed had Sarah Montague addressed assimilation, integration and general difficulties associated with absorbing large numbers of Muslims into our broadly secular society. None of those problems arose with Jewish refugees as far as I’m aware, for reasons of culture, ideology or quantity. 

Julia Neuberger pleaded that some of the child refugees had relatives already here who would willingly take them in, but I don’t necessarily see that as an advantage in terms of assimilation and integration. Some potential host families might be more integrated than others, though I don’t quite see how Sarah Montague could have raised that without sounding ‘racist’, but as a skilled interviewer she could have found a way. 

For me the biggest flaw in Julia Neuberger’s case was her use of the “AsaJew’ ploy. Or in this case, ’As a descendent of immigrants myself’. This ‘As-a’ business is not something to be played like a trump card. (not Trump, trump) Being a Jew, an immigrant, a member of the Magic Circle or being the actual shadow foreign secretary does not bestow upon one any special insights. 

Yet other aspect of this approach - (the UK took pity on the Jews, therefore they must take pity on the Muslims) that is never addressed, is that - in case anyone hasn’t noticed - antisemitism is rife these days. There is a growing hostility to Jews and a general feeling that they control everything.

There’s already a feeling that somehow the Jews are lobbying hard for unlimited immigration, and are responsible for all the woes of the West.

Pleading for more immigration isn’t going to endear Rabbi Neuberger (or any of the other asaJews) to the antisemites, a large number of whom are Muslims.

Inviting a new influx of antisemitic Muslims “into your home” looks very much like an extreme case of turkeys voting for Christmas, which amounts to an absurd absence of logic. This conundrum is hardly ever aired in public because it’s racist to point out the racism in Islam, so it mustn’t be mentioned.

Just think. The religious leaders might feel smug and good about themselves for writing this letter, while making the rest of us seem hard hearted and callous, but the people who hate all immigrants won’t like it. The antisemites won’t like it. The Muslims won’t even like it. 

To her credit, Sarah Montague did bring up the “political ramifications” of Germany’s generous immigration policy, but did not press the issue when the rabbi said “Just because of Germany’s difficulties, it doesn’t mean the UK could not take more.” “Doesn’t it?” might have been one answer.

I wish Sarah Montague had asked questions appertaining to any or all of the above, rather than the repetitive, superficial “How many?” approach she took, which is merely a version of the misguided ‘killer blow’ manoeuvre. It’s the same old “Yes or no?”…. “Did you or did you not?” strategy, favoured by Jeremy Paxman, and, when a Jew gets her dander up, Mishal Husain.

Reflections on this Sunday

I forgot the Andrew Marr show was starting half an hour early today so I went out for a walk.  I don’t know what I missed, but it couldn’t have been better than fresh air, big sky and sparkling sea on a beautiful, breezy, autumn day. 

Millions of surfers were out already. I spotted one wearing a huge oversized towelling maxi-poncho with a hood, roomy enough to get changed in/under. Never mind the burkini, this is what I call modesty. No more towel, hitched precariously below the belly. Must recommend it to David Cameron.

Anyway I did catch Andrew talking to Amber Rudd, who looked as though she’d been dragged through a hedge backwards - bit like me -  and I did notice that she was wearing a necklace in the form of a giant silver chain just like Theresa May’s. (Is that symbolic - of being chained to one’s office?)

The interview was virtually pointless because neither Theresa nor Amber are presently willing to divulge anything whatsoever. They say it’s premature “You don’t expect a running commentary on our Brexit negotiations, do you Andrew?”  Theresa May said something similar last week. No-one is sure whether the secrecy is a cover for downright uncertainty and indecision.  “Now what are we going to do?” Just lie back, repeat “we’re doing what’s best for the UK” and think of England.

********

All the best stuff occurred outside the usual Sunday morning political fare. Emily Thornberry gave a car-crash interview on Sky, (the BBC reported it rather generously here) in which Dermot Murnaghan exposed the mind-boggling extent of shadow foreign secretary’s ignorance. Vast swathes of it. He kept saying, with incredulity, “But you’re the shadow foreign secretary.” 

