A hardline take on the BBC's use of language

The word 'swullocking', I've just learned, is "a near-perfect old dialect word that describes a sweltering, sultry, and all-round sudiferous (sweat-inducing) day"

It's certainly been a swullocking day in Morecambe today. The bay is looking like the Bay of Naples and it's so hot here that a volcano has just this very afternoon sprung up over the sea on the Furness Peninsula and within minutes erupted and buried Barrow. (Our thoughts and prayers, etc). 

Another word that's been on my mind recently is 'hardline'.

As you know, 'hardline' means "advocating or involving a rigidly uncompromising course of action". Its synonyms include:

uncompromising, strict, diehard, extreme, tough, inflexible, immoderate, intransigent, intractable, unyielding, undeviating, unwavering, single-minded and not giving an inch (etc)

It can be a neutral word, but most people don't tend to use it neutrally. They tend to use it negatively, about others. You rarely find it used as a term of praise. 

The BBC has been putting it to quite a bit of use in recent days, especially to describe certain UK politicians. (Can you guess in advance which ones?) 

Just looking at BBC Breakfast on Saturday morning (with help from TV Eyes), the BBC presenters and reporters used the term 'hardline' about Mrs May's Brexiteer cabinet members at least eight times, including such phrases as "hardline critics of the European Union in her cabinet". 

And Uncle Mark Mardell, whilst telling us a tale today, gave us a particularly fine example on this afternoon's The World This Weekend (also concerning Mrs May's Chequers cabinet meeting):

The seven hardline Brexit ministers knew they were in a minority in the oak-panelled room.

Checking TV Eyes again, the other BBC TV uses of the term 'hardline' this past week involve President Trump's immigration policies, a Second World War era Japanese governor, Germany's right-wing interior minister, and - again - Brexiteers (BBC political correspondent Alex Forsyth using the term "hardline Brexiteers" on Friday's BBC Breakfast).

Is there a pattern emerging there? 

Possibly. 

So let's go back to June where there are 118 TV Eyes results for 'hardline'. Are there any Remainers described as 'hardline' by BBC reporters? Any left-wingers? Any pro-mass immigration people? Any EU officials?

Well, put simply: no. 

Working my way through them all, it's lots and lots more uses (throughout the month) of "hardline Brexiteers", that wartime Japanese governor again (a repeated programme), Trump's immigration policies (again and again and again and again referred to as "hardline by the BBC - when they aren't being called "controversial" that is!), "hardline tax-cutting conservatives" in the US, the right-wing Austrian government for its stance on immigration, the populist Italian and conservative Hungarian governments for their stance on immigration, European governments in general who oppose mass immigration, the conservative CSU in Germany (for opposing Mrs Merkel over immigration), a right-wing politician in Turkey (Meral Akşener), "hardline clerics" opposed to women drivers in Saudi Arabia, and Italy's Matteo Salvini. And that's it.

Yes, there's definitely a pattern there, isn't there? Opponents of mass immigration, right-wingers and people who want Brexit to mean Brexit are the people the BBC chooses to call 'hardline'. 

Do you think they're using the word in a neutral sense when so doing? I don't.

Hard lines, Norman!

Norman and friend

Just following up a point from Monkey Brains on the Open Thread about how the BBC talks of "hardline Brexiteers" but very rarely of "hardline Remainers" ....

A survey of BBC Radio 4's output so far this month (using TV Eyes) reveals 23 uses of "hardline" in connection to groups of people and Brexit - and, yes, all of them refer to pro-Brexit people and none to anti-Brexit people. 

The 23 uses here specifically refer to BBC reporters, presenters and newsreaders using the term themselves. It doesn't include non-BBC guests or quotes from newspapers. So it's all authentic BBC usage. 

Here are the phrases used, and the number of times they've been used:

hardline Brexiteers - 12

hardline Tory Brexiteers - 3

hardline Eurosceptics - 2

hardline pro-Brexit members of Mrs May's Conservative party - 2

Mrs May's hardline Brexit critics - 1

hardline Leavers - 1

hardline Brexit supporters within the Conservative party - 1

Conservative hardline Eurosceptic Brexiteers - 1

And, of course:

hardline Remainers (and variants) - 0

As for the people using those phrases, one was Steve Richards, whilst presenting The Week at Westminster. He presents a BBC programme but isn't a BBC journalist, of course. The others, however, are. And here's their roll call:

Norman Smith - 9

John Pienaar- 5

Nick Robinson - 2

BBC newsreaders - 2

Justin Webb - 1

Razia Iqbal - 1

Luke Jones - 1

Paul Moss - 1

That Our Norm is the most hardline BBC journalist here doesn't surprise me one bit. He's always been a particularly hardline BBC hardliner when it comes to slinging labels around.

Update: With thanks to Peter, here's Terence Trent D'Arby's famed 1980s album in its latest re-issue:

Hardline hornets in hats (featuring Kate Hoey and BBC Complaints)

hardline

Regular readers will know that I've had a hornet in my Homburg hat for months about the BBC's use of the word 'hardline'. 

I closely tracked the BBC's use of the word and found it was nearly always used about certain kinds of people.

To recap, the VAST majority of the BBC's recent use of the word 'hardline' - and its beloved sibling 'hardliners' - have been connected to Brexit-supporters, especially those in favour of leaving the EU on WTO terms (i.e. supporters of a 'no-deal', crash-out-and-apocalypse Brexit). 

But 'the others' in my surveys have been equally predictable to anyone who's watched the BBC over the years: Trump's immigration policies, tax-cutters in the US, the right-wing Austrian government (over immigration), the Italian populist government (over immigration) the national-populist Hungarian government (over immigration and everything else), European governments in general that oppose mass immigration, the conservative CSU in Germany (over immigration), a Turkish right-winger not part of Erdogan's party, Hindus in India, France's yellow vests ...plus clerics in Saudi Arabia who oppose women drivers. 

