Tag Archives: BBC

The Day the Circus came to town

Last Thursday, 5th February the circus came to town.

In this case the town was Finchley and the circus was that venerable BBC TV political panel debate programme, Question Time. Thursday nights in the Bond-Ryde household usually reverberate to the sound of my wife and I discussing the on screen diplomacy or lack of it by various political VIPs. But our house remained quiet this Thursday as, rather than debating with the TV we got to participate first hand in the audience.

QT in Finchley

Before I go any further I should say that whilst we can be particularly vocal in our debates and reactions when behind our own front door, when we are in a public space we behave with the dignity and respect as decent people do. And this extends to a debate on the BBC. Even if the auditorium and panel contains individuals who I would not welcome into my home, let alone my sphere of conversation.

So the good folk of Finchley turned out on a freezing cold evening to “chew the political fat” with some of Britain’s best known political faces. And as we supped on the pre-show coffees and munched the pre-show biscuits, the 150 or so men and women discussed what we would ask, what did we think would be asked and how the panel would react. The real reason for such excited discussion was, of course, the make up of the panel.

  • The Minister for Education
  • The Shadow Minister for Education
  • An eminent writer and political commentator
  • A newspaper editor
  • And an MP from Bradford (not known for favourable views on Israel amongst other things)

Now why, do you suppose the BBC would put a show on in the middle of the largest Jewish constituency in the UK with a politician who, well, doesn’t have much in the way of anything nice to say about Jews and Israel?

At 8:30, the circus commenced. It started quite pleasantly, despite the freezing conditions due to the broken heating in the theatre. In fact it was no surprise that the debate wasn’t heated, it was sub zero!

The first question was about business and the relationships of political parties to the entrepreneurial society. Plenty of hot air from the audience and panel started to raise the temperature into the positive Celsius. The next question was about education and the reduction in funding. It got us warmed a little more. Everyone knows that education is at the heart of the Jewish community so it certainly got the temperature rising.

Then, the moment the broadcasters had been planning for…. the question that we all knew would turn up the climate to tropic heat. A young man, a cheeky smile starting to appear said “What does the panel think of the rise in antisemitism”. But, he added (unscripted to the question agreed) “and is one of the panelists in particular responsible for inflaming this issue”. So it was that the mob started to rule the debate and the show really began.

Firstly, Jonathan Friedland was allowed to respond. Now Jonathan being Jewish spoke eloquently enough. Although he made one large faux pas in referring to the summer’s events in the Middle East as the “conflict in Gaza”. Jonathan, do you not realise that the conflict requires two to tango. It was the conflict between “Israel and Gaza”. This shocking error showed Jonathan’s newspaper bias. The Guardian, for whom he writes, continually appears to side with the Palestinian cause and is often at the forefront of criticism of Israel.

Nonetheless, moving on, Jonathan showed a clear demonstration of the concerns of Jews in the UK and Europe with respect to the rising tide of hatred that Jews are having to endure and the lack of traction in dealing with this until very recently (when many feel it is already too late). Jonathan having made his points, the ring master, Jonathan Dimbleby, turned to George Galloway and asked for his thoughts. Thus debate turned to debacle.

Probably about a dozen or so people in the audience began to bate George Galloway and the whole debate took on a ridiculous Jerry Springer style. Sadly the opportunity to do some good for our community, to raise issues that would have shocked the viewers and to to see George Galloway entrap himself in his own hatred was squandered. No one exposed him for his racist remark about the make up of the audience. There was no unmasking his inability to differentiate between zionists and Jews (despite tying himself in knots trying to deal with that). What we got instead was a bunch of loud mouthed individuals yelling uncontrollably (in the name of our Jewish community). And to my mind doing the credibilty of Jews in the UK no good and, sadly making George Galloway look, yet again, like the victim!

So here’s my letter to George.

Dear George,

I was in the audience at the Question Time in Finchley last night.

Whilst I may not be your biggest fan, may I say how engaging you were compared to the other panellists. You were entertaining and made for compulsive “TV viewing”.

