Culture Secretary Andy Burnham tells BBC's Jonathan Dimbleby that government approval of the licence fee increase in an election year was entirely coincidental.

OK, they didn’t quite phrase it like that, but the backstory is that the BBC’s ‘liberal’ culture has traditionally manifested itself in bias against the Conservatives. Ironically, When New Labour swept to power, empowered by the support of the Murdoch media empire, it set about taking control of state communications in classic Stalinist fashion, starting with an exponential expansion in the number of government-salaried PR flaks. Led by the boorish Alastair Campbell, they intimidated, bullied and bored the BBC into a parody of independent broadcasting. Early into Labour’s Reich, many BBC apparatchiks felt about as comfortable as Irish kids in a Christian Brothers care home. When BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan claimed in 2003 that the ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ Dossier, the pretext for the UK to go to war in Iraq, was ‘sexed up’ by Campbell, the government went to war with the BBC. Gilligan’s source, UN weapons inspector Dr David Kelly, was hounded to suicide and Campbell made it his declared intention to ‘fuck’ Gilligan and the BBC. The resulting ‘sexed-down’ Hutton enquiry exonerated the government and led to the resignation of Gilligan, BBC Director General Greg Dyke and Chairman Gavyn Davies. New Labour poodle Mark Thompson replaced Dyke. The BBC, or at least any pretence to independence, was indeed fucked. 

This man, the highest paid recipient of state benefits, received£6 million, equivalent to half the BBC film budget, in 2008. Life is beautiful.

Unless you were in management. Dyke’s predecessor, Blairite John (now Baron) Birt, hobbled the corporation with wasteful and demoralising layers of neo-Soviet bureaucracy, schizophrenically linked to ‘streamlining’ attempts to create a neo-commercial ‘internal market’ culture. Instead of making programmes, producers and editors held the coats of outside contractors who charged ‘market rates’ – cost plus a profit – often to do exactly the same thing as inhouse staff. In a bizarre conceit of ‘competitive pricing,’ the BBC started paying market-leading fees to random ‘talent’ like Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton and their production companies to make formula chat shows, on air up to five nights a week. Professional interrogators such as Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman now command over £1 million per year to broadcast polemic to minority audiences. Everyone, apart from the audiences, has benefited immensely.

In a mirror image of commercial media, the pyramid scheme was sustained by ballooning growth in executive salaries and infrastructure. As commercial stations succumbed to market forces as viewing figures and advertising revenues declined despite an economic boom, the BBC, with £3.2 billion guaranteed revenues from a captive taxpaying audience, has expanded more or less any way it chose. 

The BBC never tires of proclaiming itself as the envy of the world. To the degree that it maintains an undemocratic right to broadcast, based upon compulsory subscription, this may be true, especially if you are a journalist in the free market. It broadcasts some excellent, worthy factual and documentary content, consistently good comedy shows and panel games and has a great website. But does it efficiently deliver value and relevancy? Morale, especially amongst its creative staff is generally low. And, dare I say it – of course I will – its news output is often partial, patchy, and hopelessly unrepresentative. This morning on the posh channel, Radio 4, we heard another non-story about MPs’ salaries, a small piece about Congress resistance to Obama’s Climate Change Initiatives and Guantanamo travails, a longer piece about Madeleine McCann, an even longer piece about the alleged demise of the dormouse from Britain’s countryside and the earth-shattering news that a couple of WH Auden’s embarrassing odes to Soviet Communism, used as subtitles for an obscure propaganda film, lost for 50 years in the archives of the British Film Institute, have been uncovered – and found to be crap. Mostly twaddle, not news. Commercial channels may be no better, but they rely on subscription revenues and advertising, not state coercion, for their right to exist. Their audiences vote with their wallets. When the Tories return to power, a Great Terror will descend upon this monument to Birt/Blair/Brown Stalinism. The chatterati will wring their hands, but the proles will hardly notice. Telly is telly, especially when it becomes digital wallpaper. It doesn’t have to be that way.  

John J Kelly

Members of the commentariat debating moral hazard

Emmott, Kaletsky and many others suffered negligible reputational damage from these Panglossian prognostications. Kaletsky, an excellent academic economist and thoroughly nice guy, even predicted an upturn in commercial property values in 2009. He advises the boards of several global financial institutions (some are even still trading) and sits at the court of Soros (who DID predict the crisis of capitalism). Perhaps his globe-bestriding masters use him as some sort of contrarian idiot savant: “whatever Anatole says, do the opposite, but pretend we believe him.” Writing in the Houyhnhms Monthly, Prospect, an unrepentant Kaletsky argues that historical economic models were incapable of predicting today’s unprecedented circumstances and that economics itself is a ‘descriptive,’ not ‘predictive’ science (I prefer Carlyle’s term ‘dismal’). He correctly points the finger at economists for holding the bankers’ coats, and says they bear a large part of the blame (without acknowledging that he is one himself). Thus said similar in more robust fashion recently: time-to-junk-the-broken-economics - ’If bankers were whores, economists were their pimps’. Nobody has invited me to Davos so far.

