Hugh Sykes v Dame Jenni Murray

Dame Jenni Murray got into a bit of a Twitter spat today with veteran BBC colleague Hugh Sykes.

After her appearance on this morning's Broadcasting House (reviewing the papers with Nigel Farage and Terry Wogan), she took to Twitter, peering over her glasses no doubt (as ever), only to find that various left-wing twitterers were roundly slagging her off.

Why? Because, they said, she'd refused to slag off UKIP over the ex-UKIP 'negroes' lady, pleading that she was too "independent BBC" to comment.

Oh they weren't happy with her, they really weren't. And 'The True Voice of the BBC' (as I like to think of him), Hugh Sykes, wasn't happy either.

He shared their disapproval of Dame Jenni's failure to bash UKIP, and joined in the attack on her on Twitter, re-tweeting their criticisms and making it clear that - unlike Dame Jenni - he has no truck whatsoever with racism:

@ramblecamp @DaveSThompson @whjm I once said on air, "We've had lots of racist mail. I put it in the bin" Complaints! Editor defended me.

— HughSykes (@HughSykes) February 22, 2015

Twitter, however, is (to put it mildly) not always reliable. Hugh, as we know, isn't always reliable either. And Dame Jenni took to Twitter again this afternoon to say that her critics (including Hugh) had it all wrong:

@HughSykes just to clear comment not on racism but Farage conservative defectors to UKIP assertion.

— Jenni Murray (@whjm) February 22, 2015

And when you listen to BH you can see that Dame Jenni's comments could be taken either way but that she probably was saying that she wouldn't comment on the party political aspect of the story (which had just been discussed) rather than refusing to comment on racism. But I can understand why UKIP-hating people (like Hugh & Co.), who were hoping she'd denounce UKIP, could hear her comment as a refusal to denounce "UKIP's racism" and, thus, leap into Twitter action in the hope of generating a Twitterstorm. 

*****

If there's one thing you can safely say about Hugh on Twitter is that he's hardly "independent BBC". His dislike of UKIP (on Twitter) is undisguised. You will doubtless recall, however:

HughSykes ‏@HughSykes  26 Jan 2013@4d2b Yes, Big If. But I am scrupulously objective when reporting - unlike some of my Tweets! I obey: "Hang up your opinions with your coat"

His reporting, however, has always seemed to me to belie that claim (as I've said several times before). His BH report today was plugging the need for government spending in Italy, mirroring his anti-austerity Twitter comments, and he largely critiqued the Blairite Italian PM Matteo Renzi from the left (as is his way with most things on Twitter). 

Like many a true Brit (as we were saying the other day), Hugh overestimates his knowledge about things. Today he was coming across as a great expert on Italy and Italian politics, despite having only popped over for a visit. 

And in a typical piece of Hugh Sykes' sleight-of-hand, he referred (for the sake of his argument) to Forza Italia as a "far-right" party - even though Wikipedia, and everyone else I can find who isn't "far-left", maintains that the relaunched Forza Italia of Silvio Berlusconi remains "centre-right" - and has recently rejoined the mainstream EPP grouping in the European parliament to prove it.

Now, by Hugh's standards Forza Italia probably is "far-right" (like UKIP) and Mr Renzi "Thatcherite", but that probably says much, much more about Hugh that it does about them.

Champion of democracy

While hundreds of Rotherham girls were being groomed abused and raped and their complaints ignored by the police and the council, MP Sarah Champion was sitting at a large table with about 16 Asians and one ‘white’ man, saying  ”Personally this is something I’m very passionate about”. 

No; not about that. You’d know if you watched the video. Her passion was about Palestine, where, according to Sarah Champion “so many civilians are being murdered and so many more are having to flee their country.” Of course this was taking place in the summer of 2014, during Operation Protective Edge, when the BBC and all the other news channels were disproportionately bombarding Britain with graphic images of what they insisted was Israel’s disproportionate bombardment of Hamas.

“The violence that Israel is showing is completely disproportionate as far as I am concerned” said Sarah Champion.  “Our government has really got to do something to create a ceasefire because it’s untenable, this level of violence.”

“I’m terribly glad that Ed Miliband has come out incredibly strongly against what Israel is doing [.....]I’m seeing the people in Gaza being slaughtered”

She is indeed seeing the people in Gaza being slaughtered. She’s seeing the dead and injured paraded before the cameras at the invitation of Hamas, and she’s seeing it courtesy of the BBC.

The flaw in western democracy is that in order to function as intended, voters should be engaged enough to go out and vote and (reasonably) well-informed enough to understand what they’re voting for. Ever since the Labour government decided to secure its position ‘forever’ by importing hoards of potential Labour supporters willy nilly from the undemocratic third world, the western democratic vision has fallen apart. 

If the financial crisis hadn’t come along when it did, this ploy might have succeeded, and who knows how much worse things could have been. Remember the ‘democracy’ that brought in fanatical Islamist regimes during and after the farcical Arab Spring? The BBC didn’t get it at all. Even now people are still calling  Hamas ‘democratically elected’. Once elected, majority rule says democracy has reached the terminus, and the bus will never move on again.

Sarah Champion must pander to the followers of Allah, or else. If she doesn’t someone else will.

“The definition of Islamic democracy (contrary to western democracy) is simply that the government is essentially Islamic and it is controlled by whichever sect, tribe or group has the majority of members. This is always the essence of democracy: rule by the majority. In Iraq and Iran the majority groups are the Shiites. Therefore the only possible type of democratic government in Iraq and Iran is a Shiite Islamic Republic. The majority (i.e. Shiites) of Iraqis want democracy, but they want Islamic democracy not the American style of secular democracy. Whenever Bush uses the word democracy, he means western secular democracy. Whenever the Iraqi people use the word democracy, they mean Islamic democracy. The difference between these two concepts is crystal clear to anyone who takes the time to think about it. 

For ‘Bush’ you can easily insert ‘the BBC’.

Since much local politics has been taken over by Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslims, antisemitism and the anti-Israel lobby rules okay. See what is happening at Tower Hamlets. See how Sarah Champion is duped, first by the BBC’s inflammatory reporting, then by the necessity of pandering to her constituents. She has to, otherwise she’ll be out on her ear.

