Saturday, 29 August 2015

A lecture from the BBC's Chris Morris


Do you ever get the feeling that you're being lectured to by the BBC?


I'll quote two excepts.

The first tells us to get a grip and get some "perspective":
"We can't cope!" is the collective cry from across Europe, as the huddled masses spill onto its shores and scramble over hastily-assembled razor wire fences.
"The numbers are too great. It's biblical!"
A little perspective, however, would not go amiss.
This may be Europe's biggest migration crisis since World War Two, but it is nothing compared to the challenges facing neighbouring countries in the Middle East.
Take a look at the numbers in Turkey. In Jordan. In Lebanon.
There are millions of people seeking shelter, in countries that have far fewer resources to help them cope.
The second, somewhat in the manner of a Biblical parable, contrasts those who "see" an "overwhelming moral imperative to act" (presumably Germany and Sweden) with those "who wants to close their eyes and wish the migration crisis away" (presumably meaning the UK):
No-one can fail to be moved by the tragic stories of sinking ships and shattered lives. The gruesome discovery of 71 decomposing bodies locked inside a lorry in Austria is only the latest in a shameful saga.
Politicians say enough is enough. Something must be done. And they mean it.
But for every European who sees an overwhelming moral imperative to act there may be another who wants to close their eyes and wish the migration crisis away.
 Impartial BBC reporting? Well, it doesn't seem like it to me.

Friday, 28 August 2015

BBC Three announces seasons on 'Guardian' obsessions


Media Centre announcement: featuring a young woman

As you may already have read...

...the BBC Media Centre has announced a brand new 'season' of 'seasons' for BBC Three which absolutely blows the concerns of 'people like us' right out of the water. 

No one will ever be able to say that the BBC is 'the non-inky version of the Guardian' ever again...

Yes, BBC Three will be broadcasting a 'season' of 'seasons' on British history (including a landmark series on Englishness), on love and marriage, and (more controversially) on the rape of non-Muslim girls by Muslim grooming gangs in several English towns and cities...

*****

Er, now, of course, you all know the BBC well enough by now to know that the above is a totally sarcastic lie from start to finish. 

BBC Three would never broadcast such a 'season' of 'seasons', would it?

*****

So here's what BBC Three's brand new 'season's actually comprises: "seasons on race and gender".

*****

Really, we should all just rest our case at this point, shouldn't we? Pack up our cases, having provided a final QED, and go home?

"Race" and "gender", these days, aren't our concerns, are they? They're more the stuff of endless Guardian articles, aren't they? 

*****

The BBC Media Centre lists six programmes on 'racism'. One focuses on post traumatic stress disorder in London gangs (yes, really. That's not a joke!). Two focus on far-right groups (the KKK and Britain First). The other three focus on racism: "Is Britain racist?", "Ferguson One Year On" and "The Worst Things I Have Ever been called".

As the main BBC voice of this 'season', Reggie Yates, says:
I'm incredibly proud to be part of this season. You might think issues with race and racism are from the last century but sadly not. In some areas tensions surrounding race are as pronounced as ever. 
According to other media sources, the BBC "are  planning to prove that the nation is still prejudiced towards ethnic minorities".

Familiar BBC stuff.

*****

As for the 'gender season', well, in the exact words of the BBC Media Centre':
Being a woman or a man in the UK today. Finding your way as a transgender person, or gay or straight person in 2015. Being exploited for sex online. Victims of violence and rape. All are topics covered by a series of films exploring gender and sexuality today.
As a parody of PC-speak, that couldn't be bettered, could it? Except, of course, that it's not a parody.

The BBC, sadly, is increasingly beyond parody, isn't it?

Falling victim to 'BBC propaganda'?



When the BBC reports harrowing stories of migrant deaths, as they did on tonight's News at Six, you'd obviously have to be morally sick not to feel any sympathy for those deeply unfortunate people.

The past couple of weeks of BBC reporting (when I've largely kept away from blogging and, to an lesser extent, BBC reporting) have (from my experience) been absolutely dominated by such stories. 

On the fairly rare occasions when I've tuned in to the BBC's coverage, BBC reporters have been prominently reporting migrant 'tales of woe', adhering to the BBC's new principles of suffusing their reports with 'compassion', pace Lyse Doucet...

...and I must say that I've been, on more than one occasion, emotionally 'moved' as a result (minus the inverted commas).

James Reynold's lead report on the News at Six tonight focused on the horrific discovery of dozens of dead migrants (including women and children) in an abandoned frozen food lorry in Austria. 

It was full of such compassion. James explicitly asked us to imagine how it would feel to be in the back of such a truck...

...and I have to say, watching it, I felt upset as a result. And I don't for one minute think I was wrong to do so.

I also watched ITV's main evening news bulletin tonight. 

Interestingly, unlike the BBC, ITV didn't lead with the migrant deaths (in Austria and the Med). 

ITV lead instead with the plight of British employees, as a result of a computer glitch at HSBC, leading to lots of people not getting their monthly wages on time. 

After watching the BBC, who devoted most of the first half of their bulletin to those mass deaths of migrants, I found myself thinking: "Why are ITV leading with that?" 

Was I wrong to think that? Was it actually right that ITV led with something which directly effects the lives of many more British people than the (distressing) deaths of an uncertain number of migrants in Europe and the Med? 

You may have a certain answer to that but I really don't think I do. 

I even watched tonight's BBC News at Six with mounting anxiety. 

Part of me heard James Reynolds 'emoting'; part of me heard him simply reporting (as you well might if you found yourself reporting such real-life horror stories).

I definitely did hear him saying that the dead people in the lorry were hard to identity and then saying that an identity card had been found proving that one of the dead people was Syrian (and, thus, a refugee from the hellish war there) before then going on to imply (and, actually, I  mean 'assert') that all the migrants in that truck were Syrian refugees. (Listen on the iPlayer while you can to prove that).