Like you, I was immensely disappointed to experience the “rowdy” and “unruly” behaviour of a small but vociferous element of the audience (I think it was no more than about 10 people, but they hijacked the debate). What a pity, as it really meant that a full and challenging discourse could not be held.

I am copying the Production Company, mentorn.tv, who should be able to forward to Mr Dimbleby (as chairman). I was disappointed that, as the chairman, he did not take more care to ensure that the debate was managed properly. Disappointingly it gave the “loud mouths” the floor because they shouted. In debates that I have managed they would have lost the right to speak. Why didn’t Mr Dimbleby simply say “if you shout, you’ll be ejected or loose the right to ask a question”. What do you think? Do you think Mr. Dimbleby was setting you up? Setting us all up, maybe?

There were so many questions regarding antisemitism and so much awareness that could have been raised for the better and I’m sure that you would, had a more dignified air of debate existed, provided us with clearer perspective of your views. Personally, I would have loved to ask the following:
■ Why the BBC is not prosecuting one of its own for publicy broadcasting antisemetic views?
■ Why the worst attacks on Jews and other civilians seem to be prevalent from extemist Islamic sources (not from a provocation point of view, but simple statistics). This is a hard question, I know, but it was an elephant in the room, although one person did mention it? But it would have given us a chance to hear your views on Islamic extremism (again, I expect you have some very profound insights).
■ Why politicians (and honestly, NOT reference to yourself, but the likes of Jenny Tonge) are able to get away with clearly antisemitic tropes with impunity?
■ And finally, what can we all do to make Britain a safer place for Jews?