The funny thing is, it was Thornberry herself who brought up the ‘pub quiz’ analogy, which drew attention to the fact that she’s probably less well informed than your average pub philosopher. 

She must have learned that when you’re in a corner, the best defence is attack. Rats are well known for doing that. She alighted on sexism, but that strategy didn’t fool anyone, except perhaps the person who wrote the aforementioned BBC report. The Sun has some fun with it here.

**********

Where did you get that hat

I thought this story was interesting. Michael Foster was the Labour candidate for my very own neck of the woods at the last GE. Labour doesn’t stand much of a chance in this constituency, but I must say I felt a pang of admiration for Foster last year when he shouted out “Say the word Israel” at Corbyn’s  Israel-free speech at the Labour friends of Israel reception. (He wouldn’t say it.) 

The Mail has a much more colourful version of this story than the BBC’s subdued account of it. 

It seems that after he lost his court case (he fought against Corbyn standing for re-election without having to establish the requisite number of nominations) Foster published an article in the Mail on Sunday savagely attacking Corbyn’s leadership. Now the Labour Party has barred Mr. Foster from even voting in the leadership election, despite the fact that he had donated huge sums of dosh to the party before Corbyn’s reign. He’s also been banned from the Labour Party conference. I don’t suppose they want him shouting out any more awkward requests.

From Mail on Sunday August 2016

This is a big row that has been going on for some time, and reignited on 14th August, 2016 when he wrote the infamous ‘stormtroopers’ article for the Mail on Sunday. I haven’t read it, but it obviously caused quite a stir, especially as the MoS had taken it upon themselves to put the word “Nazi’ in the headline. 

The Huffington Post hit back with a piece by Corbynista Richard Burgon MP., which included several Tweets by well-known hat-wearer George Galloway and assorted members of the hard-left.

Another closely related scandal has flared up surrounding Corbyn, which according to the Telegraph has “reignited” all those allegations of antisemitism.  

The Guardian and the Telegraph have printed almost identical reports, but you get the sense (or is it just me, looking for trouble) that the Guardian is slightly more hostile to Israel than the Telegraph.   I would say that, wouldn’t I.

The story, in case I completely forget to explain it, is that  Corbyn first ignored, and has now turned down, the invitation from Isaac Herzog, leader of the Israeli Labour party, to visit Yad Vashem in Jerusalem “to witness that the last time the Jews were forcibly transported it was not to Israel but to their deaths”. (This alludes to Ken Livingstone’s theories about  Hitler and Zionism)

 Corbyn is sending a flunky in his place. His diary is full, he says. Probably full of urgent Stop the War Coalition fundraisers and the like.

Here’s another version of the story, with added gossip about Seumas Milne, which he denies. 

“In the latest of a series of allegations of anti-Semitism plaguing Britain's Labour Party, media reports on Sunday said that one of party leader Jeremy Corbyn's closest aides had tried unsuccessfully to get Hebrew expunged from a Jewish holiday greeting. 

The New York Times and London's Jewish Chronicle say the adviser, Seumas Milne, wanted to remove the words "Chag Kasher Ve-Sameach," which means "A Happy and Kosher Holiday," from Corbyn's Passover greeting to the Jewish community.Dave Rich writes in The Times that Milne thought the Hebrew phrase "implied support for Zionism."

I’m not saying the BBC has been more biased than all the other news organs over these matters. It might have omitted some parts of these stories, and the parts it did report were handled in a subdued manner. It’s treading carefully. Heaven forbid it accidentally makes a value judgment. I’m aware that those stultifying ‘complaints from both sides’ are an ever-present threat, but less isn’t always more.

Hat tip

I’ve read some peculiar things in the paper today. As I haven’t watched any TV for two days I thought I’d do a paper review, like Sky News and the BBC News channel. And Andrew Marr of course. I’ve only one paper here, which happens to be the Times, so I’ve invited myself to talk about that.

There’s a picture of Aidan Turner on the front page. He looks much less attractive without his Poldark hat. In this hatless picture he looks as though he might be wearing a man-bun. I recall that song: “My hat it has three corners, three corners has my hat” . I did like that song, with its metaphysical punch-line: “Had it not three corners, it wouldn’t be my hat.” 