Then I heard James Robbins, in the studio, 'setting it all in context'. He conceded that some of the influx might be economic but said that most of the people attempting to reach Europe are refugees from conflict. 

Then it got confusing. 

James Robbins showed a map suggesting that some of the migrants come from Africa (a line, as far as I could see, from Sudan and South Sudan through Eritrea to Ethiopia) before pivoting onto a map of Syria, mentioning four million refugees from the conflict there...

...thus leaving me (as a viewer) with the distinct impression that Syrian refugees (obviously the most deserving of refugees) comprise the bulk of the present wave of immigrants crashing on Europe and the UK's shores...

...and an Austrian (centre-right) minister was then shown saying that Europe should get its act together to make things better, and Britain's fears were also reported (sounding rather trivial in comparison).

BBC reporting or BBC propaganda? You decide.

Surprise/no surprise


After a brief pause in blogging, I'm not exactly sure that I want to return to my 'comfort zone'....
but....

Here's Johnny! (bemoaning a recent, highly surprising turn of events):

Suha and Zeinab revisited



I woke up in the middle of the night and switched on the radio, just in time to catch a familiar voice saying “Suha Arafat”. It was, of course Zeinab Badawi, and I was wondering if this was another case of deja vu all over again; was I hearing the same episode of HardTalk that I’d blogged a while ago? Was it a figment of my imagination, or was it one of those dreams that are so close to reality that you’re wondering, in the dream, if it’s really a dream?
It was “another chance to hear” Suha and Zeinab, for no apparent reason other than, perhaps, to reignite the vexing question of Yassir’s assassination. 

The audio version gives quite a different impression from the full-on technicolor version. No portrait of Yasser leering down from his easel to distract one - no time to ponder over Suha’s flawless make up (has she got a lady-in-waiting or does she do it herself?)

There’s just the conversation. No frills. Because I missed the start of the introduction I wasn’t quite sure if I was hearing an updated version, or whether this was an unadulterated repeat of the January interview.




Suha was still convinced that old Yasser had ingested a dose of polonium in his frugal lunch -  just a little fish or chicken don’t you know -  because he was in fine fettle up to that fatal day. “My husband  was a fitness fanatic”, she said - good diet, abstemious, and the picture of health. We’ll have to take her word for it. He didn’t have aids after all.
Suha was insistent that someone - it must have been a traitorous Palestinian - had slipped the poison into his healthy lunch on behalf of the Israelis.


Healthy diet


I was certain I’d heard that the poisoning theory had been definitively debunked by the French, Swiss and Russian investigators, but at the time of the interview, Suha hadn’t received those disappointing results, and she wouldn’t have liked them very much when she did receive them.  
She’ll be appealing the findings. I don’t know if this is ongoing.

Now that I was able to properly listen, I realised that Suha was saying that old Yasser, the father of the Palestinians -  specifically the father of every single Palestinian child - wanted to establish a secular state.  Confusingly, he had made Suha convert from Christianity to Islam when they were married, secular old rogue that he was. 

 The only aspect of religiosity that concerned her  greatly was the unthinkable prospect of Jews being allowed to pray at the Temple Mount. She thought the very idea was beyond the pale. She got so worked up at the whole idea of Jews praying at the Temple Mount that Zeinab had to calm her down,. ”The Israeli government assures us that it’s not going to happen.” said Zeinab in a calm voice. 

The bit about the money was as dramatic as ever. “Where is it?” asked Zeinab. “Where are Yasser’s millions?” I remembered the gestures with which Zeinab accompanied that question, looking round the room exaggeratedly, as if for a giant safe or a mound of ingots.   

I wonder why the BBC World Service thought it was a good idea to resurrect this peculiar interview, specially since with hindsight the poisoning claim looks so ‘conspiracy theory’.


Why on earth did they do it?

Thursday, 27 August 2015

Confronting antisemitism

The Corbyn phenomenon again. I wish I didn’t have to keep talking about this, but needs must.

No-one ever seems to agree about whether the BBC’s bias against Israel is because of  ignorance or malevolence, or a bit of both. 

We might apply a similar question to Corbymaniacs. Why doesn’t Corbyn’s Islamophilia and his links with antisemites bother them? They must have heard of it, but do they understand the full implications of it? Is it that they do know and they do understand, but they just don’t care?  Or is it a bit of both?

A well respected journalist based in the south west - the arts editor of the Western Morning News, has written an article which I think typifies one important strand of pro Corbyn thought. He expresses his admiration for Corbyn without any mention of the words ‘antisemitism’, ‘holocaust denial’, or ‘friend’. I have no idea what he thinks about Corbyn’s “friends” but I would guess that he generally sympathises with the Palestinians, in the way most of the BBC-educated left do. Not all that interested, but if pressed, or at times when we’re all subjected to blanket media coverage of Gaza, they know which side they’re on.

Like Corbyn, his outlook is pure old school Labour interwoven with a smattering of knee-jerk anti-tory prejudice. 
However, there are some valid points in there, and since I know this man is actually a friendly, agreeable guy, I thought I ought to pay him the courtesy of reading his piece ‘without prejudice.’ 

In the first section he sets out his family’s Labour background. “Labour is in my DNA”. Well, I get that. His parents are lefties. Jolly good. So were mine, but I’m not sure if they’d be now, if they were still around. I like to think they’d have moved on.

I understand completely his criticisms of New Labour, and his anger that the current leadership contenders and their ilk have dismissed Corbynistas as ‘extreme’. They are insulted because they see themselves as ‘originals’, the genuine socialists, the traditional left wing idealists. ‘How very dare these ‘tory-lite’ upstarts misrepresent us so!’ they say.

Corbyn and the hard left are the good guys, he believes; they alone support righteous causes, like a publicly funded NHS, re-nationalised utilities and railways and higher taxes imposed upon the greedy rich.  