However, I would like to point out that:
1. Audience racial balance.
Your reference to a balanced audience was “uncomfortably close to being racist”. It is a predominantly Jewish area therefore why wouldn’t it be representative? If you were speaking in say, Hounslow, I think it would be reasonable to expect a larger than national average audience make up from historically Indian immigrants for example. Surely not a surprise, but I suppose given the unruly behaviour a few heated and awkwardly placed comments are understandable. Do you think, in retrospect, this comment was inappropriate?
2. Terminology of a Conflict.
Please note that, unlike the panel, I correctly refer to the conflict as “between”, as conflicts indicate more than one entity. Saying the conflict in Gaza is grammatically and intuitively incorrect. Would you agree that the conflict was between Gaza and Israel?
3. Emotive Statistics.
Your statistical view of the conflict. You refer to 2000 dead Palestinians in the conflict. I’m sure that you are also aware that:
a. Some were as a result of Gazan rockets hitting their own
b. Some were as a result of the use human shields
c. Numbers can be very emotive and not condusive to the inherent argument. If Israel had not significantly invested in protecting its civilians (defensive strategies rather than offensive strategies, unlike Hamas who operate an almost exclusively offensively) the mortalities from Hamas rocket fire would have likely far outweighed the tragic deaths in Gaza. One successful rocket strike on a tower block in Tel Aviv could have caused a single statistical death toll to rival 9/11. And Hamas’s explicit and unwavering strategy was the targetting of civilians (let’s not forget that is a Human Rights breach, by anyone’s standards).
So I am disappointed that you felt moved to use emotive numbers rather than us all participate in an impartial debate. Do you feel that quoting numbers is not appropriate for a balanced debate as it disguises the real events, criminals and victims?
4. Personal Attacks.
I do understand your reason for raising the issue. As the shouting escalated, your felt the need to show that you were (again) the victim of your reputation. And quite rightly, the person who shouted “surprised?” was foolish. No excuse for personal attacks and every right for freedom of speech. I’m sure that extends to the Hebdo terrorist murders (which I noticed you called “affair”, why so?) and Hebdo’s right to freedom of speech, as long as legal. Offence is acceptable and in my case, even as a Jew who finds it hard to reconcile some of your opinions, as long as speech remains the right side of legal by our country’s laws then its fine by me.
5. Zionism.
You use Zionism as a “dirty word”. Why would a love of a country (in this case, Israel) be somehow soiled. In an imaginery world, pretend there was a word “Turkeyism” or “Suliemanism” which referred to the love of Turkey. If I made use of these words to portray Turkey (a Muslim state), where there was an illegal occupation (in Cyprus), the highest levels of journalist imprisonment on the globe and the main gateway for terrorists with ISIS as an evil axis and held Muslims of Turkish heritage and all other Muslims accountable in the UK we’d be in a bad place. Please use the word Israel if you mean Israel. Zionists have a right not to be conflated too. And by using the word Zionist, you and I both know it will simply be read as “Jews”. This despite the fact that I have many non-Jewish friends here in the UK and elsewhere who would call themselves Zionists. Will you, in future, choose your words more carefully to avoid igniting old hatreds by referring to Israel not Zionists?
6. Ritual Slaughter.
Sadly your point on ritual slaughter, a fair an correct one got drowned out in the volume of other over emotive moments. I think, along with circumcision, reasonable ritual activities should be protected. Although, I have read worrying evidence of a significant increase of FGM (which is definitely not reasonable) in the Islamic communities here in the UK (and the recent court case in London about a doctor performing such at the Whittington Hospital, a location where many of the audience are likely to have gone as it is very local would have been good for topical debate), so we also cannot give this over entirely to the control of the religious zealots who might push some boundaries too far. And I think your point could have prompted a really interesting discussion about where to draw the line. Again, I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the relationship between religious orthodoxy and where it goes to far. FGM, honour killings, burkas?
7. Gaza Prison References.
You made the reference that Israel had created a “prison” situation in Gaza. I presume this is based on the security walls between Israel and Gaza. If so, you surely neglected to mention that Egypt is also responsible for doing the exact same. In addition, those with “right of return” to Jordan are being denied by the Jordanian government thus keeping Jordanian Palestinians in Gaza (hundreds of thousands of them) for purely ethnic reasons. Why didn’t you mention Egypt and Jordan when referring to Gaza prison? You made it all Israel’s fault which is clearly not the case, would you agree? Would you accept Jordan and Egypt are equally culpable for your description of a Gazan prison?
And just as a final point to the “prison” remark, the ethnic cleansing by Syria of Palestinians and their appalling treatment in Lebanese camps means that, paradoxically, those in Israel probably have the best living status and conditions. Indeed, outside of Gaza Israel is the only country providing additional medical care for Palestinians (including recently some of Hamas’s leader’s own family members). Would you agree that Israel is undermined and unjustly demonised consistently by those ignoring the good in Israel and the bad of its neighbours?
I would really welcome a response and I hope you receive this as proof that there is no need for raised voices just a healthy discussion and thoughtful consideration of both sides.
Finally, you were bang on on one point…. it was bloody freezing! It’s amazing that any debate made it to “heated” considering the climate!

It is highly unlikely I’ll get a response? George doesn’t usually debate with Zionists.

Is he some sort of force of evil? I don’t think so. Much more the pantomime villain and circus clown.
But if the circus comes to town again, clowns and all, I don’t think I’ll be running off with it. I think I’ll stay at home and watch it on the little screen and go back to shouting at the telly with Mrs Bond-Ryde and a cup of tea.

At least I got to be a panellist

At least I got to be a panellist

Jerusalem Post’s Letter from London 25th January 2015 5 Shevat 5775

Is it a sign of the times that I greeted the following quote with an awkward grimace rather than the risible smile it deserved? Former Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan, on his death bed observed of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet in 1986 that “it was too little Old Etonian and a little too old Estonian“.

Prime Minister and humourist

Prime Minister and humourist

He was, of course, referring to the ethnic and racial makeup of her cabinet. For that cabinet was approximately one third of Jewish extract. For me there are two things that make the quote and observation remarkable. One, that Jews were so prevalent in the cabinet is extraordinary and two that such a comment could have passed without so much as bat of a defamatory eyelid. British politics has always been peppered with more than its fair share of Jews and British politics has been plastered with more than its fair share of anti-Semitic tropes, so what. I would surmise the following, no one was bothered and no one took offence.