Sprechen sie Deutsch? Here it is in Deutsch:

Mein Hut, der hat drei Ecken, 

Drei Ecken hat mein Hut, 

Und hätt er nicht drei Ecken, 

So wär es nicht mein Hut.

On page two, which is the page least likely to be read according to psychological algorithms (made that up) we learn that Theresa May has gone all Jeremy Corbyn.  The headline is: Hate crime has no place here, May tells Polish PM.  There are so many confusing aspects in there that I don’t know where to start, so let’s get the most trivial one out of the way.  I always read Polish as polish. I know that’s stupid. 

Did Theresa May really say those actual words? If so, I’m disappointed. Couldn’t she think of a more original way to phrase that sentiment other than to appropriate Jeremy Corbyn’s unfortunate and meaningless  statement? “There’s no place” - here there or anywhere -  for whatever it happens to be that you don’t really like but  can’t be arsed to do anything about.

Also, it smacks of Royston Vasey. There’ll be no strangers hate-crime here. This is a local Britain now.

Next to Theresa and the Polish PM there’s something about Sir Cliff. “New Challenge!” So, did he or didn’t he? Rumours abound.

Oh good grief. Next, a full page spread, titled: Jeremy Clarkson blows up his own house. That set me thinking. I wonder if I could blow up my own house? I don’t know if the neighbours would like it, but I can see the attraction of starting afresh, without all the junk. Of course an explosion would create its own junk, but things often have to get worse before they get better. The road to minimalism is paved with rubble.

I’m not going to go through every page of the Times, but there is a little piece on page 6 about FGM. Cases of it are up in Birmingham. 120 new cases, so it says here. 

Directly opposite that there’s an article about policemen in burkas. Police persons, I should say. 

There’s a fetching illustration of a figure draped in black cloth with teeny slit to peer out of. 

Under the heading “The Rules” it says:

“NHS. Many trusts have told staff that face coverings cannot be worn when dealing with patients in order to aid communication and minimise infection risks. Some allow staff to wear a veil during lunch.”

Some allow staff to wear a veil during lunch?  The mind boggles.  I mean, it boggles.

Bon Apetit.

Pages 12 and 13 are about schools. I can’t go into detail at the moment you’ll be sorry to hear, but that does remind me.  Did anyone hear Any Answers today? Anita Anand had just got started when I had to get out of the car (I was listening in the car) to do a spot of shopping. When I came back, she was still on about grammar schools. I’m guessing that they devoted the whole half hour to that topic. 

Although I barely heard any of it, I did wonder if Anita Anand is fit for purpose. I understood the role of anchorperson or chair is to let callers have their say, and if possible get rid of the boring ones, the  barking mad ones and downright offensive ones. A good anchor should be able to neatly sum up the gist of the call, perhaps give the caller a chance to come back if they want, and move on. 

Anita Anand doesn’t seem to realise that it’s not necessarily her opinion we want to listen to, so she dutifully takes on multiple opponents single-handedly, battling with each of them in turn, or cutting them off if they say something she doesn’t like. She does it all in the most irritating voice. I don’t think she can help that, but one does wonder if she ever listens to herself on iPlayer - some thesps claim they never listen to or watch themselves acting, which may or may not be a good plan. 

Page 15 has some stuff about the Archers. I gave up listening to the Archers years ago. Years and years. 

At one time, if I accidentally heard it, e.g., I couldn’t get to the off-switch quick because I was in the bath, nothing much seemed to have happened, even if months and months had passed. 

But nowadays I don’t know who any of the characters are, and I think some of the old characters are played by new actors. The storylines are awful. 

A running ritual concerning The Archers  (here in Royston Vasey ) is the histrionic dive for the off-switch at the first peal of Barwick Green. Also, the occasional quip about Dan and Doris from someone who’s pretending he thinks the Archers is still the everyday story of countryfolk. Hilarious, eh?

Isn’t it annoying that the BBC creates so much ‘news’ about its own stuff? Bake-off, Strictly,  Poldark, and the wretched Archers. 