To bring things up to date, and tracking the word's use by BBC folk since the start of February this year on BBC One, BBC Two and the BBC News Channel...

Yes, the term 'hardline' is still mostly used - again and again and again and again and again - in connection with 'Brexiteers', and all the variants thereon.

Seriously, using TV Eyes to monitor 'hardline' brings up masses of BBC reporters/presenters endlessly spouting the term in connection to Brexiteers, the ERG, Conservatives, Eurosceptics, etc. 

I've not found a single counter-example, so pro-EU, hardline Remain types who want to overturn the 2016 referendum remain once again untainted by the loaded term in the BBC's output.

The exceptions this time are, again, mostly familiar - Hindu nationalists (repeatedly) and parties in Italy opposed to mass immigration - but there's also a one-off criticism of anti-China US politicians and (more predictably) Australia's immigration policies.

To sum up, the BBC uses the term 'hardline' almost invariably against right-wingers, opponents of mass immigration, Hindu nationalists, and strong supporters of Brexit.

It's a trend that's so overwhelming that it should speak for itself and dispel any doubts about the BBC's biased use of language here.

Specifically tracking the use of 'hardliners', however - besides the many, many incarnations of 'Tory hardliners' - also brings up something that might seem less predictable at a first glance but has long been a BBC 'thing' - multiple mentions of Iranian 'hardliners' (who the BBC often also label 'conservatives'). That's nothing new though. It's long been a thing hereabouts to complain about the BBC using the term 'conservative' to describe the most hardline Islamists in the Iranian revolutionary regime. 

Given the John Simpson transcript I posted earlier, this latest finding in the Iranian context is particularly intriguing. 

*******

Anyhow, all of this leads back to Kate Hoey MP's potent complaint to the BBC about their perpetual use of 'hardline' in reference to people who think like her (whether left-wing or right-wing or whatever) on the subject of Brexit.

If you've not read it already, please read it.

*******

And that in turns leads on, as knights follow daze, to News-watch's David Keighley and his powerful new article at TCW, ‘Hardline’ Hoey and the BBC at its slippery worst - which is a 'must-read'. (So please read it!)

David crystallises the argument and details Ms Hoey's exchanges with the BBC - and the BBC's (oh-so-familiar) "blinkered", "self-righteous" replies. 

The whole first section of David's piece, however, needs quoting in full as it might be new to you. And even if it isn't new to you it remains, frankly, quite staggering:

ONE of the huge frustrations about the BBC is that they have a defence for every complaint, made up according to their own ever-shifting rules, and adjudicated mainly by their own staff. 

When David Cameron formally announced that he would hold an EU Referendum, Newsnight reported the development with a programme which included 18 Remainers (one who was said to be a businessman but actually was a Liberal Democrat politician) and just one who wanted Leave. 

News-watch complained. The BBC’s response? Months earlier, Newsnight had presented an edition which contained someone who put the case for withdrawal. The programme with blatant 18-1 stacking was thus fine because this was ‘due impartiality’. Of course.

Ah yes, good old BBC 'due impartiality'! - about as flexible as term as you could imagine. 

More hardline activity from the BBC

A quick update on the use of the word 'hardline' by BBC reporters and presenters.

A TV Eyes scan of BBC One, BBC Two and the BBC News Channel from the 1st December till now reveals 4 uses of 'hardline conservative', 11 uses of 'hardline Brexiteers', 2 uses of 'hardline Hindus' and 2 uses of 'hardline' in connection with Frances's Yellow vests.

The BBC reporters and presenters responsible (besides BBC newsreaders) are David Willis, Alex Forsyth, Rob Watson, Jon Pienaar (frequently), Emily Maitlis and Hugh Schofield. 

So: conservatives, Brexiteers, Hindus and Yellow vests. 

There was a use of 'hardline Remainers' but it was by a BBC guest. Naturally. 

The first time we did an extended survey of this there were, of course, lots more 'hardline Brexiteers' (and variations thereon), but also uses referring to President Trump's immigration policies, a Second World War era Japanese governor, Germany's right-wing interior minister, "hardline tax-cutting conservatives" in the US, the right-wing Austrian government for its stance on immigration, the populist Italian and conservative Hungarian governments for their stance on immigration, European governments in general who oppose mass immigration, the conservative CSU in Germany (for opposing Mrs Merkel over immigration), a right-wing politician in Turkey (Meral Akşener), "hardline clerics" opposed to women drivers in Saudi Arabia, and Italy's Matteo Salvini.

I'm still seeing a pattern here. Aren't you?

Sloppy and loaded

The Two Brexiters

I don't think Kate Hoey MP (above, with someone else) would mind us lifting this from inews (though inews possibly might!), so here goes:

‘Hardline Brexiteers’: The way the BBC describes pro-Brexit MPs is not impartial. The term is never applied to figures who are 'hardline' in wanting to remain in the EU. 

The word “hardline” has been creeping into descriptions of MPs who are pro-Brexit for a year or so now. After hearing it in a BBC news bulletin this week, I wrote in to complain.  

Jonathan Munro, head of newsgathering for the BBC, replied: 

We do take great care in our language on Brexit. I’m sorry you were unhappy with the scripting of our early evening bulletin on Sunday. The term ‘hardliner’ is in use across the media, including most newspapers, generally to distinguish the views of members of the European Research Group from their Conservative colleagues who support Brexit, but have indicated they are more flexible about the terms the Prime Minister is negotiating. 

Our headline referred to ‘Tory hardliners’ and the introduction to the report made clear the term was being used in the context of the debate over the Northern Ireland backstop. 

I hope this answers your concerns. 

No, Jonathan, it doesn’t. The BBC received £3.8bn from licence fee payers last year. Unlike other media, it has a special duty, as defined in its charter, to be scrupulously impartial. Munro’s argument that it is following where other media lead is therefore not an excuse. It’s an abrogation of the BBC’s duty to the British public. 