Whether the commentariat were spectators, unwitting pawns or co-conspirators, some played key roles in the toxic conceit that financial services ‘products’ were the output, not the enablers, of the global economy. Bankers, the IMF and even the sainted Alan Greenspan, failed to foresee the deliquescence of the Anglo-Saxon financial model. The oft-repeated excuse, that nobody could have possibly foreseen the unprecedented crisis, is partly true. The commentariat works on what is heard around town. Global financial pr lizards, ratings agencies, consultants and the lobbyists that feed the media, on both sides of the Atlantic, have more of a case to answer as regards culpability. Some members of the commentariat should perhaps look to their sources and be more careful as to whom they accept a free lunch from in future – if there is one for the press media.

We needed Professor Stanley Unwin but they gave us Robert Peston

Many in the commentariat underwrote the suspension of disbelief which fuelled the lotto culture of the past decade. Crazy times did produce unlikely heroes, however – few more unlikely than Robert Peston. The excitable, eccentric BBC Business Editor became a leading British celebrity during the crisis, delivering barely-comprehensible analysis in a strangly-voice. Whether he indeed predicted the full extent of the crisis any better than others was anyone’s guess – nobody could understand a word. He was thus branded as the man with the labrador in the land of the blind, and will be remembered for telling us that Northern Rock Bank (of Toytown) was doomed, laddy, doomed. The accompanying run on shares and funds arguably forced Gordon Brown into its precipitous nationalisation and set the stage for the other lucky bankers. The Peston effect was so pervasive that Iain Dale, the UK political blogging celebrity has even questioned whether Peston himself is ‘spinning for Downing Street.’

The EI panel agreed that moral hazard was widely debated at the onset of the banking crisis, but largely evaporated as a topic as ‘doing whatever it takes’ became the populist battle cry. For this, the commentariat at large must take their share of the blame. Few in the media, but especially the UK government, acknowledged the scope of the recession until the arse was hanging out of our collective trousers. Plenty were prepared to pile in and kick the fat cat bankers, but few had the stomach to play it like it lays: the country’s fucked and we’ve hocked our kids’ futures in an insane last roll of the dice in a neo-Keynsian Ponzi scheme. Has that put the tin lid on my Davos invitation? Hope so.

John J Kelly

If you tolerate this, then your children will be next. Donate to the Gaza appeal and don't pay your BBC licence fee

In a display of lip-curling spinelessness, the BBC has refused to air the non-aligned Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Humanitarian Aid to the victims of the Gaza conflict. Other UK (commercial) TV channels, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, have agreed to air the appeal. Sky Television is considering its position. (UPDATE: unsurprisingly, Sky has now declined to broadcast the appeal).

The decision has been condemned by the usual suspects such as John Sentanu, Archbishop of York, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Tony Benn, George Galloway, 60 MPs and Hazel Blears – with friends like that, you might say – but at least they aren’t scared of the shrill ultras (neither is Thus, by the way). International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander’s statement is particularly balanced: “I think the British public can distinguish between support for humanitarian aid and perceived partiality in a conflict. I really struggle to see, in the face of the immense human suffering in Gaza at the moment, that this is in any way a credible argument. They still have time to make a different judgement, to recognise the immense human suffering and to address the concern – which I think otherwise may develop – that somehow the suffering of people in Gaza is not taken as seriously as the suffering of people in other conflicts.”

UK Culture Secretary, the meaningless Andy Burnham, has sat on the fence uttering platitudes. So far, the BBC has reported that it has received over 11,000 complaints from UK citizens but has neglected to mention the sizeable protests outside BBC HQ. In a display worthy of Ruritania, BBC spinmonkeys have tried to turn the story into a defence of BBC ‘impartiality’, claiming that their political position would be affected by broadcasting this appeal – a curious claim given that there are several precedents for airing appeals for the victims of warfare.