Page 19 features Jeremy Corbyn again. It’s illustrated with a picture of him wearing a red head-covering whilst visiting a Sikh temple. Not a flattering look.The article says: Corbyn celebrates a year in office.  How is he celebrating, I wonder. In a tricorn, perhaps with a plume?

I’m not even halfway through the papers yet and I’m boring you already. Tomorrow there will be another massive bundle to plough through, including several extra bits, some of which go straight to recycling, unread. I do hope it’s pulped and properly refashioned into something really useful, that might go some way towards assuaging the guilt. 

Fighting Racism (all my life)

I must admit I was horrified at last evening’s BBC QT (Labour Party special) but it wasn’t entirely David Dimbleby’s fault.

He began by announcing that this particular audience were Labour supporters - including  Corbybistas, Owenites and undecideds. Also Ukippers, assorted others (Greens) and possibly Tories, I forget.

It was a kind of covering clause, preemptively distancing the production team from the inevitable partisan hollering, wolf-whistling, booing and cat-calling, given the inherent nastiness of the participants. Audience rowdiness is Nothing To Do With the BBC.

I imagine it was aimed at the cynics amongst us; those who suspect all QT audiences are deliberately rigged by mischief-making producers trying to relieve the boredom with a spot of audience-induced drama.

It’s not even a secret that the QT audience is selected by dark forces, and that your ticket application form doubles as a political questionnaire. Also, the debate took place in Oldham.

This programme induced a deep melancholia in this viewer. If anyone was in any doubt about why so many people are desperately wondering where else to go - to what country - this programme would dispel such doubts. But still - where? It was a microcosm of what’s gone wrong here.

The implosion of the Labour party. 

The infantilisation of the public. 

The BBC’s populism.

Corbynism; an alarming cult.

Corbyn has relaxed into the role. Doesn’t matter what he says, any waffly, generalised platitude will keep the groupies happy. They can be relied on to boo at all opposition no matter how plausible, reasonable or rational.

Not that it matters, but the Telegraph decided Smith “wiped the floor” with Corbyn. 

“Did we learn anything from the debate? Not really. Corbyn has mastered a line in “geography teacher making serious point” – he leans on the podium and speaks more slowly and ever so slightly louder. Smith can take an audience head on and say things they don’t want to hear including the need for Labour to win over Tory voters, unflustered by the uncomradely booing (which is how Corbyn supporters interpret their man’s “no abuse” line). 

We also saw that Corbyn supporters share their candidate’s unshakable certainty and complete lack of reflection. One Corbynista told Owen Smith “You’re in the wrong party!”. When Smith pulled him up on that, condemning it as abuse, the man was genuinely aggrieved – “How is that abuse?” That, in the end, was the most telling moment – the man meant it, he really didn’t think that calling Owen Smith a Tory was in any way wrong. That is what the Labour Party has come to under Corbyn’s leadership. It is why he must go, and why he almost certainly won’t.”

Corbyn was speaking to his adoring fans in the studio whereas Smith had given up trying to do that and  was talking over their heads to the viewers at home.

The Muslims in the audience made their presence felt. One man actually declared his love for Jeremy. Literally. When the question of antisemitism came up Owen fought bravely, but the topic was soon hijacked by 'Islamophobia', and of course it was quite enough for Corbyn to brush it aside, intoning, as usual, the one about fighting racism All My Life. 

As the credits rolled and the fat lady sang, a crowd of ‘men’ lined up to get a selfie with their leader, while Owen Smith exited stage left.

Ken tells the truth again

Ken Livingstone was on Sky News  today, treating us to an almost identical interview to yesterday’s Victoria Derbyshire one. No doubt it’ll be on YouTube soon if it isn’t already. 

As before, he was invited on to Sky to opine about Keith Vaz, but it wasn’t long before Kay Burley brought up “Hitler”. 

Ken still insists that what he said was true. Obviously nothing is ever going to change his mind about that.

 Pity Kay Burley was so poorly briefed. It’s as if everyone has forgotten why he said what he said. (“Hitler  was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”)

He said it in defence of the indefensible, i.e., Naz Shah, who has already admitted to a string of antisemitic tweets, pleading ignorance or insanity, apologised and promised not to do it again.