The Corporation was warned about its biased use of language about the EU in 2005, when the referendum was first mooted. Lord Wilson of Dinton conducted an independent inquiry into bias claims, which concluded that the BBC was “not succeeding” in being impartial in its coverage of Europe. 

The BBC promised to do better but the sloppy and loaded approach has become worse since the referendum. First came the phrases “hard” and “soft” Brexit. This painted those who wanted a clean break with Brussels as hard and unyielding, and those who did not as cuddly and reasonable. 

Another term picked up by BBC journalists to describe leaving the EU was “divorce”.  Jean-Claude Juncker frequently refers to the EU as a “family”, and in 2016 began referring to Brexit as a “divorce”. By autumn 2017 a survey by News-Watch, which searches for BBC bias in coverage of the EU, showed BBC presenters and correspondents using “divorce” as the core definition of what Leavers wanted. 

Not only were Leavers xenophobes – they were now home-wreckers, too.  

The term “hardline” has been used by BBC journalists to describe President Trump’s immigration policies and a vicious wartime Japanese governor. It is clearly not intended as a compliment. 

News-Watch surveyed the coverage on Radio 4’s Today programme of Parliament’s defeat of the Withdrawal Deal. Only a handful of the 111 contributors were firm supporters of implementing the referendum result. And the main one – Steve Baker, spokesman for the ERG group – was introduced as – surprise! – “hardline”, a term never applied to figures such as David Lammy or Dominic Grieve, who are “hardline” in trying to thwart leaving the EU. 

The word “Brexiteer” – with its echoes of “mutineer” – is another biased description used routinely by the BBC. The Financial Times manages to use the more neutral “Brexiters” – you’d think a supposedly impartial news organisation would do the same.

'Brexiteers'? I've used that myself, perhaps because I spend far too much time monitoring the BBC. 

Who first used it though? Who amplified it? And did they mean it as a compliment (dashing, noble-hearted heroes?) or as an insult ("with its echoes of 'mutineer'")? And have I been brainwashed by the BBC, despite myself? 

Whatever the case of that, Kate Hoey definitely has a point about the use of "hardline" and "divorce", don't you think? 

(I do).

Hardline Watch drones on

'Hardline Watch' continues. (I know it's riveting you all). Since last Saturday, on the BBC News Channel, the only uses have been for "hardline Brexiteers", "hardline Tory Brexiteers" (repeatedly) and "hardline conservative". So the familiar pattern continues. The guilty BBC hardliners this week have been Norman Smith (a repeat offender), Tina Daheley and David Willis. 

#fail

Sammy Wilson - not a Tory

It's interesting the lengths some will go to to discredit criticism of the BBC. 

The Independent has the headline, "Many MPs who complained about BBC's coverage of Brexit are 'hardline Euro-climate sceptics'". It cites a "report" by the pressure group DeSmog UK claiming that 18 of the 72 MPs who signed the letter condemning the BBC's Brexit coverage are 'hardline Euro-climate sceptics'.

Well, for starters, the DeSmog folk are just the kind of trustworthy analysts who think that Sammy Wilson of the DUP is a Conservative MP:

“Within this group of hardline Euro-climate sceptics are also Conservative MPs, David Nuttall, Andrew Bridgen, David Davies, Richard Drax, John Redwood and Sammy Wilson – these men have voted consistently against measures to prevent climate change and have previously rallied against the BBC’s coverage of the topic,” DeSmog said

and the Independent is the kind of (online) newspaper that fails to correct them over that.

The Independent is also the kind of (online) newspaper that misuses the word "many" in its headline. Given that a simple bit of subtraction tells us that if 18 out of 72 MPs are part of this "hardline Euro-climate sceptic" tendency (as DeSmog and the Independent claim) then that means that 54 out of 72 MPs (probably) aren't - and that's "many" more than those who are. 

The headline should, therefore, have read:  "A few MPs who complained about BBC's coverage of Brexit are 'hardline Euro-climate sceptics'".

Suspicious minds

Spain has said it will take in a rescue ship which has been stranded in the Mediterranean with more than 600 migrants on board after both Malta and Italy refused it permission to dock. Italy's new hardline interior minister said he would not allow his country to turn into what he called a "huge refugee camp". The ship, the Aquarius, which has hundreds of women and children on board, has been waiting in the sea between Malta and Sicily. 

That was how BBC One News at Six introduced this widely-reported story tonight. 

I'll now quote it again and add bold lettering to highlight some of its interesting use of language:

Spain has said it will take in a rescue ship which has been stranded in the Mediterranean with more than 600 migrants on board after both Malta and Italy refused it permission to dock. Italy's new hardline interior minister said he would not allow his country to turn into what he called a "huge refugee camp". The ship, the Aquarius, which has hundreds of women and children on board, has been waiting in the sea between Malta and Sicily. 

Who wouldn't feel deep sympathy for "hundreds of women and children" in a "rescue ship" who have been "stranded" by a "hardline" ruler? It's like something out of an ancient Greek play, isn't it?  

The use of the term 'rescue ship' is intriguing. It usually refers to military tugs who come to the aid of stricken vessels and was most commonly heard of during World War Two. The Aquarius is a private ship operated by a couple of NGOs whose activities off the coast of Libya have proved controversial. The use of the term 'rescue ship' to describe them doesn't seem to be a neutral term given that it's a term used by supporters of the NGOs. Isn't the BBC taking sides by using it?

The emotional impact of the word "stranded" doesn't need spelling out, and neither does the value judgement contained in the word "hardline" to describe Matteo Salvini.

The most striking phrase though is "which has hundreds of women and children on board" - which, given that 629 people are said to be on board the vessel ("with more than 600 migrants on board"), clearly implies that the bulk of those on board are "women and children". 

Like most of you, perhaps, I've seen enough of these kinds of BBC report to be instantly sceptical about such claims.

I've spent a good hour or more tonight trying to corroborate the BBC's claim but keep finding everywhere the same phrase to outline the claimed statistics about those 629 rescued migrants - "123 unaccompanied minors, 11 children and seven pregnant women". 