So what is offensive? Well over the last couple of weeks (since the events of Paris) I’ve been trying to hold a dialogue with one of our British politicians. He is familiar to some of us for being, well let’s just say, “Not onside with Zionism”. David Ward is the MP for Bradford East. After the events of Paris, David shared his feelings on his social media using a cyber barometer, a hashtag. He hoped to trend with #JeSuisPalestinian following in the footsteps of other successful hashtags such as Charlie and Juif. But what, I wondered did this tag mean and where did it rate on the offence barometer? Now David is normally a very responsive sort of politician, but on this one he wasn’t willing to furnish me with a response despite several attempts. Even Daniel Taub seems unable to break his silence on the matter. This was my latest pitch to David. I was hoping to catch him in a good mood after his local football team’s historic victory over the Premiership giants of Chelsea in the FA Cup. But I also wanted to highlight just what British politicians can be like these days…

Dear David,

I imagine you are still recovering from the city’s remarkable FA Cup exploits. As a football fan (not Chelsea) I share in your joy! I think today maybe we are all #JeSuisBradfordCity.

But before we get to carried away, any explanation of another hashtag? I was hoping to hear from you by now regarding #JeSuisPalestinian reference to the Paris events (now becoming a more distant memory yet still painful). I have written to you 3 times previously regarding this. Previously when I’ve written to you on other matters, you have always responded promptly.

I have started to get a little paranoid as to why the silence. You might have gathered that I am not a Muslim. In fact, you may gather that I am Jewish. I am a member of our National Liberal Club in Whitehall as I have a political leaning towards Liberals (both with a big and little “l”).

My paranoia has been exasperated by reading that MPAC boasted about how it influenced the outcome of 2010 Bradford elections which you won.

The previous incumbent, Labour’s Terry Rooney (not Jewish, but pro-Israeli) lost by 365 votes in the 2010 general election after MPAC distributed thousands of leaflets calling him a Zionist Islamophobe and “warmonger” who could not represent Muslims. You appeared to be the beneficiary of this racial smear campaign, David.

And since then, you have fulfilled some of MPAC’s wildest expectations. In 2013, you were suspended from the Lib Dem parliamentary party after criticising “the Jews” for inflicting atrocities on the Palestinians and questioning Israel’s right to exist.

During the Gaza conflict last year you stated: “If I lived in Gaza, would I fire a rocket? Probably yes.”

Until January last year, you employed MPAC’s spokesman, Raza Nadim, as your constituency assistant.

Given all of this, would I really be making a wild leap of faith in assuming you might not dignify Jews with the same courtesies as others? You do seem to hold us responsible for some bad “stuff”?

David, I’m sure this would be easy to clarify if you would only answer my original question…… #JeSuisPalestinian? Porquois?

I hold out hope for a rational explanation and am sure you can dispel my paranoia.

I’m not holding my breath!

So with such established antisemitism heralded by certain communities and supporting politicians into power is it any wonder that the media trip over these narratives and journalists can’t always tell the right from the wrong.

Stand up Tim Willcox. Tim has caused quite a stir here in London and amongst those who watch with suspicion the behaviour of Auntie Beeb (the BBC’s fondly chosen moniker). Tim was on the march in Paris. He was there employed as one of the live reporters for the BBC. He thrust his trusty microphone in front of a couple of mourning Parisians (of potential Jewish extract) and proposed that the murdered Jews might have, in some way, deserved their fate due to the behaviour of Israel when dealing with its neighbours recently. His interviewees seemed speechless. He then followed up by trying to suggest there was justification for these murders. I expect there’s a good chance you’ve been following the whole messed up situation. Now many of us have complained and it appears that the BBC is taking the unusual step of expediting the complaint and dealing with all complaints in their totality. Well better late than never. But, here is the thing, if people hadn’t complained the BBC would have done nothing. A live reporter employed by the BBC at one of this decade’s most significant events is able to roll out an anti-Semitic narrative. That is quite remarkable. I can only imagine what Tim would have done if he was around at the time of Martin Luther King’s march to Selma?