“For Ken Livingstone to say Hitler was a Zionist is offensive – well, of course that would be offensive. I wouldn’t just apologise if I’d said that, I’d have been straight off to my GP to check if I was in the first stage of dementia. Hitler hated and loathed Jews, but that didn’t stop him doing a deal with the Zionist movement in the 1930s.”

Since people have already posited the theory that Ken is in the first, or some other stage of dementia, bringing it up all by himself in the form of a metaphor seems a bit close to the bone. 

He didn’t say Hitler was a Zionist - he said Hitler was supporting Zionism. See? Two completely different things, with plenty of wiggle room, or slither room if you like; enough for him to slither sideways with an almost conciliatory elucidation ….that the Zionists could’t help it, and he didn’t blame them, and what’s more Norman Finkelstein agrees with him, and no-one could call Norman Finkelstein antisemitic! 

At the end of the section, Kay Burley read out a message from a viewer complaining that Ken was given a platform.

Kay Burley put her down quite superciliously, saying ‘That’s democracy”. 

Not really, Kay. That’s show biz.

Ken Livingstone on anti-semitism row: you can't say "telling the truth can bring the Labour party into disrepute" https://t.co/yUH5zWnfGn

— Sky News (@SkyNews) 7 September 2016

You can't blame the Zionists

Wasn’t it a bit weird to see Ken slithering sideways over his Hitler remarks on the Victoria Derbyshire show this morning. 

“The Zionists had to work with Hitler”  is his latest plea - “it wasn’t their fault”.

People keep bounding up to him in the street to encourage him, he attests. They say: “I’m Jewish and I know you’re right! Don’t let the bastards grind you down”. In fact, he's sure that the whole enquiry into his conduct and reinstatement is has stalled because everyone knows he’s right.

However deep his hole doth grow (must be near Australia by now)  he still can’t slither out of the context in which he made the remark. Defending Naz Shah, if you remember. Now that she’s been reinstated it appears that she’s still under investigation by the CPS.  (Not that anything will come of it) but a number of other incriminating remarks have surfaced, which she would find difficult to defend, although her ‘deep and sincere’ apology might  cover them. 

To her credit Victoria Derbyshire appeared suitably cynical throughout, and she did a mean, 'BBC thing' to poor old Ken at the end of his appearance.  She summed by announcing the very thing he’d just spent the last ten minutes trying to slither out of, i.e., that Ken still claims that Hitler supported the Zionists. Or was it the other way round? Anyway, I don’t imagine he’ll be very pleased with that. 

You’d have to have a heart of stone……. etc etc. 

Not a corrupt woman

It seems a bit late in the day to post this, but Andrew Marr’s Sunday morning conversation with Shami Chakrabarti seems to have made quite an impression. She has set off a load of speculation about a future post in the shadow cabinet. When asked about it by Marr her evasive response was almost identical to her previous evasiveness when questioned about those rumours of a peerage.  No wonder everyone is speculating.

She’s plainly on a mission to reinvent her image. “Born again” as an honourable woman.

She seemed somewhat sheepish and subdued on Marr, looking anxiously back and forth at her fellow guests and Andrew for approval, and as I said in my comment she was careful not to be too critical of Theresa May, acting like someone on their best behaviour. It was noticeable that she did not grab the opportunity to have a jolly good go at Keith Vaz, which showed admirable restraint, given the way he publicly humiliated her over those infamous little post-it notes.

Of course, on this occasion we might be especially interested in Andrew Marr’s approach to his guest. I realise that she was not invited onto the programme as an interviewee - rather she was only there to review the Sunday papers, but since the banter did turn into a kind of interview, Marr might have probed more effectively. As it is, he merely gave her a platform to defend herself and assure us that she was not a corrupt woman. Who actually suggested she was?

The Guardian has kindly provided this excerpt for our entertainment.

Open thread......

By now Craig will be well on his way to a very reasonably priced continental holiday he found on Airbnb.  He tells me it’s in Calais, France, in a complex called ‘the Jungle’. 

Two weeks on safari, maybe? Sun and sangria for him, then, and back, refreshed and raring to go in a fortnight. 

Bon voyage Craig!

Meanwhile, in case of posting hiatus,  let's call this an all-purpose Open Thread.