I've not been able to find any more detail about the breakdown of those rescued, though the "unaccompanied" minors are said to be between 13 and 17 years of age and the British-sounding NGO rescue coordinator quoted by the BBC talked (vaguely) of "multiple" women being on board (whatever that means). 

And yet if you scan the fast-panning closing panorama of the migrants shown on tonight's News at Six do you see many "women and children" (click to enlarge)?

I'm seeing lots and lots of adult men there. 

With good reason, many people now take the claims about the ages of "unaccompanied minors" in this kind of story with a gargantuan pinch of salt. Wherever I look for images of the story tonight, I'm not seeing minors who look to be aged 13 to 17. 

Yes, there are lots of close-ups of the same handful (or less) of women with babies, so there must be a fair number of women on board - including those seven pregnant women. But even the formulation being used, via the NGOs, that there are "123 unaccompanied minors, 11 children and seven pregnant women" only cites "11 children", suggests that the number of actual women and actual children is probably fairly low. 

So I can see no justification whatsoever for the BBC's main early evening news bulletin to boldly assert that the Aquarius "has hundred of women and children on board". 

What is the BBC's evidence for that? Have they fact-checked it? (They've been no nearer to that boat than I've been.) 

And I suspect that it will turn out that the vast majority of the 629 people on this 'rescue ship' are men over the age of 17 and that there aren't actually, as the BBC claims, "hundreds of women and children" on board. 

Are there any proper journalists out there who will actually check when the boat eventually arrives in Valencia?

I believe this is yet more proof that the BBC has a knee-jerk 'progressive' take on stories about immigration. 

And I think their bias on the issue led them to use biased language and to exploit the plight of what James Reynolds, reporting for the News at Six, unflinchingly and unequivocally called "vulnerable" people. 

And I also think that's why they over-claimed the numbers of 'women and children' left 'stranded' on that 'rescue ship' by those 'hardline' Italian populists. 

"Typically hardline"

Here's a telling moment in the BBC's live blog of the unfolding events in Paris, as spotted by a commenter at Biased BBC:

The interesting phrase there is "typically hardline".

That's the only instance I can find in the entire live blog where the BBC reporters responsible (Yaroslav Lukov and Thom Poole) engage in a spot of out-and-out editorialising.

Marine le Pen's "typically hardline" positions were:

1. "For the sixth time in 2015, Islamist terrorism has hurt our country. France is crying for its dead and I am crying with it,"
2. "It is essential France retakes control of its borders, definitively."
3. "Fundamentalist Islam must be destroyed, radical mosques closed, radical imams expelled."

All of that strikes me as being less "hardline" than President Hollande's "We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless" - though I doubt we'll ever see anyone at the BBC editorialising to that effect.

Radio 4 profiles George Soros

For the first few minutes it sounded as if Edward Stourton's Radio 4 Profile of George Soros was going to be nothing but a hagiography but, towards the end, we did get some brief, dissenting comments - one from the spokesman of the Hungarian government, the other from a journalist whose beef with Mr. Soros is that his Open Society projects (such as the ones in Russia) haven't been anywhere near as effective as they should have been. (Not the usual criticism we hear of the meddling Mr. Soros). Plus we also heard a comment from a friend who described him as a benevolent feudal prince (which could be taken as a criticism or a compliment or a mixture of both).  

Ed's language was typically 'BBC' - e.g. In introducing the spokesman from the Hungarian government and describing its immigration policy he didn't just call it "hardline" (in the usual BBC way), he called it "very hardline". ("Hungary has taken a very hardline indeed on immigration and refugees"). 

Slanting the story

Emily, looking even more orange than the President

(Following on from a comment from MB on the open thread...)

A throwaway remark in answer to a question got massively blown out of proportion yesterday.

On re-watching what was said at the Trump/May press conference and then comparing it to the Times journalist's subsequent write-up of it (which gives it a peculiar, hyperbolic spin), I can't help thinking that the Times report had a story in mind already and then went away and wrote it.

Here's what was said at the press conference: 

Theresa May: Francis?

Francis Elliott: Mr President, Francis Elliott from The Times. Do you agree with your ambassador that the entire economy needs to be on the table in a future trade talk, trade deal, including the NHS? And Prime Minister, are you tempted to take the President up on his word and stick around for a bit till the trade deal is done?

President Trump: I think we going to have a great trade deal, yes. I think we going to have a great and very comprehensive trade deal...

Francis Elliott: (interrupting, away from the mic, hard to hear) But what about the NHS?  But what about the NHS? Should that be on the table?

President Trump (to Mrs May): I can't hear him.

Mrs May (to President Trump): It's our National Health Service. So should the National Health Service be on the table?

President Trump: Look, I think everything with a trade deal is on the table. When you're dealing on trade everything is on the table,  so NHS or anything else, and a lot more than that. But everything will be on the table, absolutely, ok.

Mrs May: But the point about making trade deals is, of course, that both sides negotiate and come to an agreement about what should or should not be in that trade deal for the future.

A comment below the Times piece sums it up well:

In negotiation the starting point is usually that everything is on the table. Things can very soon be taken off. Theresa May, in a rare moment of spontaneity, to me made it clear in her response to Potus that the NHS was not a serious consideration in any trade talks. Watch the Press Conference - it's pretty clear.

All this nonsense about the NHS is nothing to do with politics or trade talks - it the usual embarrassing anti-Trump hysteria; the nit-picking that the media make such a meal of in order to try to discredit Trump and everything about him.

Needless to say, Emily Maitlis on Newsnight followed the media pack and gave us this characteristically loaded description of the exchange:

Perhaps the moment of greatest discomfort for hardline Brexiteers came when the US president restated that everything - including the NHS - would be up for grabs in any future US trade deal. A remark quickly slapped down by his host, Theresa May. 

(Note, incidentally, the trademark "hardline" in "hardline Brexiteers" there). 