This nostalgic, retro way of thinking is not solely directed at Labour idealism circa 1945, but also encompasses a kind of Dickensian picture of the Tory.  Tiny Tim starves in the workhouse and the bankers gloat as their millions mount up at the expense of the downtrodden.  

What they don’t acknowledge, blinded, I think, by resentment and inverted class prejudice, is that neither the current government nor the previous Labour government actually fits those long-gone stereotypes - the heartless, nasty, right-wing toffs versus the caring, egalitarian, noble, left-wing, workers.

The fact is we’ve had centre ground politics for some time and society’s inequalities and injustices exist, and thrive, no matter what. It is understandable that Corbyn and his followers don’t like the status quo and want to overturn it.

I can see the problem with inequality. Also, degradation, depravity, moral and social.  Educational mediocracy. Failing schools, dangerous hospitals,  Muslim no-go areas, corruption, drugs, debauchery and people covered in tattoos, or alternatively, burkas.

If Jeremy Corbyn could magic it all away by creating extra money and  fairy dust from thin air I might vote for him myself.

But there are numerous flaws in Corbyn’s politics. Anti-austerity? What is that? It necessarily implies that austerity is a choice, imposed by the haves to punish the have-nots, for spite. Abolishing tuition fees is the promise only the unelectable can afford to make; these fanciful ideas always fail.  The definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Albert Einstein.) 

The railways are indeed a mess. The incompatibility between one company and the next causes endless complications. Utilities are a shambles as well. But public ownership? What about the inertia and the corruption?  There’s no easy answer to problems like inefficiency, lack of motivation, incompetence, which are part and parcel of anything that grows big and unmanageable. Nationalisation might be worth a try, but I bet the big bosses would be as fat as the fattest fat cats that presently run massive institutions, be they private or public, and the workers would be just as exploited. 

Anyway, that’s not really my point. Here are the closing paragraphs from this pro-Corbyn journalist who neglects to mention the antisemitism factor altogether.
“Some argue that a Corbyn-led Labour Party is unelectable. I don’t personally believe that to be true. But even it were the case, would it really be any worse than what we already have? Is an unprincipled Opposition that votes for austerity and welfare cuts any worse than a Labour government that follows any old reactionary route simply in order to get re-elected?
Tony Blair once famously said: “Power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile.”The crucial difference is that unlike the discredited former premier who pursued power at the expense of principle, I’d lay bets that Jeremy Corbyn – a man with “fire in his belly” according to my dad – will not sacrifice any of his principles on the road to Number 10.”
But what about those notable articles about Corbyn and antisemitism, which I can’t imagine people like our WMN journalist have missed.  There is the Stephen Daisley piece I highlighted the other day, and a new piece by Louise Mensch in the Jewish Chronicle. Not that someone like our Westcountry writer would likely come across it, and even if he did, I expect anything that comes from a Conservative would be automatically disregarded.
Mensch points out that Corbyn has not made any attempt to distance himself from or confront the rabid antisemitism that some of his followers have expressed, openly, on social media. Silence reigns, apart from a limp request for “no rudeness”


“The majority of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters are not antisemites but hundreds, maybe even thousands, of them are. Antisemites form a significant minority of Corbynites and they are among the loudest online. Abuse and Jew-hatred is rife. 
First you have the open loathers of Jews like Alison Chabloz, a performer at the Edinburgh Fringe who tweeted a quenelle then said that Jewish people brought pogroms on themselves. You have those who said Liz Kendall was “a servile zionist cow”. You have Fred Litten, who tweeted “Hitler was right and we were wrong”. You have the commenter on my blog reporting on Mr Corbyn’s meetings with antisemites who said that the Holocaust was fake but added, wistfully: “I wish there were six million less of them”. 

Next, you have people who are antisemitic but do not know they are. Perhaps these are more worrying. “What, are you saying that all Jews, not just the business owning rich ones, hate Corbyn?’ one man asked me. “Nothing wrong with denying the Holocaust, history is written by the victors,” said another. “Zyklon B was used for delousing." Another, a Scottish nationalist who likes Mr Corbyn, replied to a tweet saying he had called for an inquiry into 'Jewish donors to the Conservative party' with 'About time!'. (In fact, Mr Corbyn had supported an inquiry into 'Zionist' donors to the Conservatives, but every name mentioned at the event when he endorsed this was Jewish.) The antisemites are drawn to Mr Corbyn like a moth to a flame. “The Nuremberg trials were for show,” said Matthew Lees. Susan John-Richards, a deselected Tory councillor in 2010, now supports him because of her antisemitism. “All Jews are intermarried anyway,” she says. “Jews and Zionists own the whole world.” She also believes in the blood libel and that “9/11 was an inside job”. 

Respect Party suppporters of George Galloway have flocked to back Mr Corbyn. Adnan Sadiq, for example, condemned by the Corbyn campaign in the Sunday Times for his tweeting, worked for Mr Galloway in Bradford. Joanne Stowell, formerly a staunch Respect supporter, is now a huge Corbyn fan. “We’ve had the Holocaust rammed down our throat by by Zionists forever ensuring only Jewish suffering counts”, she said.

Another prominent social commenter whom our journalist must surely have come across is Owen Jones, who has written in the Guardian. “Antisemitism has no place on the left. It is time to confront it.” 
This reminds me of Mehdi Hasan’s article in a similar vein. Two people who have  virtually made a career out of Israel-bashing have suddenly decided to distance themselves from accusations of racism. 
Owen sets out a reasonable explanation of how antisemitism usually manifests itself, then, as one of Corbyn’s most high profile supporters, he “confronts it” - “it” being Corbyn’s antisemitic leanings, accusations thereof. He defends his hero in the way you’d expect. 
“The Labour leadership frontrunner, Jeremy Corbyn, has been a long-term supporter of the Palestinian justice movement. He could not possibly have known the personal backgrounds of every individual who has joined him at the many rallies he has attended over the years. Some of these people were antisemitic. And while the vast majority of people involved in the movement are – like myself – driven by a passionate support for self-determination, there is a minority that indulges antisemitic tropes. These ideas have to be defeated.”