What makes it worse is that she is not alone in deciding to be passionate about the Palestinians. Why? What, other than the blanket coverage given to their anti-Israel propaganda, is so special to Sarah Champion about the Palestinians?

There was a huge puff piece about her by Damian Whitworth in last week’s Times (£). Michael Cockerell’s ‘Inside the Commons’ has propelled Ms Champion to a more favourable variety of prominence than would have been the case had she not starred in the first episode of the programme. 

Here is an excerpt from the Times:

“Sarah Champion is one of the few politicians in Rotherham to have emerged from the child sexual exploitation scandal with any credit. She describes herself as a “freak” among MPs who was regarded with suspicion by colleagues at Westminster when she agreed to take part in the fly-on-the-wall TV series “Inside the Commons”
She is loathed by many members of Rotherham’s disgraced local Labour party, and is so unimpressed by traditional squabbling between the political parties nationally that less than three months before a general election she is happy to describe David Cameron as “decent”and held a private meeting with him to try to advance the cause of abuse victims.”

Call me cynical but some of her behaviour, her remarks about Nigel Farage for example, don’t coincide with this spin.

I agree with Craig that “Inside the Commons” is an enjoyable and fascinating series. The viewer was given privileged access to some of the mundane, everyday, housekeeping aspects of our great parliamentary institution, and we could glimpse some familiar faces coming and going, but we still knew that the  editing sets the tone. Editing is the master. I’d love to see what ended up on the cutting room floor. No I wouldn’t - it would mostly be boring stuff, but you know what I mean. 

The ones who ‘agreed to take part’ must have had an idea of how they were likely to come across. Fly on the wall films are not random. Otherwise how come we saw Steve Rotheram MP the former brickie on his roof, dismantling a chimney? If he didn’t want to be seen as a brickie he could easily have not performed this rooftop exercise in front of the cameras. 

An MP who was sitting in Rotherham at the time of an enormous scandal would normally be bearing the brunt of a barrage of criticism. But somehow Sarah has come out smelling of roses. 

Acting on behalf the abused women and passionate about it.

Ring of 'peace'

The BBC has been announcing that Norwegian Muslims are forming a human shield to protect synagogues in Norway. I can’t see anything about it at the BBC online, but it’s been in news bulletins. Here’s how the Independent reports it:

Hundreds of Norwegian Muslims have formed a human shield around a Synagogue in the country’s capital as a symbol of solidarity with the city’s Jewish community.Over 1,000 Muslims chanted “No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia” as they formed what they called a “ring of peace” around the Jewish place of worship.

"I don't care that Muslims are standing in front of a synagogue."

One of my favourite articles by Marc Goldberg. It expresses my feelings exactly. Especially this: 

It’s this European need to pretend everything’s fine which has led to the narrative we see all around us. It is why you’ll hear a great deal about Lassanna Bathily who is being honoured with French citizenship for his role in hiding Jews during the attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris than about the heroism of Yoav Hattab. He was killed attacking a terrorist who had already murdered four people. In this context it is Bathily who is turned into a hero whereas Hattab is merely consigned to a couple of news reports and a grave in Jerusalem.Hattab, the son of the Chief Rabbi of Tunisia, didn’t fit a European narrative that would rather see a Muslim praised as a hero for locking Jews in the fridge and running away, than a Jew who attacked an armed Muslim terrorist and was killed in the process. The former narrative promotes a myth of coexistence allowing politicians to deflect calls to tackle the Islamic extremism they have allowed to flourish on their watch. The latter might, heaven forbid, see Jews encouraged to fight for themselves rather than remain at the mercy of the soldiers on their doorsteps and the government in Parliament.When European politicians are happy to put armed guards in front of Jewish targets but refuse to tackle the issue of radical Islam, or even to name it we know that things won’t change. In this Europe the Jews will remain weak and defenceless, in need of help from a state that will show how wonderful it is by providing armed guards and words of condemnation against anti-Semitism. But Jews only need armed guards because of the failure of Europe to deal with its Jew problem, or perhaps its Muslim problem. We only need words of condemnation and soldiers outside our communal buildings because leaders throughout Europe lack the courage needed to take on the problem of Jew hatred that’s festering, like it always has, in their society.

This morning this popped into my inbox:

Arfan Bhatti. Norway. Wants to introduce Sharia law.

So don’t let’s get a false impression that everything’s fine in Scandanavistan.

Into the bear pit

I do!

Talking about the authors at Biased BBC, the blog's editor, David Vance, was on this morning's The Big Questions. 

The opening 'big question' was a very BBC question: "Is it always better to talk to terrorists?"

Here's how Nicky Campbell framed the question (in a decidedly one-sided fashion):

Yesterday's terrorists often turn into tomorrow's statesmen. From South Africa to the Middle East and Northern Ireland, people who were once on 'most wanted' lists agreed to sit down at peace talks and eventually came to hold high political office. But a report to be issued next week shows that these routes to negotiation and peace are threatened. Once armed groups have been blacklisted by governments even aid agencies wanting to negotiate with them to get humanitarian help to their victims can actually be breaking the law. Is it always better to talk to terrorists? 

David Vance believes it's never right to talk to terrorists. It's an absolute moral principle for him.

Alongside him in opposing talks with Islamic State were sensible Emily Dyer of the Henry Jackson Society and foppish Telegraph writer Tim Stanley.

Against them were ranged community cohesion professor and Israel-basher Harris Beider, abusive Israel-bashing Huffington Post blogger Dilly Hussain (an even-less-calm version of Mehdi Hasan), nice liberal rabbi Jonathan Romain (a Sunday favourite), education researcher Roshan Doug, and charity worker Andy Carl. 

Julie Hambleton, who lost family in the Birmingham Pub Bombings, was in the audience and provided a powerful call to reality. 

That's quite balanced (if slightly tilted to the 'pro-talks' side), but...

David Vance found himself on the receiving end of fierce opposition, with people constantly talking over him, the audience heckling him and, strikingly, Nicky Campbell repeatedly registering his disagreement - and giving him a much harder time than anyone else. (David, however, was completely undaunted. He knows how to handle himself in a BBC bear pit.) 