And Radio 4's news bulletin on The World Tonight began like this:

Donald Trump has said the United States is committed to a "phenomenal" trade deal with the UK after Brexit but the US President insisted that everything should be on the table during negotiations, including the NHS.

That makes it sound as if Donald Trump was insisting, above all, that the NHS should be on the table - which he wasn't. That's BBC spin.

Now, is this just bad reporting or is it biased reporting as well? Or both?

"Teacher, what will the Angel Gabriel do if a woman says 'No' to sex with her husband?"

Talking about comparing and contrasting things, the difference between Sky News and BBC News in their reporting of terror chief Peter Clarke's report into the Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham is quite striking.

From the BBC's Sean Coughlan we get:

Teachers could face misconduct inquiries, she [Nicky Morgan] told the House of Commons, after Mr Clarke's report found a social media group called the "Park View Brotherhood" used by male senior staff at Park View School.

Mr Clarke's report said this included "grossly intolerant" messages.

He said the social media messages included "explicit homophobia; highly offensive comments about British service personnel; a stated ambition to increase segregation in the school; disparagement of strands of Islam; scepticism about the truth of reports of the murder of Lee Rigby and the Boston bombings; and a constant undercurrent of anti-western, anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment".

From Afua Hirsch of Sky News, however, we go beyond quotes to get some of the shocking details:

Clarke scrutinised 3,000 messages sent via a private, all-male group called the Park View Brotherhood on social networking app WhatsApp, characterising them as "highly offensive".

The messages included the claim that the murder of fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich was a "hoax", that gay people are "animals" and their attempts at marriage "Satanic" and that women belong in the kitchen and have a "perpetual role serving men".

Although these messages were sent in private between teachers, the report reveals a correlation between this ideology and changes in the curriculum at the schools concerned.

At Park View, the report says, all discussion concerning sexual orientation was removed from sex education lessons, and boys were told in a worksheet that: "If a woman said 'No' to sex with her husband, the Angel Gabriel would strike her down and condemn her to an eternity of hell."

Girls and boys were segregated and, at Nansen Primary School, the school day was considered inappropriate both for the young age of the children and for a secular school.

That said, if you want to get the shocking details in shocking detail you have to go to somewhere like...er, yes, the Daily Mail: 

Teachers at the centre of the 'Trojan Horse' plot to takeover Birmingham schools exchanged messages that the murder of soldier Lee Rigby was a hoax, it emerged today.

A damning report into Birmingham schools has unearthed 'compelling evidence' of an attempt by a group of hardline Muslims 'to gain control of governing bodies', Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said.

The investigation, led by former anti-terror chief Peter Clarke, revealed details of a WhatsApp group called The Park View Brotherhood which also included a description of homosexuals as 'animals' with 'satanic ways’.

Mr Clarke was called in to investigate claims that schools in Birmingham were taken over in a plot to impose hardline Islamic rule. His was one of four inquiries into the allegations.

During his probe he was handed a dossier of more than 3,000 messages posted in the WhatsApp group from April 2013 until it was shut down in March.

Some of the messages suggested the brutal murder of Lee Rigby and the Boston Marathon bombings were both faked.

One post above a YouTube link attributed to someone identified as Teacher L on 24 May last year said: 'ATTACK ON ISLAM! Plz watch and share ASAP before they remove it!!!!! London butcher incident; It’s is a hoax And this is the link to reveal it.'

A message sent by Teacher C on 19 April said: 'Watch PROOF! Boston Marathon Bombing is Staged Terror Attack on YouTube.'

In May last year Mr Faraz allegedly posted a link to a news article about gay marriage followed by the message: 'These animals are going out full force. As teachers we must be aware and counter their satanic ways of influencing young people.'

There was evidence of young people being encouraged to 'adopt an unquestioning attitude to a particular hardline strand of Sunni Islam'

As they say: 'Compare and contrast'.

The BBC understands

I was reading some criticism of the BBC's reporting of Lord Frost's resignation from the government and checked out how BBC One's late evening bulletin reported the Mail on Sunday's scoop. In their main headlines, the BBC said:

The BBC understands the Brexit minister Lord Frost has resigned from the Cabinet. It's believed Lord Frost, who's led negotiations with the EU, stood down over the political direction of Boris Johnson's Government.

The BBC ''understood'' it through reading it in the Mail on Sunday.  

They are quite shameless.

Also, via BBC reporter Damian Grammaticas, we got the return of an old favourite - the BBC's favoured use of ''hardline'' to describe Brexit supporters in the Conservative Party:  

He helped Mr Johnson win the backing of hardline Brexit supporters in his party, advocating a tough approach to Brussels.

Says hardline BBC reporter Damian Grammaticas.

"Very hardline", says Andrew Marr

There was a telling moment of what is sometimes called 'bias by labelling' on this morning's Marr show, wherein Andrew Marr betrayed his own views on a matter of controversy:

Andrew Marr: Stan, you've got a story, I think, from the Telegraph that you'd like to show us. 

Stan Greenberg: Indeed I do. This is a story that says that Enoch Powell is right, which brings us back...What Simon Heff... 

Andrew Marr: Simon Heffer, who was Enoch Powell's biographer. 

Stan Greenberg: Yes, and what Simon Heffer writes about is about multiculturalism and about the dangers of multiculturalism taking hold in Britain and how that invites everything we are watching now. And we have to get serious about borders. We have to get serious about bringing people into a common culture...  

Andrew Marr: Is that kind of very hardline message ringing out across America at the same time? 

Simon Heffer's message - either as presented by Mr Greenberg or as actually presented in his Telegraph article - doesn't strike me as 'very hardline' at all. In fact it strikes me as very necessary. And, judging by the comments below Mr Heffer's Telegraph piece, many, many people seem to agree.

...though not, I'd guess, Andrew Marr.

BBC bias proved, once and for all

The other thing that shocked me tonight was the astonishing contrast between the way the BBC and ITV reported the 'Trojan Horse' story - in the wake of Ofsted's report - on their respective main evening news bulletins [i.e. the news programmes that most people watch]. 