I always wonder why people so passionately in favour of self-determination for Palestinians are fundamentally against self determination for Jews. 




It’s all very well Corbyn saying that he finds antisemitism (and of course Islamophobia) deeply offensive, but that’s not nearly enough. He needs to acknowledge it and condemn it when he sees it, just like he says everyone should do.

Various left-wing Jews who support Corbyn have written to the press, saying  he has nothing to apologise for, but since his  associations and affiliations have drawn out such overtly antisemitic comments from a his supporters,  he surely does. He has got something to apologise for. Very much so.

Again, is it because he doesn’t really know what post-Hitler antisemitism is, or is it that he knows, but doesn’t care? And the same goes for those unreconstructed post-war Labour supporters who want to dismantle capitalism, like my friend from the Western Morning News. No-one likes admitting that they’re racists, but it’s high time they looked in the mirror and  'confronted' themselves.

Wednesday, 26 August 2015

John Whittingdale on BBC bias: "Do I think there is general bias towards the left? No"


John Whittingdale advancing on Broadcasting House (as imagined by  Roger Bolton of 'Feedback')

The BBC's 'nemesis' John Whittingdale has been speaking at the Guardian Edinburgh International Television Festival.

Here are some of the things he said, as quoted by the Independent and the Guardian:
This idea that there is an ideological drive to destroy the BBC is just extraordinary, the people rushing to defend the BBC are tilting at windmills, they are trying to have an argument that has never been started, certainly not by me. 
Britain's image abroad is enormously strengthened by the success of the BBC. 
Do I think there is general bias towards the left? No. 
For the moment, the licence fee or something like it is the best option.

I’m not convinced that people feel that it is right that the BBC Trust decides if the BBC has got it right or wrong. We haven’t decided yet whether to give it to Ofcom, but Ofcom do carry out that function for other broadcasters and certainly there is an argument … I would say Ofcom are doing a good job in terms of regulation of complaints over Channel 4 and over ITV. I think they probably could do it for the BBC. Whether that’s the right outcome, we haven’t yet decided but a lot of people do hold that view and have expressed it.

"The BBC: Some of the news, some of the time"


Same old, same old (h/t ObiWan): 

Which of the following reports (one from Sky, one from the BBC) do you find more informative? 


BBC News report:
Manchester girl, 16, pleads guilty to terror charges

A teenage girl has pleaded guilty to two terror offences including possessing "recipes for explosives" and a bomb-making guide. 
The 16-year-old, from Manchester, admitted the charges at the city's Magistrates' Court. 
She was arrested in April following an investigation by the North West Counter Terrorism Unit. 
The inquiry also led to the arrest of a boy, 14, who admitted involvement in a plot to attack police in Australia. 
The court heard that phone data retrieved by police showed the pair exchanged more than 2,000 WhatsApp messages a day before being arrested. 
No evidence was found that the girl was aware or played any part in the Anzac Day plot or any plan to harm others or incite terrorism in the UK or elsewhere, the court was told. 
Anarchist Cookbook 
The girl, who cannot be named, admitted two counts of possessing a document containing information of a kind likely to be of use to a person preparing or committing an act of terrorism. 
She used her school's IT system to search for information on Jihadi John, the so-called Islamic State (IS) group and images of Michael Adebolajo, who killed Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich in 2013. 
Analysis of her mobile phone found instructions for producing a timed circuit, a document about DIY bomb-making and the Anarchist Cookbook 2000. 
The girl also had images of guns, knives and grenades. 
Photos of a dead child and an execution were also recovered, the court heard. 
The judge warned her that his sentencing options would include "immediate custody". 
She was bailed until sentencing on 15 October. 
Her bail conditions include ban on travel outside England and Wales, and on applying for travel documents.

Sky News report:
Schoolgirl, 16, Admits Two Terror Offences
The teen had bomb-making instructions and an image of a child with the words: "I will be the one who slaughters you o kuffar."

A schoolgirl has admitted terror charges after bomb-making recipes were found on her phone - along with pictures of dead children, executions and Islamic State propaganda. 
The 16-year-old pleaded guilty to two terror charges when she appeared at Manchester's main youth court. 
The court heard the girl used her school IT system to source information on 'Jihadi John' and images of Michael Adebolajo, Lee Rigby's killer. 
She also had images of a dead child, IS executions, guns and knives and jihadi terror 'heroes', including Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.   
Wearing a headscarf and striped cardigan, she was excused from sitting in the dock.  
Instead she sat on a bench in front of the judge, flanked by her mother, an uncle and her solicitor. 
The girl spoke only to confirm her name and age and she pleaded guilty to two offences under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. 
She was granted bail by Judge Khalid Qureshi, who agreed to adjust her bail condition of reporting to police to allow her to attend college.  
The girl's bail conditions include a 9pm to 7am curfew, reporting to police three times a week. 
There is also a ban on applying for travel documents or a passport, and a ban on travelling outside England and Wales. 
Judge Qureshi warned her that because of the law, his sentencing options would include immediate custody. 
He added: "The youth offending team will want to interview you and your family. 
"It is very much in your interests you are open and honest with them about what's happened, if you are able to tell them why you got involved in what you got involved in. 
"I will be asking you some questions directly about your conduct, your behaviour, why you think it has happened. I need to try to understand why this happened." 
The girl was held by police in April following an investigation by the North West Counter-Terrorism Unit. 
She told police that a chemical recipe in her sketch pad was in response to a Blue Peter programme on fireworks. 
Analysis of her phone found instructions for producing a timed circuit, a document about DIY bomb-making and the Anarchist Cookbook 2000. 
The girl also had publications by terror group Islamic State and images of guns, knives and grenades. 
Images of IS flags and quotes including "I love that I should be killed in the way of Allah" and "Only Jihad No Democracy" were also found. 
Photos of a dead child, an execution, and people about to be beheaded were recovered. 
Another image of a female child carried the words: "I will be the one who slaughters you o kuffar, I will be a mujahid." 
The girl was arrested at the same time as a 14-year-old boy. 
He pleaded guilty last month to encouraging attacks on police officers during an Anzac Day parade in Australia. 
Phone data retrieved by police showed the pair exchanged more than 2,000 WhatsApp messages a day before they were arrested. 
But no evidence was found that she was aware or played any part in the Anzac Day plot. 
The 14-year-old boy sent thousands of instant messages to Australian Sevdet Besim, who shared his admiration for the IS terror group. 
The boy faces sentencing at Manchester Crown Court on 1 October. 
He is being held in a youth detention centre in northwest England. 
Among the messages the boy sent to Besim, 18, was one which said: "Suggest you break into someone's house and get your first taste of beheading." 
Besim, who is awaiting trial in Australia, replied that that seemed "a little risky".