Moral conservatives rarely get an easy time during a BBC-hosted discussion programme.  

Typically for a BBC audience, they only applauded one side of the argument (the pro-talks-with-ISIS side) and only heckled the other side of the argument (David's side) - despite some highly contentious (and absolutist) remarks from the 'pro-talks' side. 

Nicky Campbell, who many people like (and others don't), didn't strike me as taking a straight-down-the-line position during this segment of the show. I thought his questions were overwhelmingly slanted towards the 'pro-talks' side - in number and in their emotional content.

The whole thing - as ever - was full of heat, and rather less light. The heat, of course, meant it was very good value for money for the programme's producers. 

The other 'big questions' (if you were wondering) were 'Does faith have any place in schools?' and 'Does Satan exist only within us?' 

Big Question

I saw David Vance on The Big Questions this morning. It took me by surprise as I didn’t know he was going to be there. Strangely, he doesn’t seem to have pre-warned Biased-BBC readers, and stranger still, no-one at Biased-BBC seems to have noticed.

These days Biased BBC is almost exclusively manned by Alan. New open threads are posted only when David Vance remembers to post them, and these days the number of comments sometimes reaches about 400 before he does so, which gives the blog a neglected air.

David Vance is a very determined character with strong views. He’s a supporter of Israel, which I applaud, but his views are pretty old fashioned and reactionary, which I don’t. 

While I was not a fan of the direction in which he steered the Biased-BBC blog I have to admire his ability to think on his feet on live TV and radio. I could never do that. Very few people can.

There was one part of TBQ where Dilly Hussain said something outrageous about Israel and during the ruckus Nicki Campbell indicated that he intended to give Vancey the chance to ‘come back’. Unfortunately, in the fog of the chaos into which TBQ is apt to descend, this didn’t happen. Dilly Hussain got away with something he really shouldn’t have. 

David Vance has the ability to stand firm, not to appear rattled, and to stick to his guns when all around are losing their heads. It would be nice to see more of him in political discussions on the BBC, but then he might have to relinquish his proprietorship of the Biased-BBC blog.

I hope Craig has more to say on this.

"Fears Grow For Paris Bound Chelsea Supporters"

Alan at Biased BBC has a heart-tugging report on the fears for three missing London boys believed to be heading to Paris. Here's how it begins: 

Relatives of the three missing London boys believed to be heading to Paris have pleaded for them to come home.

The boys travelled to Paris on Tuesday. It is feared they may be planning to join Front National extremists in Paris.

One of the boy’s family said they understood he wanted to help those suffering attacks from Islamist fanatics in Paris but said Paris was “a dangerous place”.

The family said they were “feeling completely distressed”.

The three London boys who all supported Chelsea Football Club, travelled to Paris by train on Tuesday after telling their parents they were going out for the day to watch Chelsea play in the Champions League.

Football managers from clubs across the country have issued a statement pleading with the boys to come home.

Supporters at the  London club were asked to come forward if they had any information to help the boys return home safely.

A Club spokesman said the trio, who have been described as “straight-A students”, had been manipulated, possibly influenced by the heightened atmosphere around the subject of immigration during the run up to the election, much of it possibly due to the dangerous attitudes promulgated by Nigel Farage and UKIP.

A brilliant, very funny piece of satire from Alan which needs reading in full.

And it makes a serious point too: One group of three gets plenty of empathy and understanding from the BBC (despite going to support a terrorist group which is slaughtering people and has declared war on us); another group of three gets no empathy or understanding whatsoever (for the lesser misdeed of shoving someone and hurling racist abuse). 

Less heat, more light

In fairness (and to properly balance out my moaning)...

Though the initial report conspicuously avoided noting the polling evidence showing that Anglicans are significantly more right-leaning than their leadership (politically-speaking) and rather implying (via the weighting of its contributors) that religious believers lean leftwards, this morning's Sunday did provide its listeners with a wholly (and holy) engaging discussion on 'religion and politics' between likable Labour MP Stephen Timms (well, I like him anyway - so if he's said something untoward about something, tough!) and decent Conservative blogger Tim Montgomerie. 

A theatrical promotion

Of course, Radio 4's Sunday isn't always about Pope Francis. It's also about Muslims.

This morning's Sunday plugged a new play called Multitudes, being staged at the Tricycle Theatre in Bradford. It promotes a positive message about people converting to Islam in Bradford.

Sunday included an interview with its author, John Hollingworth. Here's a flavour of what he told Ed Stourton:

The Tricycle prides itself on telling unheard stories and I think that this is a good example of that. It's something that is going on and people don't know very much about it. And I do think we live in a sort of sadly intolerant and worrying time, and people regard Islam with undue suspicion.  

So it's as much about Bradford as it is about Islam and about converts. But of course I'd love people to come and see it because, leaving it, one would experience some of the peace of the religion and, hopefully, learn a bit more about it.

The BBC likes to help people to 'educate' us on such matters. 

Here's the theatre's own blurb for the play. See if it tempts you to go and watch it:

‘While we’re watching Saturday Kitchen Live and getting our bits from M&S and indulging down the gastropub, there’s an army of people – a growing army of people – shunning our lifestyle.’

Bradford.  On the eve of a Conservative Party Conference the country is in turmoil and one of its most multicultural cities awaits a visit from the Prime Minister.

Kash, a liberal British Muslim, prepares his address to politicians about the state of the nation. His girlfriend Natalie, a recent convert to Islam, cooks for anti-war protesters gathered at the Town Hall. Lyn, her mother, moans to anyone who’ll listen about the decline of her cherished England.  It’s all too much for Kash’s daughter Khadira, who begins to plan a radical intervention. As the nation questions immigration policies and military support in the Middle East, one family face their own internal conflict of faith, belonging, and who gets to call themselves British.

What's the betting BBC One adapts it for primetime TV in the not too distant future?

The Tablet on Sunday

Having formerly been the BBC beacon for incessant Benedict-bashing, Radio 4's Sunday effortlessly transformed itself into a cheerleading platform for Pope Francis following his election. You'd still almost think it was the liberal Catholic magazine The Tablet at times, so dogged is its coverage of Francis's every move.