*****

I’m dedicating this cartoon  to Ed Balls.

The beautiful game

Does anyone remember the debacle at King’s College London in January, when Pro-Palestinian activists broke through security, smashed a window and disrupted an Israeli guest’s talk?

Ivana Bevilaqua, 25, a politics student (good grief) was found guilty of assault, given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs and compensation to Esther Enfield, the victim of the assault. I suppose, sadly, in this day and age this behaviour is so widespread it’s not considered a very serious crime or a very important case, and no-one would be surprised if the BBC wasn’t interested in it. 

Student Rights website reported it though. They gave more detail than the Evening Standard.

“In January, Student Rights reported on the protest which shut down an event featuring Ami Ayalon, the former Director of  Israel's internal security service Shin Bet, at King's College London (KCL). 

The protesters disrupted the event from the start by chanting “Free, Free Palestine” and then preceded to bang on the building's windows and doors, smashing glass and setting off multiple fire alarms. 

Eventually, the police arrived and the event finished half an hour early as the building was evacuated. 

 After the event, the president of KCL Israel Society, Ester Endfield, told the Jewish Chronicle: 

“At one point I was against the door and Joseph [Stoll, the society’s vice president] was protecting me. I was crying because I was scared and didn't know what to do.This girl hit me and my phone dropped out of my hand. I was trying to film, she just came up to me and hit me on my arm. 

Some people were trying to punch the door to get into the room. They were very aggressive and angry. It was completely unacceptable.”

Another article on that site is headed: “NUS delegate's rant shows wider problem in student movement”

“Daniel Yahia, a student at the University of Edinburgh elected as a National Union of Students (NUS) delegate, has been accused of using antisemitic language on his Facebook page. 

When discussing Nir Bitton, an Israeli footballer who plays for Celtic, Mr Yahia wrote:
“Sick of seeing Celtic fans creaming themselves over Nir Bitton. We are a club open to all, that cannot be disputed, but by all, we mean humans, of difference creeds, races and religions. 

Zionists are subhuman and, Nir Bitton is a filthy, Zionist rat. Get him as far to fuck from our club as possible. If you’re gonna wave your Palestinian flag, don’t be a hypocrite and demand this bastard takes his place on the team.” 

In response to a comment saying Bitton should be gassed, Yahia replied that this would “be too good for him”. 

The Tab has since published Yahia’s response, in which he wrote:“I did not pick out Bitton for his religion once, nor his nationality. Though my words were intemperate and perhaps a little much, they were not racist.My friend Podge’s comments of gassing him, as is slang in Belfast means to sack/fire, though the context of the status do mean it was inappropriate.…I have no problems with Jews or Israelis, just Zionists.”

There is a distinctly comical air to this. It almost qualifies as a “You couldn’t make it up.” 

So much for the current state of universities. However, it does bring me to the vexed case of football and those Palestinian Flags that appeared in Glasgow when Celtic played an Israeli team.

“Hundreds of fans at a football match between Glasgow Celtic and Israeli side Hapoel Beer Sheva turned whole sections of the stadium into a sea of Palestinian flags in a protest against the Israeli occupation, ignoring an official ban on political demonstrations.”

The BBC did report this. In a disconcertingly upbeat way. It’s pretty clear where the sympathy of whoever wrote it lies.  (and also here)

However the worst thing the BBC has come up with on this topic, as far as I know, is a Talkback phone-in from Belfast. Radio Ulster. 

I’m aware that “Belfast” in general isn’t likely to support Israel - the Irish on both sides of the border are not known for philo-semitism, so I wasn’t surprised that the guests and callers would be ideologically pro-Palestinian, but I was disappointed to learn that they had no objections to the politicisation of sport - at least in this particular case. (I’m pretty sure their leniency might not extend to other forms of political  flag-waving, literal and figurative)

The most telling thing for me was that the host was William Crawley, whom you’ll be familiar with as one of the hosts of the Sunday programme on Radio 4, which tackles religious matters, where impartiality ought to be a given. (Quiet at the back!)

The invited guests included Marxist and arch Israel-hater Eamonn McCann, pro-Palestinian activist Liam  O’Hare, another man (whose name I didn’t catch) and last but not least the Rev Chris Hudson. 