Now, if you want clinching proof of BBC bias - and blogs like this are always after that particular Holy Grail - then this, it seems to me, is finally it....

....yes, clinching proof that the BBC deliberately downplays the dangers posed by Muslim extremism.

Please take a quarter of an hour to read in full the transcripts below. 

You will see how the BBC downplays the 'hardline Muslim' threat, in contrast to ITV (which doesn't). 

The bias is not in doubt. The evidence is too strong. The case is proved. The BBC is guilty. Is the BBC biased? and Biased BBC can pack up and go home, job done. QED. 

Note, for starters, how long it takes - respectively - for the two channels to bring in the Muslim angle to the story - the angle which makes the story so highly-charged. ITV mentions it straight away (13 words in), while the BBC holds off for a good couple of minutes (175 words in). 

That's proof enough perhaps. [As is the frankly bizarre use of the unspecific phrase "hardline extremists" in the BBC's headlines, minus the obviously-informative-and-relevant word 'Muslim']. 

Immediately, ITV hits us with the main charge, quoting the head of Ofsted: 

"There's been an organised campaign to target certain schools in Birmingham in order to impose a narrow faith-based ideology". 

i.e. there is a big story here - a Muslim plot.  

The BBC's headlines, in sharp contrast, skirt around that and move on instead to the BBC's own preferred angle: The wounded feelings of offended Muslims. 

Everyone - from the newsreader to Reeta to Nick Robinson - then reinforces the message that there's no Muslim plot here, nothing to see here, move along, move along. 

Yes, 'the wounded feelings of offended Muslims' really is the BBC's preferred angle. The headlines spotlight it and Reeta Chakrabarti's report - the main report - is largely focused on it. 

ITV's first report does a good job of reporting the day's event: The report's findings, the responses. The BBC's first report, in contrast, bangs on [to a quite absurd degree] about how aggrieved some of Birmingham's Muslims feel about all this. 

For ITV the Ofsted report is 'the story'. For the BBC, however, the hurt feelings of some Birmingham Muslims is 'the story'. 

ITV's Lucy Manning and Rupert Evelyn spotlight those who agree with today's report [a 4:1 ratio]. In contrast, Reeta Chakrabarti spotlights those who disagree with today's reports [a 2:5 ratio] - a contrast that couldn't be clearer. 

Yes, the BBC did give us "Third boy pupil at Park View" (see below - good lad!) and a complaining, context-fee sick-leave-bound headteacher [huh?], but, otherwise, you might be easily forgiven (and granted absolution) for believing that Reeta & the BBC were wanting you to share the pain of those aggrieved Muslim parents, pupils, trustees, and other Muslim parents, and wanting you to dismiss the concerns that Ofsted, Michael Gove, Andrew Gilligan, Damian Thompson, and many of us, have about this. 

Were it not for Nick Robinson's very brief mention of 'wot Michael Gove said' the BBC could be convicted here of ignoring all the head-spinning evidence of Muslim malpractice in Birmingham's schools. ITV News provided yet more evidence for such Muslim malpractice tonight. The BBC chose not to. 

Please take a read of the transcripts below. Can you defend the BBC here? 

ITV EVENING NEWS

HEADLINES

Newsreaders: The damning verdict on the schools at the centre of an alleged Muslim plot. Inspectors claim there is a culture of fear and intimidation that needs to be tackled.

Sir Michael Wilshaw, Ofsted: There's been an organised campaign to target certain schools in Birmingham in order to impose a narrow faith-based ideology.

One of the schools involved rejects the claim made. Tonight the Education Secretary calls for British values to be taught in schools.  

INTRODUCTION TO FIRST REPORT

Newsreaders: Good evening. Ofsted delivered a damning verdict today on the Birmingham schools at the centre of an alleged takeover plot by hardline Muslims. It found a culture of fear and intimidation. Headteachers were forced from their jobs and at one school arts and music were removed from the curriculum. The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said children were exposed to things they shouldn't have been exposed to. Five schools are now being placed in special measures. A sixth had already been 'failed' by Ofsted. The schools rejected today's findings saying they are simply 'not true'. Our first report today comes from our UK Editor, Lucy Manning.

LUCY MANNING'S REPORT

Lucy Manning: Across Birmingham, schools under suspicion. The fear? Islamic extremism in the classroom. The verdict? Some schools now rated inadequate and put into special measures; that there is a culture of fear and intimidation; headteachers reporting an organised campaign to target schools and impose religious views. 21 schools across the city were investigated by Ofsted and the Education Funding Authority. Five schools were placed in special measures. A sixth was  already in them. Ofsted found that headteachers has been "marginalised or forced out of their jobs" and some governors were "narrowing the curriculum, manipulating staff appointments and using school funds inappropriately to impose a narrow, faith-based ideology". Oldknow Academy was found to have organised a school trip to Saudi Arabia "exclusively for Muslim staff and pupils" and at Park View inspectors find the curriculum "restricted to a conservative Islamic perspective". 

Sir Michael Wilshaw, Ofsted: Some of our findings are deeply worrying and in some ways quite shocking. While a number of these schools are doing well and providing their children with a good, well-rounded education, there are others that give cause for grave concern. In the most serious cases a culture of fear and intimidation has taken grip since the schools were last inspected.

Ofsted found that in some schools girls and boys weren't being treated equally. Some girls at Park View, scared to be identified, said teachers were discriminating against them.

1st Girl pupil at Park View: We had a tennis tournament and they sent the girls home just because there were male instructors, and stuff. He said the girls are to..er..what was it?
2nd Girl pupil at Park View: Revealing.
1st Girl pupil at Park View: Yeah, the girls are too revealing. I don't see...There was only four of the girls, and how can you say that about us, just because there were nine boys.

But the school trust said the inspectors' conclusions were truly shocking.