Thus this morning's edition may have said it was beginning with the subject of Russia-Ukraine but the programme's approach to the story was to get David Willey on the line from Rome to tell Ed Stourton about what Frau Merkel said to Pope Francis on the subject, and about the Vatican's difficult position regarding the autonomous but Rome-facing Ukraine Greek-Catholic Church, which broke away from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church some four centuries ago. The Ukrainian church complains that Vatican diplomats "lean over towards the Russians" because of the worldwide Catholic Church's ecumenical hopes for reunion with the Orthodox world. This, David Willey said, is giving the Pope "a real headache". The Pope, however, is full of understanding for Ukrainian Catholics and made a "diplomatic" speech to his diplomats on the issue this week. 

Ed and David also talked about the Pope's position of priestly celibacy, with David saying that the Pope "is very much aware of the problem, the pressures, in various parts of the world for allowing married priests...and of course now with the Ordinariate there are a load of former Anglican priests who are now priests of the Catholic Church. So he knows about the situation."

David Willey's tone when mentioning the Ordinariate (including the words "a load of") wasn't a strictly impartial one. There was something of a sneer to it. Tabletistas, including those on Sunday, never liked the idea of the Ordinariate much, as we've observed before. It was one of Pope Benedict's projects and brought in lots of disaffected Anglican conservatives/traditionalists.

Tune in again next Sunday for Radio 4's Tablet on Sunday. 

Where the BBC fears to tread

The Telegraph may be a shadow of its former self these days, but at least it's still got Andrew Gilligan. 

His latest report is typical of his dogged style of investigative journalism - the kind of investigative journalism he surely wouldn't have been allowed to pursue had he remained at the BBC (unless he was sent after UKIP or tax avoiding companies). 

Entryism, the favourite tactic of the 1980s’ Militant Tendency, is when a political party or institution is infiltrated by groups with a radically different agenda. Since Militant’s Trotskyites were expelled from the Labour Party, the word has rather fallen out of fashion.

But now, according to one Muslim leader, Islamic radicals are practising entryism of their own — into the heart of Whitehall – courtesy of a woman who was until recently a government minister.

Baroness Warsi, the first Muslim woman to sit in Cabinet, handed official posts to people linked to Islamist groups, including a man involved in an “unpleasant and bullying” campaign to win planning permission for the controversial London “megamosque” proposed by a fundamentalist Islamic sect.

He sits – alongside other radicals or former radicals and their allies – on a “cross-Government working group on anti-Muslim hatred” set up by Lady Warsi and Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.

Some members of the group are using their seats at the table to urge that Whitehall work with Islamist and extremist-linked bodies, including one described by the Prime Minister as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood”. Some are also pressing to lift bans on foreign hate preachers from entering Britain, including Zakir Naik, who has stated that “every Muslim should be a terrorist”.

Can you imagine the BBC breaking a story like that? Can you even imagine the BBC picking up on this scoop and running with it - despite it being, if true, a very serious story?

The main source for AG's story, intriguingly, is Fiyaz Mughal, a former member of the working group - intriguing because the Tell Mama man has previously been on the receiving end of Andrew Gilligan's investigative journalism. 

The official BBC view?

There's a very interesting article in the Mail on Sunday by the BBC's official historian, Jean Seaton, concerning Mrs Thatcher's feelings towards the BBC. 

In Professor Seaton's account, Mrs Thatcher regarded the corporation as "vulgar, leftist and treacherous", especially disliking its coverage of the Falklands War and the IRA. (As did many others).

The curious thing about the article is that it paints Margaret Thatcher as being wholly unreasonable and wrong in her criticisms of the BBC whilst portraying the BBC as being almost entirely innocent of the charges against it. It's a very black-and-white picture, and makes the Iron Lady sound dangerously authoritarian in her attitude towards the splendidly impartial, democratic BBC.

Is it an accurate reading of what went on and of what Mrs Thatcher actually thought? Or is it little more than a hatchet-job on Mrs Thatcher from the BBC's official historian? 

Please read it for yourself and decide.

An everyday tale of simple people and gay cooks

A.N. Wilson, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, thinks Radio 4's The Archers has lost the plot. 

Before saying why he thinks it's got so bad, he offers an overview of the programme which explains why it embodies the spirit of BBC Radio 4, right down to its muddy fingertips:

It is known as an everyday tale of country folk. But in the half a century I have been tuning in, The Archers has always portrayed an absurd alternative universe bearing little or no resemblance to the actual English countryside.

Sometimes an editor or script-writer on radio’s longest soap opera gets carried away by political correctness, as when the vicar Alan Franks married Usha Gupta, the Hindu solicitor - possible, yes of course, but so Radio 4. My favourite example of this Radio 4-think happened when every real English village sent demonstrators to London to protest against the hunting ban. Every English village except Ambridge, of course, which sent men on a Gay Pride march.

Alongside this political correctness, there has also always been a self-parodying bucolic, in which figures such as old Tom Forest the gamekeeper, or Walter Gabriel (“me ole pal, me ole budey”) spoke and behaved in a way unknown outside Shakespeare’s Forest of Arden. Current examples are Bert Fry and Jo Grundy, ridiculous Mummerset-speaking rural clowns who would seem unrealistic even in Cold Comfort Farm. They rub shoulders with gay cooks, feminists, demonised venture capitalists and other cardboard cut-outs from the Radio 4 toy cupboard.

Oi thinkz that be a vairly accrut zummary.

And talking of The Archers:

A taste of 'Victory'

The BBC is using its news website this morning to advertise a couple of upcoming radio plays. Two forgotten Harold Pinter screenplays are soon to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4. 

Among them is an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's Victory. 

Here's a likely foretaste from my own forgotten screenplay of Victory, written long, long ago when I liked Pinter [ed - oh really?]:

(Pause) 

Morrison: Upon my word, I don't know why I have been telling you all this. I suppose seeing a thoroughly white man made it impossible to keep my trouble to myself. Words can't do it justice; but since I've told you so much I may as well tell you more. Listen. This morning on board, in my cabin I went down on my knees and prayed for help. I went down on my knees!