Good luck Tim, I’m sure that British politics has a career waiting for you (strategist or PR, take your pick). Once the BBC finally work out what to do about racist opinions being delivered by their employees during live broadcasts, you’ll have the pick of the best Her Majesty’s Government has to offer.

And maybe, if Tim feels a strong leaning to the left he can join the Greens. Their leader, Natalie Bennett laid out the Green Party policy on membership of extremist organisations. She said it’s ok. If you want to join ISIS or al Quada you can. Natalie explained that people should be free to think what they want and to become members of organisations where similar values are held. So if you think beheading is good and slaughtering thousands of innocent children is just part of day to day life then it’s ok to go and join up with ISIS or other popular terrorist clubs. Well, it’s hard to know where to begin when our politicians are seriously espousing policies such as this. I could hardly wait to drop the leadership a line (and I’ll bet I wasn’t alone). I had two simple points:

1. Those that join terrorist organisations don’t normally stop there. The practice of getting involved is always encouraged. And getting involved usually involves murdering lots of innocent people for bad reasons.

2. If it’s ok to be a member of organisations that promote hate, I presume you’ll be supportive of those who wish to join organisations that promote hate and violence towards gay people, black people, Muslims, women, disabled people and so on. It’s ok to support and encourage terror and hate as long as they don’t “actually” do anything about it?

Are you sure this is a good idea?

PS. Before World War II lots of Germans joined a party. They didn’t have to do any terrorising themselves if they didn’t want to, just be supportive. It didn’t work out particularly well.

To finish on another MacMillan quote, “Events, dear boy, events” when asked what would be most likely to blow governments off course. However, Harold, it feels like “events” blowing chill winds through our society are currently knocking our moral compasses off course.

Jerusalem Post’s Letter from London 8th Dec 14 and 16 Kislev 5775

The weather in London is getting a little colder, the nights are drawing in, and thoughts on the BBC turn to the Christmas season’s entertainment. Time was we couldn’t wait for the TV Times. But enough of the British sentimentality. And moving on to, British sentimentality.

 

 

TV Times

This week, the Bishop of Oxford, Bishop Harries decided it would be in the best spirit of inclusion and welcome to incorporate tracts from the Quran into the next royal coronation ceremony. It is a charming thought. And one not at all meant to curry favour with Britain’s ever growing Muslim community. Yet to be really inclusive, we shouldn’t forget those in Britain who are already well integrated into the British way of life. The Sikhs, the Hindus, the Buddhists and, of course, the Jews. And then there are those more traditional British spiritual faiths that we mustn’t forget like Quakers, Druids and, well, atheists. I think the TV Times Coronation Celebration Special Issue will be featuring a Coronato-thon of a show with hours of tracts from every faith.

In a further complication, how does Bishop Harries see this working out for the inclusion aspect? In the synagogues around Britain Jews say prayers of wellbeing for the Royal Family, the British government and the British Armed Forces every Shabbat. This is integration and respect for ones adopted community at its best. In other examples, Hindus and Sikhs have long shown their loyalties at their temples to their environment and the nation where they are free to practice their faith without trepidation or threat. Yet on several occasions the suggestion of putting such patriotic narratives into the mosques has been firmly batted back. This lack of reciprocation suggests that Bishop Harries welcome and inclusion is not a two way street.

But back to our fascination with the weather and as it gets decidedly chillier in London, David Cameron took the opportunity to go somewhere even colder. The PM went off to a very frosty Poland. He went to visit Auschwitz. Unquestionably, any man or woman who visits there is compelled to reassess their values and to address their perspectives of humanity. David Cameron didn’t need words to justify his visit. His actions spoke for him. He wanted to reflect and be touched by horror. At a time when we see the heinous cruelty with ISIS, (as Canon Andrew White points out, this is an organisation which is driven without any notion of negotiation towards the destruction of all that disagree or do not meet with their philosophy, nihilists or new age Nazis if you like) maybe the PM wanted to come face to face with the evil so as to understand it better. A chill wind that might blow some good.