David Hughes, Vice-Chair, Park View Educational Trust: The problem here is not extremism or segregation or religious indoctrination - all the things that Ofsted looked for and failed to find in our schools. The problem here is the knee-jerk actions of some politicians that have undermined the great work that we do here and undermined community cohesion.

At Oldknow Academy inspectors found it 'outstanding' for teaching but 'inadequate' overall because it was told phrases like "white prostitute" were used in assemblies and some activities were banned for being "unIslamic". The Education Secretary said Birmingham's children were exposed to things they shouldn't have been exposed to.

Michael Gove MP: We will put the promotion of British values at the heart of what every school has to deliver for children. What we have found is unacceptable and we will put it right.

But the schools insist they don't tolerate or promote extremism and that Ofsted didn't find it. In the middle of all this pupils sit their exams with questions raised over the education the received. Lucy Manning, ITV News, Birmingham

INTRODUCTION TO SECOND REPORT

Newsreaders: At the heart of Ofsted's criticisms is the serious failure by the council and the schools to protect children from extremist views. Rupert Evelyn has heard from one pupil at the Park View Academy who says such views became a regular part of school life.

RUPERT EVELYN'S REPORT

Rupert Evelyn: Consistently denied by governors and management it is now a matter of public record that Park View Academy has been delivering an 'inadequate' education. 

Rupert Evelyn [to Park View governor, Tahir Alam]: What do you make of the report into your schools? Many of your pupils say you have been segregating students. Your answer is to deny everything. Is that still the case?

Tahir Alam chairs the Park View Trust. Ofsted says he has an inappropriate role in the school. He refuses to respond. Many are afraid to speak out but one pupil told us the culture inside the school favoured Islam. 

Boy pupil at Park View: In one assembly, like, a year ago, they told us that they're going to get rid of all the Christian...not Christian but, like, non-Muslim teachers and replace them with Muslim teachers because, somehow, it helps us learn better, or something like that.

Evidence of radical thinking has been found inside a student newsletter shown to ITV News. It says,

With major terrorist events like 9/11 and 7/7...these so-called Muslim bombers are just scapegoats for Western media to persecute or instigate persecution. 

As soon as the headteacher saw it it was destroyed. The promotion of an Islamic agenda, using derogatory words for non-believers, some of many concerns for one former member of staff.

Ex-Park View staff member: The children feel pressured into praying...you know, all these posters going up on the wall: 'If you do not pray you're worse than a kaffir'. But, you know, how does that make the non-Muslims there feel about themselves?

Despite everything, many in this community still support the school.

Sheraz Chohan, parent: I've spoken to most of the teachers and I've haven't come across any issues. They've always been helpful for the children.

Park View is still run by those who Ofsted investigated. The status quo is unchanged. For now. Rupert Evelyn, ITV News, Birmingham.

DISCUSSION WITH LUCY MANNING

Newsreaders: OK, let's return then to our UK editor, Lucy Manning. So, Lucy, what does the Education Secretary want done about these findings?

Lucy Manning: Well, Michael Gove's answer to this is to cut funding, to replace the governors at the schools they have concerns about, also to have inspections without giving warning. At one school it's thought that a lesson on Christianity was put on because they knew the inspectors were coming. And there is this potentially more controversial issue of 'promoting British values in schools', which begs the question, 'Just what are British values?' Speaking with some of the pupils here at the gates today they ask me, 'Well, what do people mean by 'extremism'?' And I think that is the key question. Now the inspectors didn't find any evidence that extremist views were being taught in the classroom. What they did find is that there was a narrow, religious view being imposed, and I think they there is an acceptance nationally and locally that this hasn't been dealt with quickly enough.

BBC NEWS AT SIX

HEADLINES
Newsreader: The Chief Inspector of Schools in England delivered a damning verdict on the way some schools are run in Birmingham. Five in the city are placed in special measures after claims of infiltration by hardline extremists.

Sir Michael Wilshaw, Ofsted: In the most serious cases a culture of fear and intimidation has taken grip since the schools were last inspected.

But at one of the schools parents say inspectors came looking for extremism and found absolutely no evidence of it:

Arshad Malik, parent: There is a failing in the process of Ofsted or they've come back here with a political agenda to look for certain things to fit a narrative.

Tonight the Education Secretary says that he wants all schools in England to promote British values to tackle the problem.

INTRODUCTION TO FIRST REPORT

Newsreader: Good evening and welcome to the BBC News at Six. The Chief School Inspector for England has issued a damning verdict on how some schools in Birmingham has been run. Five have been put into special measures today as the Chief Inspector reported back from his investigation into claims of hardline Muslim takeovers. He said there was evidence of an organised campaign to 'target certain schools and change their character and ethos'. He pointed to 'a culture of fear and intimidation' in some schools where some headteachers have been marginalised or forced out of their jobs. He also said that there had been a 'sudden and deep decline' in some school standards. The claims have been firmly rejected by leaders of one of the schools. Well, Reeta Chakrabarti is in Birmingham for us now. Reeta?

REETA CHAKRABARTI'S REPORT

Reeta Chakrabarti: Well, Sophie, I'm here at Park View School, one of the schools at the centre of the allegations. It's all quite quiet here now but all day feelings have been running very high. This is a community that never invited the spotlight, and there are many here who feel they've been unfairly judged. But not all.

Birmingham's schools have endured months of leaks and rumours about radicalisation and extremism. Today, a damning verdict for five of them, with Ofsted condemning a 'culture of fear and intimidation' that was 'quite shocking'.

Sir Michael Wilshaw, Ofsted: Some headteachers, including those with a proud record of raising standards, have been marginalised or forced out of their jobs. This has left a vacuum in which schools previously rated 'good' or 'outstanding' have suffered enormous staff turnovers, a collapse in morale and a rapid decline in their overall effectiveness.

Ofsted said there'd been a deliberate attempt to change the ethos of the schools, with the curriculum being narrowed and an exclusively Muslim culture in non-faith schools. Outside one of them today, Park View, opinions were sharply divided as to what was going on.