Axel Heyst (respectfully) You are a believer, Morrison? 

Morrison (reproachfully): Surely I am not an infidel. 

(Pause) 

I prayed like a child, of course. I believe in children praying—well, women, too, but I rather think God expects men to be more self-reliant. I don't hold with a man everlastingly bothering the Almighty with his silly troubles. It seems such cheek. Anyhow, this morning I—I have never done any harm to any God's creature knowingly—I prayed. A sudden impulse—I went flop on my knees; so you may judge— 

(Pause)

 ...Only this is such a God-forsaken spot.

(Pause)

Not many blogs about BBC bias treat you to this sort of thing! 

So a priest, a rabbi and an imam walk into a bar...

I do enjoy reading Karl Sharro's Twitter feed (despite not sharing quite a lot of his views). Here are some examples why:

The funny thing is that women were allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia in the 18 century but cars hadn't been invented yet so it was pointless.
— Karl Sharro (@KarlreMarks) February 22, 2015

I bet the people around Moses were always nagging him: 'put those tablets down and enjoy life'. I mean if they're anything like people today
— Karl Sharro (@KarlreMarks) February 21, 2015

If ISIS has seen Italy's debt-to-GDP ratio and still want to invade Rome, then they're officially crazy.
— Karl Sharro (@KarlreMarks) February 21, 2015

You reckon in a thousand years an antiques expert would be looking at a ceramic bowl and say 'yup, it's from the Bush Dynasty'.
— Karl Sharro (@KarlreMarks) February 19, 2015

This Saudi cleric's got a point. If the Earth was turning, wouldn't we all feel dizzy all the time anyway? Science has no answer for that.
— Karl Sharro (@KarlreMarks) February 18, 2015

So a priest, a rabbi and an imam walk into a bar. But then they become self-concious about being in a joke and the whole thing falls apart.
— Karl Sharro (@KarlreMarks) February 18, 2015

It occurs to me it's harder for atheists from polytheist backgrounds because they have more gods not to believe in.
— Karl Sharro (@KarlreMarks) February 17, 2015

And so it begins...

Talking about BBC Two's forthcoming Meet the Ukippers (as we were), here we go (inevitably),   fresh in, courtesy of the BBC News website.

It's exploded straight in at Number 3 on the BBC's news homepage...that's how big a story it is:

Ex-UKIP councillor Rozanne Duncan: 'No regrets' over comments

A councillor expelled by the UK Independence Party over what Nigel Farage described as "deeply racist comments" says she has no regrets.

Rozanne Duncan, who sits on Thanet District Council, was filmed making the comments as part of BBC documentary Meet the Ukippers, airing on Sunday.

The BBC documentary also features UKIP's Thanet South chairman Martyn Heale speaking about the media attention over his brief past membership of the National Front.

Meet the Ukippers is on BBC Two at 22:00 GMT on Sunday 22 February 

Obornegate

To return to a subject Sue has tackled earlier...

The self-updating 'My blog list' feature on the right hand side of this blog gives me the chance to see what's going on elsewhere. For some reason, I included 'Guardian Media' in the list. (Sorry Sue).

For the past few days the 'Guardian Media' link has been updating itself pretty often - and always with some new story about the perfidious Daily Telegraph, in the wake of Peter Oborne's dramatic resignation from the paper. [Update: Immediately after posting this piece, yet another such Guardian piece appeared].

The Graun is obviously on one of its periodic all-out crusades against a major rival. The intent is clear - as it was with the Graun's tireless campaigning against the Murdoch Empire: To serious damage a rival. 

The BBC, inevitably, hasn't been far behind. (The two often seem to walk together on such occasions.)

Newsnight didn't just help 'break' the story (via the Guardian/BBC's media go-to-guy Steve Hewlett), it also led the following night's edition with its own damning report (from Chris Cook) on the Telegraph's misbehaviour. 

Legal eagle and Radio 4 Law in Action presenter Joshua Rozenberg (aka Mr Melanie Phillips) was then interviewed and told how he'd resigned from the Telegraph after his articles were 'amended' - despite his protestations - to include untrue things that the Telegraph had been pressuring him to include because they chimed in with their core messages (say, about the EU or the European court). And I have to say that I believe Mr Rozenberg completely about that.

The Telegraph published an unapologetic editorial about the Oborne affair. This included some swipes at the BBC and the Guardian:

This newspaper makes no apology for the way in which it has covered the HSBC group and the allegations of wrongdoing by its Swiss subsidiary, allegations that have been so enthusiastically promoted by the BBC, the Guardian and their ideological soulmates in the Labour Party. We have covered this matter as we do all others, according to our editorial judgment and informed by our values. Foremost among those values is a belief in free enterprise and free markets.

We will take no lectures about journalism from the likes of the BBC, the Guardian or the Times. Those media outlets that are this week sniping about our coverage of HSBC were similarly dismissive in 2009 when we began to reveal details of MPs’ expenses claims, a fact that speaks volumes about their judgment and partiality.

There's obviously some truth in this but the Guardian's description of this editorial as "callow" seems fair to me. What the Telegraph did, if Peter Oborne is to be believed, isn't proper journalism. It just isn't. That editorial doesn't even come close to being a proper, convincing rebuttal of those charges.

And, by the way (though none of this seems to concern the Beeb or the Graun very much), the Telegraph has slumped in quality in recent years, and has shed a lot of its best journalists (who weren't quite on message), and has closed much of its content for comment, and has become a bit too partisan in its projection of the official Conservative Party agenda to the extent of smearing others (such as UKIP), etc.

That's by the by though. Anyhow...

The Telegraph's attempt to fire back at the Guardian with a piece alleging something similar to the Oborne accusations hasn't taken off, probably because it smacks of desperation. And their attempt to fire back at the Times with a piece claiming - without much evidence - that behaviour there had resulted in suicides among Times journalists has rightly been condemned as absolutely atrocious journalism well beyond the Times, the Guardian and  the BBC (including, on the BBC, by FT and Northern Echo journalists). 