He promised to assess how the Holocaust is taught here in the UK and ensure it remains prominent and relevant in our educational curriculum. But also, it was apparent he reached out to the Jewish community here in the UK to remind us that he stands by us. Anti Semitism is rife and his actions reaffirm his real determination to address this. It is not some vote grabbing headline or antic; it is the continued reinforcement of David Cameron’s moral belief. If he wanted to grab votes he might simply take the left’s tactic of appealing to the masses and joining the Miliband-wagon of anti Israel rhetoric to ensure he curries favour with the pro Palestinian lobby. It is a sentiment not lost on the Jewish voting public which is pulling away from its Labour roots in droves.

Finally, the ever erudite Daniel Finklestein got a rather cold reception in some quarters for daring to go all “Jewish humour” on us in The Times. A pity that some couldn’t enjoy some good ol’ fashion Yiddisher self deprecation. Fantastic and very old school.

“30 Reasons why I like being a Jew”. Amongst his amusing musings were:

2 Jews, 3 opinions and 4 cars. We’re never short of a lift home.

Chickensoup with matzo balls. One way to tell a Jew from a gentile. For all Jews chickensoup is one word.

What’s the difference between a Jew and a non Jew. A non Jew pays retail.

But numbers 29 and 30 were, I would suggest, on a level with Richard Pryor’s re-appropriation of the N-word. The last two reasons why Daniel (and I) like being a Jew

29. Control of the media

30. And Control of the international banking system

Bravo!

If there has been a 31st, it might have been “Being a Zionist”. But unfortunately here in the UK, the Z-word is still a little tougher to sell. Even to Jews.

Flags of Convenience

It might be a small thing, it might be trivial and not even noticed by many of the millions of light entertainment viewers and sport fanatics around the world. But I observed three small images that made disturbing viewing for their sentiment. All three are within the context of the celebration of man’s / woman’s ability to entertain and strive for athletic and graceful perfection.

Strictly Come Dancing, the doyen of the BBC’s weekend evening light entertainment schedule, is a programme which my wife and many of my friends are gripped by. On the menu last Saturday was the fantastically themed concept of “dance from around the world”. Behind one of the judges, Len, were flags from all the countries. Every one of the states were draped behind the judges, with one odd addition. A Palestinian flag. Curiously, there were no other unofficial states. I wrote to the BBC to ask if the precedent they had set would be continued using other unofficial state flags such as Islamic State? After all they are an unofficial state, just like Palestine. I now eagerly await a reply. And just to advise, when complaining through the BBC’s circuitous web complaint form, don’t hold your breath for a response. They are never quick and often you have to pursue them.

Len's Lens missed this little gem

Len’s Lens missed this little gem

Next to Qatar. Qatar has become a centre for athletic excellence. Despite having almost no history in any form of athletic endeavour, this tiny state will host the World Athletics Championships, the Top World Tennis Tournament outside the big four majors, an annual World Golf Open and most notably the 2022 Football World Cup. On top of that, it is currently hosting the World Swimming Championships. Israel has had a notable success at the swimming championships, a Gold Medal for the Israeli Guy Marcos Barnea. The Qatari broadcast of the Championships put a banner up on the screen with a curious omission. The Winner, the winner’s name, the winner’s time, the winner’s 3 letter abbreviated country name were all up there. But next to that a new and unrecognised flag. A white flag, with two blue horizontal bands, one near the top and one near the bottom of the flag. Nothing else. Of course, missing was a blue Star of David.

Star of the pool?

Star of the pool?

Although this is not without precedent. In the third example of misappropriated references, Real Madrid‘s new UAE sponsors removed the Christian Cross from the top of their club crest. The Spanish (pro Madrid) newspaper, Marca, advised that the club removed it from their logo on the new £1bn Real Madrid Resort’s promotional materials (based resort in the UAE). Marca describes the change as a means “to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation” in relation to a project being built in a largely Muslim region. The cross in question is part of the Royal Family crest relating to the crown worn by the head of state (who’s name is part of the club of course, Real = Royal). Next for Real Madrid’s misinterpretation avoidance department? Well maybe replacing the “MCF” in the centre of the crest with a picture of the club president hugging a spouting oil derrick.