Despite the fact that he agreed with the fact-free allegations about Israel that the others were bandying about willy nilly, the Rev was cast into the distinctly lonely pro-Israel position. (The usual fare: stolen Arab land. Apartheid state. Pariah state, oppressors etc etc.) 

He spoke against the politicisation of sport, but what he really wanted to talk about was the appalling desecration of headstones in a Belfast Jewish cemetery, which is what he claimed he had specifically been asked to come on the programme to do. The BBC has a reputation for misleading participants in that particular way. They ambush them with the real agenda once they’re on air.  

William Crawley even asked him why he kept bringing it up, as if connecting antisemitism with Palestinian flag-waving at Israeli footballers was gratuitous and itself a politicising act.  They all agreed Anti-Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitism, and naturally none of them had anything to with antisemitism.  Who does?

About halfway through, Crawley read out a message: “When are we going to hear something from the Israeli side?”  We had to make do with the reluctant Rev for that. All the callers, without exception, were Israel-bashers of varying degrees of intensity, ranging from spittle-flecked to apoplectic. There was a mini-discussion about Norman Finkelstein and the merits of BDS.  William Crawley hardly even bothered to play Devil’s Advocate.

The Rev Chris Hudson was the only one who knew anything whatsoever about the aims of BDS, and obviously none of them were remotely aware of Ilan Pappe’s recent revelations. 

Being Ulster Radio, the  strong regional accents abounded, particularly the Scottish guy Liam O’Hare whose vowels almost out-distorted the policeman in ‘allo ‘allo. (We say Israel, he says “Usruw” )

To finish, I just thought it would be a nice touch to show what Brendon Rogers, the manager of Celtic had to say about Celtic’s visit to Israel for the return match.

A massive thank you to Brendan Rodgers, manager of Celtic, for his kind words following game with Hapoel Beer Sheva. pic.twitter.com/OoGfj6VnXU

— SussexFriendsIsrael (@SussexFriends) 24 August 2016

Not a nice man

It still surprises me that Facebook is ram-packed with otherwise nice sensible  people saying what a good chap Jeremy Corbyn is. 

Don’t they know?

The trouble is that even if they do know, it doesn’t seem to make any difference. It must be some kind of syndrome. An epidemic. A cult.

Are we really in the middle of a slow-motion re-enactment of Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America?

Jeremy Corbyn is no Charles Lindbergh, but some people see him as an anti-establishment hero, worthy of their undying devotion.

I know that a few hundred thousand followers is but a drop in the ocean, but one mustn’t be complacent. Is the unthinkable absolutely unthinkable? 

I can’t bring myself to criticise the BBC for sometimes letting its disapproval of Corbyn show through its veneer of impartiality, even for the sake of my own personal veneer of impartiality.

Yes, I do realise that’s playing straight into the hands of those who accuse me/us thus:  ”You don’t want an unbiased BBC at all. You want it biased your way.” Yes. I admit it. In this particular case, I’m in your hands; be gentle.

The BBC actually had Ruth Smeeth on the Victoria Derbyshire programme on Friday morning. She’s been receiving thousands of vile antisemitic tweets, and all Jeremy Corbyn can do is simply drone “There’s no room for racism in the Labour Party,” probably with a little intake of breath in between ‘for’ and ‘racism’.

Harriet Harman condemned him for not acting decisively. As leader he should take full responsibility and do something about it, she opined. Mind you, she was lobbying for Owen Smith at the time.

This is what a Corbynista spokesman said:

"Jeremy has consistently spoken out against all forms of anti-Semitism and has contacted Ruth Smeeth to express his outrage at the abuse and threats directed against her. 

"Jeremy condemns all abuse, and no one responsible for it is a genuine supporter of Jeremy's. He has repeatedly called for a kinder, gentler politics. 

"This is why he launched Respect and Unity, a code of conduct calling on all Labour members and supporters to conduct themselves with a high standard of behaviour. Evidence of threats and abuse should be reported to the party and police so that action may be taken against those responsible.”