Media outlets fighting each other can get vicious. Very vicious. The Telegraph is coming out firing, but shooting itself in the foot. The Guardian and BBC are lapping it up and attacking the Telegraph on two fronts. The Times doubtless has its own agenda (an overlapping demographic for its readership) and is joining in, and being broadly defended. 

There are agendas everywhere, much as you'd expect from commercial organisations. But from the publicly-funded BBC? Why is their agenda so apparent?

Bertrand, Paddy and me

"I have been accused of a habit of changing my opinions … I am not myself in any degree ashamed of having changed my opinions. What physicist who was already active in 1900 would dream of boasting that his opinions had not changed during the last half century?", said Bertrand Russell. 

I agree with (Nick) Bertrand. I've changed my mind on Paddy O'Connell. 

I used to bash him with some intensity, and with good reason (I believe) for his - and his programme's - blatant left-wingery. But Paddy has changed and become a highly adept broadcaster in the past five years. He's grown vastly more conscious of his need to appear impartial. And he's giving that impression of impartiality week in and week out now.

Thus, given the change in Paddy, I'm also prepared to change my view of him - and his programme. 

Reading his Twitter feed, bashing the Telegraph with numerous re-tweets - and, being a Stonewall ambassador, some Stonewall-style tweets - I was thinking of spotlighting his apparent bias here, but reading on through his Twitter feed, it's clear that Paddy knows that re-tweets imply endorsements (despite what some BBC reporters say) and he spreads his re-tweets cannily across the spectrum of views. 

Thus, while people like us might disapprove of some of his re-tweets, we might well appreciate some of his others...such as:

Council motion of the year, acclaiming Tower Hamlets' successes in the #RottenBoroughs awards (via @TedJeory) pic.twitter.com/R6e6mmYKNm
— Tim Minogue (@TimMinogue) January 21, 2015

Plus he's not averse to tweeting Barry Cryer jokes:

'I've given up going to orgies: I never know who to thank.' - Barry Cryer, if you are reading about #DSK
— paddy o'connell (@paddy_o_c) February 10, 2015

Invidious comparisons

If you missed it, last Tuesday's Newsnight featured an interview by Evan Davis with Richard Dawkins.

Here's a transcription of part of it, which is very revealing about the thinking of both the interviewee and his BBC interviewer:

Evan Davis: But you choose to go onto Twitter. It's not a venue for scientific debate. You choose to go on Twitter. Just to take one example: a tweet in which you drew a very invidious comparison between the number of Nobel prizes won by people from Trinity College, Cambridge and the entire Muslim population of the world. Trinity College, Cambridge comes out on top of that comparison. Now, not disputing the factual basis of it, why make such an invidious comparison? Why raise that? Why raise the issue? What's the point of drawing attention to that? 

Richard Dawkins: It is a fact that in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages the Islamic World was a beacon of scientific progress and enlightenment, and something has gone wrong. I had dinner with the then chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, a few months ago and learned there the astonishing fact that between 20% and 25% of Nobel prizes have been won by Jews. And I thought that was a stunning fact. It really is, when you think that the total population of Jews in the world is tiny really when compared to any of the other major religions. So I wanted to make this point that Islam has stagnated in the scientific field since the Middle Ages and the best comparison to make would have been with Jews. And then I though, oh no, I can't do that because that will really upset people because of Palestine - and I'm very sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people in Israel. So at the last minute I crossed out 'Jews' and stuck in 'Trinity College, Cambridge'.  

Evan Davis: But I can think of much more gentlemanly ways of making the intellectual point that Islam has not been a great scientific...

Richard Dawkins: It's just a fact. Whether or not it upsets people is less important to me than the dramatic nature of the fact, which ought to be looked at. Somebody ought to be saying, 'Why?'

New Life of Brian

Fans and non-fans of Radio 4's Thought for the Day will have recognised a true master at work this morning in the ever-reliable Brian Draper, for whom everything turns out to be totally like Jesus (unless he disapproves of it - in which case it's not at all like Jesus).

Beginning with Oliver Sacks and his moving New York Times article about dying, written in the light of his terminal cancer, Brian recalled the film 'Awakenings'. This was based on an earlier memoir of Mr Sacks, and described how people were brought out of their catatonic state through a drug, thus (temporarily) offering them 'a new life'. 

That, inevitably, reminded Brian of Jesus, and the power of Jesus to 'awaken' people who are in a spiritual state of catatonia (agnostics and atheists).

Someone on Twitter described this as having "definitely won the prize for most blatant shoehorning of the year so far". (It's early days though.)

Oliver Sacks has previously described himself as "an old Jewish atheist", so I rather doubt that he would draw the same conclusions that Brian Draper drew.

D-lightful

One of the things about being a 'BBC bias obsessive' is that you remember what other 'BBC bias obsessives' predict - especially if it concerns someone you actually like.

I've always found comedian Reginald D. Hunter a hoot. However, after expressing his admiration for Lady Thatcher following her death and after backing another comedian who denounced BBC comedians for being predictably left-wing, predictions were repeatedly made at our progenitor blog (Biased BBC) that Reginald would never be heard on the BBC again.  

And, funnily enough, he has rather fallen off the BBC's guest list for comedy programmes in the past couple of years, hasn't he?

Well, here's some good news. Reginald D. is back on the Beeb tonight at 9pm on BBC Two. He's presenting the first episode of a major new series entitled Songs of the South. 

The first episode will apparently show him going behind the stereotype of poor, white hillbilly folk music to see how their old fiddle tunes trickled down into the melting-pot of American popular culture. Dolly Parton will be appearing and the previews sound enthusiastic. 

Here, while we're waiting for it to begin, is a (mild) Reginald D. joke:

If women ran the world, there wouldn't be any wars, but there would be entire nations that wouldn't speak to each other.

Update 9pm: The BBC announcer introduced the series with the words, "There's racial language which some may find offensive". I'll get the smelling salts ready.

Update 10pm: Well, that was NOT a typical BBC programme. Very open-minded, and open-hearted. Praise the Lord that Reginald was given the job.

Cue Hank Williams...

Meet the Ukippers

You kip if you want to. The BBC's not for kipping. (Though plenty of lefties on Twitter think it is).