I can do no more than quote the commenter at Biased BBC who first spotted this contrast:
The BBC: Some of the news, some of the time.

Tuesday, 25 August 2015

Does socialism work?

This isn’t BBC related, and I’d quite like to move on from blog posts about Jeremy Corbyn - I’m sure we all would, but I wonder what or reader(s) make of these two performances at the Oxford Union, circa December 2013.

Compare and contrast Jeremy Corbyn for “Socialism DOES work” and Daniel Hannan for “Socialism DOESN’T work”. 

I haven’t watched the other speakers and I don’t know how the audience responded, but I must say I thought Corbyn seemed dishevelled, retro, and a tad geriatric, while Hannan sparkles with sharpness and acuity.

I’m not necessarily talking about the politics,  it’s the charisma and the delivery that grabbed me. 






Laundering antisemitism

Several people have drawn my attention to an article by Stephen Daisley on (of all places)  STV news. 
I was surprised to find it there because ever since Dunbartonshire  sparked off a wave of Scottish Israel-bashing by flying a Palestinian flag over their town hall I’d mentally written off Scotland and all who sail in her. 

But look. Here’s a piece which stands out amongst the avalanches of seemingly ineffectual Corby-critiquing (reams and reams, all listing Corbyn’s dubious associations and friendships, about which apparently none of his fans could care less) It stands out because it tackles antisemitism within the political left. (!) Surely Corbynistas and others from the left might at least give it a second look.



Like Corbyn’s other critics, Daisley begins by outlining many of the obvious examples of Corbyn’s misdemeanours.
Hamas and Hezbollah  - both considered terrorist organisations, both ideologically committed to obliterating Israel, both counted by Corbyn as friends, although hindsight has caused him to broaden the meaning of ‘friend‘ to include debating partners, and to add a mysteriously vague reference to “those with whom one profoundly disagrees”.    
That, as well as pleading forgetfulness or ignorance, indicates a somewhat sloppy ‘That should cover it!’  attitude to these challenges.

In truth, Corbyn says that Hamas and Hezbollah are “dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people.” He says that they are dedicated to “bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region.” He presents himself as a democratic supporter of a two-state solution but actually he supports and embraces those in Palestine who oppose peace with all the resources of their Iranian paymasters.”

Daisley mentions Raed Salah, of ‘Jews bake bread out of babies’ blood’ infamy, Jahjah and Eisen. He  hasn’t even got round  to Stephen Sizer and Ibrahim Hewett



Dan Hodges has written a Corbyn themed piece in the Telegraph, "Jeremy Corbyn will be cheered by racists and terrorists" which ends with some powerful, original observations:
“I have been one of the Labour Party’s fiercest critics. But I never thought I’d see this day: the day Labour started to launder prejudice. The day its commitment to standing against all forms of bigotry was so casually slaughtered on the altar of political ideology and expediency.
Soon Jeremy Corbyn will become Labour leader. When he does, his supporters will cheer his victory. And Paul Eisen and Stephen Sizer and Raed Salah and Dyab Abou Jahjah will pause a while from Holocaust denial, and conspiracy theories and Blood Libel and dreams of dead British soldiers. And they will stand at the very top of their platforms. And they will cheer his victory too”
Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite. How I wish that he were. How much easier it would make things. We could chalk all this up to the prejudices of one man and we could avoid the raw, awkward conversation we’re about to have. Because this isn’t about Jeremy Corbyn; he’s just a symptom and a symbol. The Left, and not just the fringes, has an anti-Semitism problem. 

Contrary to left-wing mythology, anti-Jewish prejudice has never been the exclusive preserve of aristocratic snobs or skinhead fantasists. "The Jew is the enemy of the human race," declared Proudhon. "One must send this race back to Asia or exterminate it." Bakunin labelled Jews "bloodsucking people" while Orwell, self-consciously anti-Semitic, even obsessed over the excessive number of Jews sheltering in London's Underground during World War II. (No matter what the Jews do to protect themselves, it's always disproportionate.) Marx, the grandson of a rabbi, essayed: ”Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible”. 
The contemporary Left, in most cases, would recognise these statements as irrational prejudice. But what if we substituted "Zionist" for "Jew", what would happen then? How many would object to "Zionists" being termed enemies of the human race? How many would be glad to see the "Zionist" become impossible? Anti-Zionism has removed much of the need for classical anti-Semitism by recycling the old superstitions as a political critique of the State of Israel. Why risk the ridicule that comes with quoting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion when you can cite The Israel Lobby and win eager nods from academics and commentators? Why deny the Holocaust when you can throw it back in the Jews' faces by fictionalising Gaza as a concentration camp? Why hurl rocks at a Jew in the street when you can hurl endless vexatious UN resolutions at Israel? 
Every pathology of the anti-Semite can be visited upon the Jewish state in the flimsy guise of "anti-imperialism" or "human rights". It's all okay because it's "Zionism" you're against and that's not the same thing as Jews and what about Jews who are anti-Zionist. The hallmark of a bigot is seizing on dissonant voices within a minority community and using them to delegitimise the mainstream of that community. The exception becomes the rule and those whose only connection to Jewish communal life is signing onto letters to the Guardian denouncing Israel become more Jewish than everyone else. 
It shouldn't have to be said but since stupidity is nearing pandemic levels these days I'll say it all the same. There is nothing anti-Semitic about criticising Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud-led government, or the policies of the State of Israel. There is nothing anti-Semitic about sympathising with the plight of the Palestinians (though it might be nice to recognise their culpability in the conflict too). There is nothing anti-Semitic about lacerating Israel for walls and checkpoints and bombs (though do address your alternative strategies to Beit Aghion, 9 Smolenskin Street, Jerusalem, Israel.) 