There you are! Sorted. But not really. Over at Harry’s Place, ATL poster habibi has provided yet more examples from the bottomless pit of Corbyn’s treachery.  This has been picked up and reTweeted by JK Rowling. 

JK Rowling is a popular author (I hear.) She might be able to influence those oh so nice people (probably not including Corbynista Daniel Radcliffe) who are dithering over how deep their loyalty to The Jeremy needs to be. Having grown up with the Guardian  - grown up is perhaps the wrong term - where the Seumas Milne worldview reigns supreme, enlightening these hard-core Facebook Corbynistas will be a challenge, even for JK Rowling.

The Times (£) has a piece about The Jeremy’s appearances on Press TV

I used Iran TV role to promote human rights, insists Corbyn 

  

Who’s tittering? He was addressing the issues of human rights (in Iran)  - a somewhat fanciful explanation since three men were executed for being gay during the time of his appearances. (‘Issues’ is The Jeremy’s top word, which he pronounces with extra hissing; vague and getting more meaningless with every utterance.)

 “Footage of Mr Corbyn’s appearances show him failing to question contributors for calling the BBC “Zionist liars” and describing Israel as a “disease”. Organisations such as the Anti-Defamatory League have accused Press TV of providing a platform for figures to expound antisemitic conspiracy theories about the media, finance and 9/11.”

The upshot is that the more we see and hear about The Jeremy the easier it is to see that he is not at all the ‘very nice man’ that one hell of a lot of Labour MPs  seem to think he is. Or are they only pretending they think so and are using it as a kind of apologia - as a preamble to declaring a preference for Owen Smith or anyone-but-Corbyn?

Remind me again why I don’t tweet. Actually, no, don’t bother.

This appeared on Twitter. It’s an example of the abuse that Ruth Smeeth has received. (Why does this deranged person even feel that way?) Is that much less abusive than tweets that have attracted jail sentences?  

Corbyn supporters need to be told. They need to know what they’re voting for. The BBC has a duty to educate and inform as well as entertain, even if doing so necessitates making quite a lot of indirect value judgements. Letting Ruth Smeeth have her say on TV is a start, but it’s the tip of the iceberg. 

Can the tip of an iceberg also be the thin edge of a wedge?  I hope so.

Footnote: I tried to embed Harriet, but the dashboard initially refused to accept it. Now it has suddenly appeared  as if by magic, at the end of this piece rather than in the relevant place. Please forgive. 

Keeping tracks

Sorry for the lack of posts over the past couple of days (a case of 'events, dear boy' for both me and Sue)...

....but as a follow-up to Double Standards (from a couple of days ago), please take a close read of David Keighley's latest post at News-watch. 

It chronicles three other examples of the BBC (over the course of Wednesday evening and Thursday morning) pursuing the same line that "The fear is that this was a frenzied racist attack triggered by the Brexit referendum" (h/t the BBC's Daniel Sandford) across its flagship programmes (Newsnight, News at Six and Today). 

I've only seen the Newsnight example, but that was bad enough, even by itself.

I'm off on holiday for a couple of weeks very soon (and can't wait, despite all the manifold delights of Morecambe)...

...so please keep noting any further examples you see of BBC Brexitophobia either here, or anywhere else you find fit (including either BBC Complaints or BBC Complaints - or both). 

That same Newsnight, for example...

...(whose answer to its selected vox pop's charge that Nigel Farage literally had "blood on his hands" was simply to say that "Nigel Farage has always denied this allegation" {as if that was adequate balance})...

...featured an interview with mournful Remainer Ian McEwan. Evan Davis interviewed him, an allowed him to slag off Brexit and then, in conclusion, pronounced him to be a nice guy.

(Are the police going to start investigating cases of Brexitophobia any time soon? Is Evan going to be in prison soon?). 

The only other thing I've managed to hear tonight is Radio 4's More or Less on that apparent post-Brexit rush of would-be Irish passport holders, with Tim Harford talking of the "turmoil", politically and economically, post-Brexit. (The stats were fascinating though.)

This kind of thing is fairly subtle but only adds to my impression that the BBC is being utterly relentless.

I think I'd need to retire very early to properly monitor all of this kind of thing (which isn't going to happen).