Tomorrow night BBC Two is broadcasting a programme called Meet the Ukippers. (Those Twitter lefties will doubtless be tweeting away furiously).

The blurb accompanying the programme is already causing some anxiety among UKIP supporters, and I bet you can see why:

An unprecedented insight into the heartland of UKIP that follows the party faithful as they ride high in the polls and try - but fail - to avoid the gaffes the media are looking for. Thanet on the Kent coast is where Nigel Farage has chosen to stand for parliament, but this timely film is about the local party activists who stand firmly behind him rather than the media-savvy leader himself. Filmed over six months, these true believers explain the UKIP phenomena, but there are also jaw-dropping views on race the national party would definitely prefer weren't aired.

Oh yes. 

The men behind the programme are executive producer Darren Kemp and director/producer Kevin Hull. 

Darren Kemp is a BBC man - a commissioning editor no less. Kevin Hull, however, is the man behind Channel 4's much-derided-by-the-BBC-and-the-Left-but-much-admired-by-right-wingers Benefits Street - which complicates matters somewhat for potential complainants. 

Standing out like a sore thumb

Is the BBC's heavy coverage of the 'Chelsea FC racist fans' story proof of the corporation's habit of banging on about PC subjects, especially if they concern bad behaviour by 'us'? 

Quite possibly - though Sky News, ITV News, the Daily Mail, etc, are no less keen on the Chelsea story than the BBC. And it is an unpleasant and clearly newsworthy story.

Unlike the three media outlets listed above, however, the BBC opted not to report the large anti-freedom of speech demo in London by 'aggrieved' British Muslims a week or two ago (as we noted at the time). 

Story selection is a key indicator of bias. The BBC may not be guilty of unusual bias in their heavy coverage of the 'Chelsea fans are racist' story, as everyone else seems to be heavily covering it too, but on stories like the London demo the BBC has a bad habit of standing out like a sore thumb.

Charges of 'peculiar bias' from the BBC, therefore, remain compelling. 

Apparently

You may have heard about Israeli journalist Zvika Klein and his very short video about walking through in Paris wearing a kippah and being repeatedly spat at and abused, thus revealing the depth of Jew-hatred in parts (but only parts) of Paris - namely predominantly Muslim neighbourhoods. 

You may also have heard about Mr Klein's experience with a Channel 4 News interviewer who asked him if the video was "an act of provocation" (and repeatedly made the usual 'Don't Muslims have it as bad?' point as well) - which tells you all you need to know about where Channel 4 News stands these days.

BBC Watch, doing its duty, notes BBC Trending's take on the video. Hadar highlights the differences between how the BBC reported this video (pouring a good deal of scepticism over it) and how they reported the video which inspired it, allegedly showing sexism in the U.S.A. (where no scepticism whatsoever was poured over it).  

Now, I can see that some of the caveats about the way Zvika Klein's video was edited (as reported by the BBC) are probably valid, and it's to be hoped that Zvika will now make a much longer video showing his experience in the round of 'walking around Paris for 10 hours as a Jew' (which would be very interesting), but...

...BBC Watch is correct to point out the contrast in treatment, and to note that the BBC toned down the sheer viciousness of the anti-Semitic abuse. 

The point that stood out for me though is this quote from the BBC Trending article:

“With an apparently anti-Semitic murder among two killings in Copenhagen this weekend, and last month’s Paris attacks including four murders at a Kosher supermarket, some Jews in Europe are feeling vulnerable.”

That seems to me to be an example of BBC over-cautiousness (in the interests of 'community cohesion') at its worst. I'd say there's nothing "apparently" about the anti-Semitic nature of the attack on the synagogue in Copenhagen by a Jew-hating Muslim fanatic. 

Moving on

The BBC seems to have moved on from the recent attacks on free speech campaigners and Jews in Copenhagen. The news that some 500 Muslim men controversially attended the funeral of the Danish-Palestinian terrorist Omar El-Hussein, as reported by ITV News, The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail, isn't a story that the BBC News website thinks is worth reporting. 

Making a date with 'Dateline'

Today's Dateline London was excellent. 

The recent expansion in the range of its guests has helped a lot. It's no longer always the same old crowd of lefties, plus (every few weeks) Janet Daley.

Today's panel largely consisted of newer voices, with only Stryker McGuire being a Dateline veteran:

Dmitri Linnik, Voice of Russia

Lilit Gevorgyan, writer and broadcaster

Alex Deane, Conservative Home

Stryker McGuire, Bloomberg Markets

Even though the names of the organisations two of them work for - Voice of Russia and Conservative Home - kind-of tells you where at least two of the guests are likely to be coming from, the range of views was wide enough to allow for an interesting clash of opinions. The subjects up for discussion were Russia, Greece and the British election.

I particularly appreciated the discussion over Russia.

Dmitri Linnik attempted to play the 'Well, the U.S. did exactly the same during the Arab Spring' card when confronted with the charge that Russian soldiers disguised as Russian-speaking rebels or independents appear to be active in eastern Ukraine. Alex replied that even if that was true, two wrongs don't make a right and if DL's argument won't hold up in his mum's kitchen then it won't hold up in the Dateline studio either!

I was also intrigued that Lilit, originally from Armenia, was so dismissive of Mr Fallon's concerns about Russia's intentions towards the Baltic States. Looking her up online, it turns out that she used to advise the former president of Armenia, and Armenian presidents tend to be pro-Russian. 

Oh, please!

DB at Biased BBC recently got himself involved in a Twitter exchange between BBC News at Six and News at Ten journalist Julia Macfarlane and BBC Newshour’s Nigel Henry Doran. 

DB concludes that Nigel "is not your typical BBC journo". Julia on the other hand...

Julia Macfarlane ‏@juliamacfarlane  Feb 20
Shamima Begum 15, Kadiza Sultana 16, and unnamed 15yo (Bethnal Green Academy) flew to Turkey during half-term break http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31554844 …

Nigel Henry Doran ‏@Nigello  Feb 20
@juliamacfarlane Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Julia Macfarlane ‏@juliamacfarlane  Feb 20
@Nigello Bit harsh..! Clearly these poor girls taken advantage of. And made appallingly stupid decision...hopefully they will live to learn

Nigel Henry Doran ‏@Nigello  Feb 20
@juliamacfarlane Oh, please! They'll know what IS is:  "people" who glory in death and horror. I have no sympathy for psychotic fundies.