I think that last paragraph needs a slight adjustment: “There is nothing anti-Semitic about criticising Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud-led government, or the policies of the State of Israel.” 
No, there isn’t, but only if you make allowances for the fact that (because of the people Jeremy Corbyn supports) Israelis are forced to conduct their affairs on a war footing. If you view the predicaments faced by the Israeli government as though you were in Islington, you are unlikely to come up with an non-antisemitic critique.
“The Left’s unhinged antipathy towards the State of Israel has let loose ugly sentiments wholly unmoored from such legitimate criticisms. Israel is execrated as uniquely malignant and its enemies held up as plucky freedom-fighters or victim-idols. Corbyn and his like sup with Hamas and Hezbollah, they say, because we must talk to all sides to resolve the conflict, even the extreme and unpleasant. It would never occur to them to invite representatives of the Jewish Defence League to Parliament or to count Baruch Marzel or Michael Ben-Ari as “friends””

I said something similar yesterday, complaining that the BBC failed to challenge Corbyn on that last point.  
Daisley continues with a cornucopia of examples of  antisemitic anomalies, activities and utterances from other left-wing politicians (MP Paul Flynn Jenny Tonge) and the press, (The Independent, the Guardian).

He ends with a summary of the shaky antisemitic theories and solutions promoted by the Left, many of which are actively disseminated through platforms provided by the BBC: 
“If only Israel allowed Hamas to build up its terror statelet in Gaza unimpeded, angry Muslim youths wouldn’t riot in the French banlieues. If only Jews were driven once again from Kfar Etzion and Giv'on HaHadasha — this time not in blood but in cushioned, air-conditioned UN buses — there would be no more 9/11s. If only Jews had no national homeland, returned to rootlessness and the kindness of Christian and Islamic hosts, synagogues would no longer be daubed in swastikas and Free Gazas. 
As the left-wing Israeli novelist Amos Oz wrote: "When my father was a little boy in Poland, the streets of Europe were covered with graffiti, 'Jews, go back to Palestine', or sometimes worse: 'Dirty Yids, piss off to Palestine'. When my father revisited Europe fifty years later, the walls were covered with new graffiti, 'Jews, get out of Palestine’.”To be an anti-Zionist is to say the Jews alone have no national rights. The Left are committed internationalists; they just make an exception for every country in the world besides Israel. Today a European leftist is someone who sees "Jews, get out of Palestine" on a wall and tuts, before scoring out "Jews" and writing "Zionists" above it. 
Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite and nor are most people on the Left. He is a petition-signer who never reads the small-print, a sincere man blinded as so many radicals are by hatred of the United States and Western power. But his ascendancy comes at a time of great upheaval and populist torrents battering the centre-left and centre-right. It is a storm in which the organisation of politics against the Jews could once again prove an anchoring force in Europe. 
Corbyn has declared: "We all have a duty to oppose any kind of racism wherever it raises its head, in whatever form it raises its head." When he is elected Labour leader next month, Corbyn will become a pivotal figure on the international Left. He should use that office to mature his own politics and shepherd his comrades towards a civil and tolerant radicalism.

I thought I had plucked all the best bits out of Daisley’s piece, but you might not agree. To prove me wrong, do read the article in full.

Monday, 24 August 2015

Unasked questions

Articles about Jeremy Corbyn are pretty well clogging up the internet and most people agree by now that the successful outcome of his leadership bid is a foregone conclusion.

Everyone has something to say about him and his friends, but no matter how damning, no matter how many fresh skeletons tumble out of his closet, no matter how many disingenuous excuses fall from his lips, nothing dents the unstoppable Corbymania. 

Politically illiterate or naïve Corbyn voters, many of whom must be too young to know any better, might well be seduced by his socialist economic policies, his appealing anti-austerity plan, his idealistic, retro anti-war / CND stance, but not everyone has fallen for the “you must talk to those you profoundly disagree with” theory, since it is perfectly clear that this is not something Corbyn has actually done himself. 

When he appeared alongside Israel’s would-be obliterators and sat beside them at their meetings and rallies he might have been talking to (or with) them, but there was no indication that he disagreed with them, profoundly or otherwise.   

I do remember Sarah Montague strongly advocating this very theory (“we must talk to Hamas”), but I don’t think even she meant we must align ourselves with Hamas. She meant reason with them and persuade them to behave nicely. Perhaps politely ask them to ‘lay off the terror, and tone down your genocidal charter’ etc etc. Of course that would require rationality and a certain amount of integrity on Hamas’s part, and I don’t think many people outside the BBC would credit Hamas with either. 

It is the BBC’s persistent refusal to take the irrationality of fanatical Islamic beliefs into consideration when they promote their right-on ways of interacting with Hamas. They merely project their own rational and reasonable responses onto Hamas and the Palestinians as if they were all members of the same liberal left-leaning intelligentsia. Friends. 

