Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, buster. said:

She got her knuckles officially rapped by the BBC Trust for inaccurate reporting (negative slant) on Jeremy Corbyn.

 

Was that for this article?

 

Quote

Labour still locked in anti-Semitism row

 

The crunch vote won't take place until after this hot, hot summer.

 

But Jeremy Corbyn and many of his MPs remain locked in an argument over what a significant chunk of the Labour parliamentary party believes is his toleration of anti-Semitism.

 

It's astonishing to many of his supporters, who believe it's simply impossible for that to be the case when he has spent so much of his political life fighting prejudice.

 

But just as strongly, it is impossible for those on the other side to see why he can't understand how the leadership's actions since concerns were first raised about prejudice against Jews fall way short.

 

As Dame Margaret Hodge, who is now being investigated for venting her deeply held upset and fury to Mr Corbyn, told me - it "beggars belief" that he doesn't understand he is "offending a whole community" by trying to adapt rather than wholly adopt the code that describes anti-Semitism that so many other organisations adhere to fully.

 

This is emotive, difficult, and important. The very nature of this debate is a clash of understanding. And it has been going on so long the mess has festered and become toxic.

 

But it is not possible to ignore what is a major political issue for one of our major political parties - a movement that has been built on the battle for equality and equal rights - with, in the last few days, one of its veteran MPs driven to speak out in the way that she has.

 

The issue at stake is over how Labour defines anti-Semitism. If a member of the party expresses a strong view towards a Jew or the Jewish community, how should Labour decide if that is anti-Semitism, genuine racism, that should attract a punishment? In other words, where is the line?

 

The most straightforward thing, you might have imagined, would have been for the party to adopt the same rules used by many of the authorities and other political parties, the international definition - you can read about it here.

 

That is not what Labour has done though. Yes, they have adopted the definition, but they have not included all of the examples that sit alongside the rules and have expanded it in other ways.

 

For some of Mr Corbyn's supporters, including many with long-held views about Israel and Palestine, it's quite right to give extra provision to protect those who want to criticise Israel's policies without being accused of being anti-Semitic.

 

For many Labour MPs and the vast majority of Jewish organisations, it is straightforwardly unacceptable that the party is trying to tell Jews what is and is not racist, rather than accepting a widely-agreed definition.

 

And after a bruising couple of years where Jeremy Corbyn only relatively recently accepted there was a significant problem, some say the leadership appears to be putting the desires of those who want to be able to criticise Israel ahead of the rights of a minority who have been subject to significant abuse.

 

The view of Dame Margaret Hodge and many others is that if Labour was serious about sending a message that anti-Semitism was truly unacceptable, the way to go about it is not to go ahead with writing their own version of the rules.

 

Many of Mr Corbyn's supporters claim this is all whipped up by his many detractors on the Labour backbenches. Certainly it is no secret that he has many backbench critics. And yes, many of those who are critical of his handling of anti-Semitism are also people who have been against his leadership.

 

But read some of the abusive messages directed to Jewish Labour MPs , talk to those who have spoken out and been sent death threats, remember that some cases have even ended up in court, and then ask yourself if any individual would put themselves into that kind of position if this wasn't real.

 

And while yes, some of Mr Corbyn's allies do believe this has been overblown, if you ask most Labour MPs privately about what's been going on, they are worried, often embarrassed and despondent.

 

Political cost

 

With no vote until September on this issue there's no end in sight for this internal conflict. And that comes with a potential political cost.

 

As Labour found in the local elections, the ugliness of the row over anti-Semitism did have an impact on the doorstep. With neither main party able to make a definitive leap in the polls, anything that could pull Labour down is a problem.

 

And to the outside observer what is most surprising is that Labour is still riven by this issue, unable it seems to find a way through.

 

With the government staggering to the summer, with outward chaos the norm, every hour Jeremy Corbyn's party spends talking about its own problems does nothing to move them closer to Number 10.

 

The rights and wrongs of Labour's problem will be fiercely debated for many months to come.

 

But more than two years now since Labour's own first inquiry into the issue, despite many promises, the leadership has been unable to move decisively on.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44933282

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, buster. said:

To suggest that the BBC is positively biased towards the political left wing is absurd.

 

The BBC is a vast and complex organisation.

At a strategic level, it is very much establishment and they are anything but Left Wing,

There will be individual journalists who will be politically left of centre as there will be those that are right of centre.

 

That may irk some who are used to consuming media that only ever bats for the right and which in the mainstream has an unhealthy imbalance.

 

 

You often cite democracy and freedom of expression/speech as fundamental values, but your small print so very often contradicts them.

 

Wonder why Seamus Milne's old man is the only BBC Director General ever to be sacked was it because he was too right wing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today the BBC says "Free TV licences cannot be saved with cuts to stars' salaries"

 

Which is a particularly sneaky way to look at it. The truth is that no one has been "funding" free licences for the over-75's. As I understand it, what happens at present is the money that would otherwise have been paid by over-75's is deducted from a notional and entirely theoretical BBC public funding package, with the balance forming the actual working budget of the BBC. In other words, the BBC isn't currently "paying" for these free licences out of monies it has received, as it would like you to believe. Instead, the BBC is simply proposing to increase its future funding by a massive £745 million and to have our elderly population pay for it.

 

Since the BBC appears to have been able to live within its current budget for the last several years, you have to wonder why it cannot now continue to do so. The idea that the elderly citizens of this country should have an additional tax burden of £150 unilaterally imposed on them by the gravy-train addicts at the BBC is risible. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 13/06/2019 at 14:00, Bill said:

With any luck this might just tempt some ambitious politician to propose privatising the BBC

Ah yes, the solution to everything: like the probation service, 80% of which has been returned to public hands; or the company who supplies plasma to hospitals now being sold on to the Chinese; or the failing rail franchises, some of which are owned by countries who have state-owned railways; or the wonderful G4 security......

 

Take back control? We never had any bloody control to start with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.