DB ‏@4d2b  Feb 20
@Nigello @juliamacfarlane Well said Nigel.

Cannabis Week

Due to family matters (of the nice variety), I've not have much time to blog this week - or to listen to or watch much on the BBC. 

That said, I've tried to keep up with Newsnight (more of which over the weekend) and with Radio 4's PM and its 'Cannabis Week'. 

Having posted about the BBC's apparent pro-liberalisation bias on the issue of cannabis last weekend I was intrigued to hear that PM was giving up large swathes of its programme this past week to the subject. (Why did they do that?)

I've never hidden the fact (even on my old blog) that - unlike, I suspect, many of you - I've always liked Eddie Mair and PM. But PM is a BBC staple and, thus, natually prone to the BBC's apparently institutional biases. So if the bias I've previously accused the BBC of is to be proven, a week of in-depth reports/discussions on the issue on a flagship radio 4 current affairs programme is a good place to start. 

The first day, Monday, was largely given over to the pro-liberalisation side. A fairly lengthy New York Times editorial favouring a liberal approach was read out in full. A report from the U.S. showing how drugs liberalisation is spreading there, with a majority of supportive voices, followed. Then came an interview with one of the New York Times writers responsible for the pro-liberalisation editorial. 

To balance that Eddie noted, briefly, that day's academic report suggesting that strong cannabis could lead to psychosis and promised alternative views later in the week.

On the second day, Tuesday, we heard from the BBC's home editor, Mark Easton - the one I think is strongly biased in favour of drugs liberalisation. His commentary was short but stacked with statistics - seemingly impartial but not wholly lacking in bias. ("Only a few hundred are jailed for cannabis possession but many people would say that's too many"). 

Then we heard from two people with experience of cannabis use. The first, suffering from MS, was an eloquent man who made a very strong case for liberalisation and the benefits of cannabis use. I was won over. Only after Googling his name did I confirm to myself that he was - as seemed fairly obvious from the interview - a pro-liberalisation activist. Couldn't PM have made that clearer? 

Then came someone who is attending a cannabis user's equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous because she's not had such a happy experience of cannabis. Her story was voiced by an actress, but was it a fair counter-balance? 

As I listened to it - and by checking the pro-cannabis supporters on Twitter I confirmed this (as they were calling her a "piss-head") - I thought that the woman's problems went well beyond her cannabis use. She was clearly even more of an alcoholic than a drug addict - i.e. someone with a strongly addictive personality. Many pro-cannabis types on Twitter said that cannabis wasn't the root of her problem, and I think that was pretty obviously true (and much have struck most PM listeners that way too) - and, thus, she couldn't be considered a proper balancing counter-example to the deeply persuasive, articulate, MS-suffering user who preceded her.

Wednesday's edition featured a report on the medical debate over cannabis for the BBC's science correspondent David Shukman. All in all it was a fair report, though it ended on a positive (for cannabis) use with points in favour of the medical use of cannabis, thus inevitably tilting things slightly in the 'pro' direction. 

On Thursday's PM we heard from Tom Burridge in Spain on the cannabis clubs there, living (largely) just within the law. His very interesting report featured some 'antis', showing some divergence of opinion over there, but was somewhat 'pros'-heavy (as you'll hear if you listen to it).

Finally came today's extraordinary discussion, featuring four 'experts' and listener comments/questions. 

PM voiced a variety of listener opinions, some for, some against. The best points, to my mind, were made in favour of cannabis legalisation. (Was that because that was really the case? Or because PM selected better 'pros' than 'antis' from their response? We'll never know).

The panel covered a spectrum of opinion. At one end you had pro-decriminalisation crossbench peer Baroness Meacher. Not too far from her was Professor Val Curran, who wants liberalisation of cannabis on medical grounds. Against them was 'addiction expert' Sarah Graham, who opposes cannabis use and any form of liberalisation...

...plus the oh-so-impartial BBC home editor Mark Easton, whose scant contributions (why was he there?) reminded listeners that the 'war on drugs' began with a Christian religious nut who compelled politicians to brand drugs as "evil" (and that really was the tone of Mark's point).

Some might call that a 3 against 1 bias (and, with Eddie Mair, a 4 against 1 bias - see below). It was certainly a 2 against 1 bias. The debate got very heated. Baroness Meacher and Prof Curran ended up scrapping with Sarah Graham in a manner that wouldn't have embarrassed Nicky Campbell's The Big Questions. Sarah Graham was the hottest-tempered, but had to face two hostile guests - and Eddie Mair, who - unquestionably, factually - gave her a much harder time than anyone else (despite her being the only non-pro-liberalisation guest)

Personally, I found Sarah deeply unpersuasive, and Prof Curran very persuasive. That's where I am, but it may also, if I'm being cynical, be where the BBC is too. 

Think conspiratorially for a moment please. Imagine if you're pro-cannabis liberalisation. What would you do? Why not get in a prominent and eloquent pro-decriminalisation speaker, and a prominent, fairly liberal, 'independent' professor, and, to 'balance' them, someone with no evident scientific background and who has a tendency to become aggressive and 'ranty' - and make a fool of herself by rejecting scientific evidence in favour of anecdotal evidence? Because that - to my way of thinking - is how things panned out this evening.

Please take a listen for yourselves and see if you agree that BBC Radio 4 revealed a socially liberal bias here as regards drugs, despite its pretensions to impartiality.

The Twitter reaction has been fascinating. 

Pro-cannabis people have been out in force. They've been condemning Sarah Graham's presence on the programme, but generally praising PM. A few anti-drugs people have denounced the programme as being biased in favour of liberalisation. One exchange saw one of those rare anti-drugs tweeters saying that the panel was heavy with pro-liberalisation types, and an pro-liberalisation tweeter responding that the panel was heavy with pro-good sense types. 

Fascinating as it was, PM's 'Cannabis Week' can hardly be said to escape the charge of bias.