Philip Hammond’s attitude to the deal with Iran involves similarly dubious justifications and rationalisation. In his interview with John Humphrys -  “put aside Israel for a moment”  - Hammond claimed that there were areas where the two sides were in agreement, eg., opium traffic and ISIL, and areas where they were not - human rights in Iran. 

He said it was helpful that they could share, at least, some common ground.     
“Where we do not see eye to eye with them is over Israel, and that’s because they want to destroy Israel”  
said Humph, showing some encouraging signs of  perspicacity.

Hammond thinks the present regime has a more nuanced approach to Israel because Rouhani uses more diplomatically savvy  spin than Ahmadinejad.  

Humph says: “Yes, if you listen to Rouhani  - but not if you listen to what the grand Ayatollah has to say - since the agreement was reached  - he’s in charge, and he still talks about ‘death to Israel’. 

“Revolutionary sloganising,” says Hammond. “The internal consumption rhetoric” 
"We should distinguish between what Iran actually does in the conduct of its foreign policy.We should judge people by their actions rather than by their words. “What we’re looking for is behaviour towards Israel - not only towards Israel but towards other players in the region that slowly rebuilds their sense  that Iran is not a threat to them. If we don’t talk we will not be able to influence them.”
“Is the need to deal with Islamic State blinding us to Iran’s faults?” suggested Humph.
“No we’re not blind to the risks that Iran can destabilize the region through its sponsorship.” was the reply.

Surely Iran’s activities, its sponsorship of Hezbollah its funding and smuggling of arms to Hamas and all the rest of it, is ”its behaviour”.  In other words that is “the conduct of its foreign policy”. How does that translate into any kind of sense that Iran is not a threat to Israel, or indeed the other players in the region?
That’s what I wanted Humph to point out in his otherwise promising line of questioning.
Will the lifting of sanctions merely lead to more aggressive, better funded, destabilising behaviour, and if so what will be done about it? 



When Jeremy Corbyn trots out “you must talk to those you profoundly disagree with” to justify his habitual hobnobbing with Hamas, Hezbollah and Holocaust deniers, one really needs to examine what ‘talking to’ even means in that context. That’s where the BBC falls short.
 Are we supposed to think that as an important figure in the PSC Corbyn has been furiously debating with Hamas and Hezbollah rather than echoing their position and virtually proselytising for them? Debating and arguing is so patently obviously not what he was doing.

Does he profoundly disagree with them? In precisely what way does he disagree with them? Which BBC hack has questioned him on these points?

Everything he’s done, his voting, his friendships, his speeches, indicate that the parties he profoundly disagrees with are not Hamas or Hezbollah, but the Israelis. Has he talked to the Israeli government? Has he called Netanyahu his friend? 

Which of our sharp, shrewd, penetrating interviewers from the BBC has pressed him on this?





Saturday, 22 August 2015

Friends reunited

I felt uncomfortable listening to The Reunion about Guantanamo the other day.
“In 2002, a detention camp was hastily built in a remote corner of Cub,(sic) to house the men captured in America's "war on terror". Thirteen years later, it is still there. And in the intervening time, Guantanamo Bay has become a byword for controversy, a place Amnesty International called "the gulag of our time".
(I do wish the BBC would stop quoting Amnesty International. Their opinion is no longer meaningful after a hatful of scandals and impropriety.)

We know Moazzam Begg attended a terror training camp in Syria alongside other notorious individuals, and he makes no secret of the fact that he is a campaigner for Islamist causes. Charges of terrorism against him were dropped amid cloak-and-dagger claims that Ml5 knew all about his activities.  The other ex-inmate of Guantanamo featured in this programme, Sami al Hajj, is also a devout Islamist; the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith specialises in defending Islamists and alleged terrorists, and Colonel Mike Bumgarner appeared somewhat remorseful about his role as guard at Guantanamo.




Sue MacGregor questioned the two men about their ill-treatment during their detention in Guantanamo. Her sympathetic manner seemed more appropriate for interviewing traumatised bystanders who’d unexpectedly witnessed an atrocity; say, people caught out 'at the wrong place at the wrong time', like holiday-makers at a Tunisian idyll. Or survivors of a tsunami or a natural disaster. 
All the participants in this reunion appeared to agree that the detainees were innocent. They were unfortunate victims of injustice rather than associates of enemies of the West and opponents of democracy. 
We know that Guantanamo Bay was controversial, and that torture and cruelty were allegedly inflicted upon the inmates. It’s not something the west is proud of. In an ideal world the civilised West would be above that, and suspects would be treated humanely, given a fair trial, and either imprisoned or released. However there is nothing ideal about this world now that Islamic terrorism is firmly established and growing.

I felt the presence of  a massive elephant in the studio. Other episodes of this series have featured individuals with different perspectives on a given incident, at least when the occasion is as controversial as Guantanamo. This time everyone in the studio was on the side of Islam and its apologists.  

Friday, 21 August 2015

The jokes on them. Or us.



Last night's Newsnight began with the Labour leadership contest. 

Newsnight viewers have been treated to many such features in recent weeks. Out of the last seven editions of Newsnight six of them (yes, 6/7) have focused on the subject of Labour leadership contest (this Wednesday's edition was the exception to the rule).

Last night's programme focused on the issue of entryism (again).

It included a report from new Newsnight reporter James Clayton (featuring anti-Corbyn Labour MP Neil Coyle), and then a double- interview with non-Corbyn-supporting Labour MP Ben Bradshaw and a disgruntled chap called Pete Sinclair. 

The aforementioned Pete said he'd voted Labour up until the Iraq War and only voted Green in 2015 as a protest vote. He'd return to Labour like a shot if Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader and might even become a member again. Unfortunately (for him), Labour have rejected his vote, suspecting him of entryism.