Real-ity bites the cross off

Real-ity bites the cross off

It will be intriguing to know, at the 2022 World Cup, whether there are plans to remove other country’s religious references. With that in mind, should we now expect the England flag to be a plain white flag with the removal of the Cross of Saint George. The idea of a “white flag” and England’s football team might be too obvious. But what about a Swiss Flag without a Cross, it is just a Red Flag. That would be like a red rag to a Swiss bull. The FIFA executives in Zurich may feel like this is a price worth paying though (and usually FIFA has no shame in considering the price of World Football’s soul).

Either way, these flags of convenience are a troubling trend. It smacks of eradicating other cultures and histories. In the case of the cross atop of the Real Madrid emblem, it is clearly a case of selling the soul of the football club. In the case of the missing Star of David it is denial of history and existence. And in the case of the BBC, well, it’s just the good ol’ Beeb showing its true colours.

Link

When I was younger foreign correspondents amazed me.  I was inspired by the brave men and women reporting from the field of conflict. I marvelled at the personal attributes required to be a non-combatant and yet be prepared to put your head above the parapet, in the name of justice and honesty. But that admiration has waned in recent times as most journalists now report with agendas, display their personal politics and have caught the bug of TV celebrity rather than public servant. Now I am much more used to my daily media diet coming from mean mouthed, self agrandising, self publicists.

I’ve watched Orla Guerin tell us that there is “no evidence” of Hamas using human shields. I’ve watched Jon Snow stepping between the rubble calling Israelis “child murderers”. I’ve watched interview after interview on the BBC with Daniel Taub where this man, a sovereign state’s ambassador to the UK, is not afforded a modicum of respect. At the same time a blood thirsty terror representative will be given a perfect platform on news channels to justify breaking International Law by launching rockets from a school or murdering their own without trial.

It is bewildering. People say their sense of injustice is palpable. And yet what to do? What CAN you do?

image

The BALEN REPORT was written 10 years ago. Its purpose was to investigate and to establish whether or not the allegations of bias against Israel by the BBC were founded. The report was completed and ready to publish, but then nothing. The BBC hid behind a legality that said that it did not have to go public on any investigation that brought into question its journalistic ability or integrity. Thus, the BBC has spent nearly half a million pounds of tax payers money on covering up these findings for over ten years. When you cursed the News at Ten for reporting the “War in Gaza” as if only one side was suffering or being attacked, when you moaned at Jeremy Bowen telling you about Israel breaking another cease fire when Hamas had been lobbing their rockets non stop through said ceasefire, when you saw a BBC political commentator rolling out anti semitic tropes about “wealthy Jews” who won’t support Labour because they don’t like the mansion tax, just remember…… you were doing it at your literal expense.

There is a petition, so sign it, or write to the BBC, write to your MP, write to the Minister of State for Culture and Media but do something. 1,000 signatures on a petition will scare the BBC. 5,000 signatures will mean the BBC will have to act, lest it finds itself at the forefront of another cover up and media trial. 100 complaints to the BBC when next they use lazy reporting to roll out an anti semitic stereotype will make them think twice. And a question in the Houses of Parliament as a result of the 1,000 letters to an MP about factual errors and bias will make the BBC more cautious in the future.

The BBC trust has to ensure that the BBC provides accurate and impartial news. The remit of the Balen report was to examine the BBC’s coverage of the Middle East.  By covering up these findings it stops the Trust is not seen to be ensuring that the BBC is a purveyor of accurate and impartial news. The BBC must be accountable to the public it serves. The report should be released without delay. Otherwise, we can only assume that the BBC has something to hide.

The petition to Release the Balen Report: www.change.org/p/the-bbc-release-the-balen-report

The Director General of The BBC is Tony Hall.

The Minister for Culture and Media is Ed Vaizey.

The Campaign for Anti Semitism in the UK regularly posts on Facebook advising people to complain to the BBC. It tells you “why to complain”, “who to complain to”, “complaint details” and it all takes about 5 minutes on your electronic device!

Or do nothing, and continue to wonder how it would be if people could think for themselves rather than be told what to think.