First boy pupil at Park View: In 2001, the people achieving A star to C was only 57% but now, in luck, it's 76%, so that's a real achievement, so the haters, the people who are against the school, they don't want us to do well in this deprived area.
Second boy pupil at Park View: We do have Islamic assemblies but they, like, just teach lessons like 'be nice to one another', 'be nice to your parents', and so on. It's not like we have some courses on how to make bombs and all sorts of stuff.
First boy pupil at Park View: In this school they say, 'If you sit with the girls you will be lucky to work better'.
Reeta Chakrabarti to third boy pupil at Park View (not previously seen): He says you could sit with the girls.
Third boy pupil at Park View: You can, you can. But you can't, like, have a girlfriend or have a boyfriend. You can't do any of that.
First boy pupil at Park View: Yeah, that's true, and in Islam you can't have a girlfriend and boyfriend either, so...
Third boy pupil at Park View: Yeah but it's not an Islamic school!
Reeta Chakrabarti to third boy pupil at Park View: And it feels like one does it?
Third boy pupil at Park View: Yeah, it does feel like an Islamic school but it's not supposed to be an Islamic school. It's an academy.
Arshad Malik, parent: There is something wrong that two years ago a school that has been rated as outstanding in all the different sections of the report 18 months later has been classed as inadequate. There is is failing in the process of Ofsted or they've come back here with a political agenda to look for certain things to fit a narrative.

Earlier their teachers expressed anger their school, which was found to be 'outstanding' by inspectors two years ago, was now graded 'inadequate'. 

David Hughes, Vice-Chair, Park View Educational Trust: Ofsted inspectors came to our schools looking for extremism, looking for segregation, looking for proof that our children have religion forced upon them as part of an Islamic plot. The Ofsted report found absolutely no evidence of this because this is categorically not what is happening in our schools. 

At this school, Oldknow, Ofsted said a small group of governors has been promoting a 'narrow, faith-based ideology' with staff afraid to speak out, but it left one parent almost speechless with rage.

Shabina Bano, parent: Where do I start from? Last year this was 'outstanding', a "Trojan Horse" document that is now exposed as a hoax. You know, a baseless document has caused so much hysteria, and this school has just been dragged into it.

The school principal, currently on sick leave, said she had been targeted by a hostile governing body. 

Bhupinder Kondal, headteacher, Oldknow Academy: I am upset because I'm the principal of Oldknow Academy and I've been treated in this manner. It's disgraceful.

The Education Secretary today said that he would take decisive action. 

Michael Gove MP: Schools that are proven to have failed will be taken over, under new leadership, and taken in a fresh direction. Any school could now be subject to rigorous, on-the-spot inspections, with no advance warning and no opportunities to conceal failure. And we will put the promotion of British values at the heart of what every school has to deliver for children.

On today's evidence schools in Birmingham have been subject to an organised attempt, in some places, to entrench a conservative form of Islam, but whether or not that amounts to extremism will be hotly debated. 

Well, here in Birmingham we can now expect action to be taking...to be taken, including probably a change of management and leadership in those schools in special measures, but that isn't the end of the matter. There are two other major investigations still underway, including one led by a former counter-terror chief. So that question about how much of a threat these events really pose has still to be fully answered. Sophie.

DISCUSSION WITH NICK ROBINSON

Newsreader: Thank you very much. Well, our Political Editor, Nick Robinson, is in the Houses of Parliament for us now. Nick, what do you make of Michael Gove's response to this?
Nick Robinson: When he read out some of the allegations made by Ofsted - that girls were referred to as "white prostitutes", that a Saudi trip was done only for Muslim parents, that school funds were used to set up a madrasa - you could sense shock around the House of Commons, and yet Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, did not come up with evidence of...Ofsted have not come up with evidence for the original allegation, that there was a city-wide 'plot' by Muslim extremists to take over schools in Birmingham. Now, he says that there is still an enquiry going on by the former head of counter-terrorism for the Metropolitan Police - a man called Peter Clarke - into those allegations but it seems unlikely they will be fully proven. So he found himself guilty, his own department, of not doing enough and said he'd look at it. He found the city council guilty. He found the school inspectors Ofsted guilty as well. What now seems to be agreed in government is that not enough is being done to deal with what he calls 'non-violent extremism'. Labour are clear. It's a result, they say, of government reforms that give less control to local authorities. The government say, no, that isn't the problem but, as yet, they are not entirely clear what the solutions are.

"Well, Reeta, they know better now"

There was some interesting labelling used by the BBC's Deputy Political Editor John Pienaar on last night's BBC One News at Ten. Talking about how Philip Hammond is "taking the lead in setting out government thinking on Brexit", JP called his opponents in Cabinet "hard-core Brexiteers" and "hardline Brexiteers". And as EU demands that the European Court should continue to have a say in settling trade disputes, his pay-off line last night had a point to make at the expense of those 'hardliners':

Hardline Brexiteers once believed it could all be accomplished  really quite easily and simply. Well, Reeta, they know better now.

That's them told!

Language Evan!

Here's Evan Davis introducing his first guests tonight:

Let us talk to a couple of MPs: Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen - a Brexiteer, voted against Theresa May's deal three times...I think we call you 'a Spartan', don't we, Andrew?...and the Labour MP Peter Kyle, who is very keen to have a confirmatory referendum.

He's certainly trying - "I think we call you 'a Spartan', don't we, Andrew?" - but the phrase "a confirmatory referendum" didn't come with audible quotation marks, as it should have done.

Then came Evan's question to James Forsyth of The Spectator tonight:

How many of the hardline, so-called Spartans - the ERG, the people who really have always voted against the offers cos they've involved too much compromise - how many of them do you think will remain stubbornly against this?

It was good of him to put quotation marks about "Spartans", but how about putting them around "hardline" too? And what's with the editorially-loaded word "stubbornly"? 

The lad seems to be trying to do the right thing but his language keeps on betraying him.