A quick bit of Googling shows that he's not just some random voter though. He's actually the Pete Sinclair who co-wrote one of my favourite BBC comedies (with Jack Dee), Lead Balloon. 

And he's also a writer for Have I Got News For You and Mark Steel's in Town. (Does he write all their anti-UKIP jokes?)

It's odd that Newsnight didn't give its viewers any background information on Peter Sinclair, isn't it? Kirsty merely introduced him as something whose vote was rejected by the Labour Party and he was also merely captioned by Newsnight as 'Pete Sinclair, Excluded from Labour Leadership contest'.

Also, it's a small world, isn't it? Kirsty Wark of the BBC interviewing former BBC Berlin correspondent Ben Bradshaw and Pete Sinclair, writer for the BBC (among others), about the Labour Party?

*****

Incidentally, I see (from Pete Sinclair's Twitter feed) that he was also on the Victoria Derbyshire show today, appearing as a "life-long Labour supporter" (well, according to the BBC feed anyhow):


The Victoria Derbyshire show also captioned him, 'PETE SINCLAIR, Labour leadership vote blocked', 

But at least Naga Munchetty gave BBC viewers a bit more information about him, calling him a "comedy writer" (though nothing to connect him to the BBC in any way, shape or form).

*****

On a similar theme (as some of you might already be aware), another BBC left-wing comedian, Jeremy Hardy, has had his vote for Jeremy Corbyn rejected by the Labour Party too and appeared on the BBC complaining about it. 

More revealing than with Pete Sinclair, the BBC website actually introduced him with the words:
A left-wing comedian has said he was told by the Labour party that he could not vote in its leadership election.
Jeremy Hardy said....
Poor Jeremy. Not getting his vote for Jeremy counted. Oh dear. Snigger.


Update 23.38: Actually make that 7 out of 8 of the last editions of Newsnight that have dwelt on the Labour leadership contest. Tonight's Newsnight also led on it!

And, for good measure, our Kirsty was talking about it with former Scottish Labour leader Jack McConnell, with whom - as you may remember - she got into a spot of serious bother a decade or so ago (over concerns about bias), after going on holiday with him.

Could you have made it up?

Nick Robinson v the cybernats (Part 54)



Today's big 'stooshie' on Twitter (regarding BBC bias) concerned the sudden flaring-up again of the deep, historic enmity between Nick Robinson and the cybernats.

If you recall, Nick Robinson had asked Alex Salmond a question at a press conference during the referendum debate which didn't go down very well with either Mr Salmond or his supporters (to put it mildly). Some pro-independence supporters 'went their dinger' so much that they swarmed around the BBC's Glasgow HQ demanding Nick Robinson's 'heid' on a platter.

Speaking at the Edinburgh International Book Festival this week, the BBC's former political editor said he regretted phrasing his question badly but added that Alex Salmond had exploited his question as a diversionary tactic. 

He also compared those protests to something out of Putin's Russia:
Alex Salmond was using me to change the subject. Alex Salmond was using me as a symbol, a symbol of the wicked, metropolitan, Westminster classes sent from England, sent from London, in order to tell the Scots what they ought to do. 
As it happens I fell for it. I shouldn't have had the row with him, which I did and I chose a particular phrase we might explore badly in terms of my reporting and that is genuinely a sense of regret. 
But as a serious thought I don't think my offence was sufficient to justify 4,000 people marching on the BBC's headquarters, so that young men and women who are new to journalism have, like they do in Putin's Russia, to fight their way through crowds of protesters, frightened as to how they do their jobs. 
That, you may agree with me or disagree with me, is not how politics should operate either in the UK or in future independent Scotland if there is to be such a thing. 
We should not live with journalists who are intimidated, or bullied, or fearful in any way.
This will run and run (and run).

Shot to smithereens



David Keighley at The Conservative Woman has rightly described Rona Fairhead's complacent Independent piece as a "protectionist pro-BBC polemic" which essentially proclaims "that the Corporation is damned near perfect":
The core message is that the splendiferous, fabulous, marvellous BBC knows what the public wants and is delivering it in spades. Auntie might be a tad bureaucratic and may need a slightly different form of governance,  but hey!....anyone who does not believe it is the pinnacle of national achievement is deluded, unpatriotic, and blind to the multi-layered £8 billion bonanza the Corporation brings to the country.
David highlights one quote from the article that had my jaw dropping too, and which bears repeating:
"We have set – and effectively policed – the highest editorial standards in broadcasting, putting complainants and the BBC on an entirely equal footing in the hearing of appeals". 
As he says,
Excuse me?  These scrutiny processes are set by the BBC to favour blatantly the BBC. Every aspect of the BBC complaints process is set in the BBC’s favour. The claim is risible even by Fairhead’s gone-totally-native standards. 
Well, yes. And don't most of us know it!

He also relates Rona Fairhead's "smug defence of the BBC" to Ofcom's rulings against the BBC this week (the rulings the BBC downplayed) - and the BBC's attempts to wriggle out of those criticisms. 

The details are fascinating and well worth reading, showing the BBC "using exactly the same lame defences" with Ofcom that they deploy with us (ordinary licence fee payers):
The BBC’s defence against the charge in a section about one of the TVE programmes shows how bull-headed, bigoted and closeted the Corporation’s ‘high editorial standards’ actually are... 
Ofcom most certainly did not agree. Its frustration that the BBC did not understand such elementary journalistic principles – and defended its actions in this way - is evident in every word of its damning verdicts. 
Fairhead’s claims about those ‘high editorial standards’ are shot to smithereens. So is her claim that the BBC complaints procedure is fair. The reality is that, because of how the Trustees interpret their role and issues such as balance, huge swathes of BBC output (In controversial fields such as climate change) are just as untrustworthy and biased as TVE’s programming was judged to be by Ofcom.