The appeal calls for urgently needed food and medicine. The Disasters Emergency Committee aggregates the efforts of 13 largely non-aligned agencies – ActionAid, British Red Cross, CAFOD, Care International UK, Christian Aid, Concern Worldwide, Help the Aged, Islamic Relief, Merlin, Oxfam, Save the Children, Tearfund and World Vision UK, attributes no blame and makes no political statements. The simple fact is that many hundreds more men, women, children and old people may die without urgent help. Gaza’s hospitals and infrastructure have been pulverised, on top of a long siege and blockade which has depleted resources. Add to this the destruction of the tunnels which were the only way to bring in essentials (never mind weapons) and you have a full scale humanitarian emergency, admittedly created by man, not nature. What part of this does BBC Director General Mark Thompson find difficult to understand? Arguably, by refusing to air the relief message, the BBC is making a political statement – that these people do not deserve the help of the vast majority of the UK citizens who don’t like watching innocent people needlessly suffer and die. A lot of Jewish people would no doubt contribute too, but not if the spin is that for some bizarre reason, it is politically incorrect to do so.

The BBC has come under constant fire from various Ultra propaganda conduits in the past and during the recent conflict (massacre?) for its perceived pro-Arabist coverage of Israeli-related issues. Its own gormless attempt to spin this decision shows that the corporation has learned a lot from the constant crude fascist barracking from AIPAC and other nutters. Political interference, on one level or another, is apparent. It is cant to pretend otherwise.

Israel, meanwhile, has pledged legal aid to protect its soldiers from prosecution for war crimes in Gaza – as near to an admission that there were war crimes as you’re likely to get. This is entirely their prerogative, and we look forward to the proceedings. I doubt you’ll read much about it on the cowardly BBC, whose executives don’t want their inboxes spammed by gibberish from Zionist PR activists. The Israel lobby has won another victory. The problem with mass murder and terrorising thousands of civilians, bombing hospitals, blockading aid efforts and stifling the international efforts to help is that responsible media organisations might report on it – unless they are intimidated. This was and is part of Ultra-Zionist strategy since the 1982 Lebanon massacres. Neo-fascists in Darfur, DRC, Myanmar, Tibet, Zimbabwe and elsewhere will be taking notes.

You can read about the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal here. Personally, I think Israel should pay full retribution for the damage they have caused – and pay Palestinians in full for the Occupied Territories which they have annexed since 1967 and which are the cause of the Middle East tensions. They can easily afford it. That’s a political statement. Donating isn’t.

John J Kelly.

Vengeful sky, Sunday 11 January, Gaza.

Tony Blair has come back from yet another much-needed holiday and New Year at his multi-million pound country seat, formerly owned by that other consummate actor, Sir John Geilgud, to go through the motions with beacon of democracy, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, earning his corn with insights such as: ”I am hopeful we can put an agreement together but it’s going to have to be worked on very hard and it’s got to be credible.” Amazing. We all thought an agreement that was knocked together and was entirely incredible would have done the trick, Tony. His sudden frenzy of diplomacy may be connected to criticism from various quarters, including the Telegraph and Sunday Times that he and the ‘Quartet’ have been remarkable for their absence since hostilities commenced (as pointed out by Thus on 27 December 2008). His headquarters – a floor of the appropriately named American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, which he rarely visits, are maintained at a cost of £700,000 per year, allegedly funded by none other than the UN Development Programme. Meanwhile, the world’s most lucrative after-dinner speaker (who’d listen to him before dinner?) will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom from George W Bush as a reward for his unwavering toadying during the Iraq farrago, for the WMD Yellow Cake jape that helped start same, for the jumper he knitted for W and for walking like a cowboy during and after their meetings. Tommy Franks, Dick Cheney, Kissinger, Rumsfeld and other apocalypse jockeys have also received this prized gong. Who says war crime doesn’t pay?

38 more people died in Gaza on Sunday 11 January, 2008. As predicted, in what Israel terms as the 'final phase' or 'endgame' reservists are trundling into Gaza to have a crack at the shocked and awed locals. The body count is now 900 with 4100 wounded and rising. Seven Palestinians, including two women and two children, were killed this morning. 1500 should be just enough to secure another Intifada. Foreign minister Tzipi Livni, who told the world there was no humanitarian crisis in Gaza then went on to cement one, said on Israeli army radio "I am not going to negotiate with Hamas and don't need them to sign anything for me. What they said is meaningless." So that's alright then. In other words, massacre away.

The world has largely tut-tutted as it watched the economic siege of Gaza move to ‘shock and awe’ air raids and now to ground troop massacres in a grotesque echo of Iraq. Whether Livni, Barak or Netanyahu, the odds have shortened on Israel’s chances of forcing the real ‘endgame’ – attacking Iran on the pretext of thwarting its nuclear ambitions, using the 20,000 weapons of mass destruction helpfully supplied by the US last year. Only a lunatic or a nihilist would see this as positive for peace in the Middle East or for enhancing Israeli security, but the evidence of this continued barbarity shows that there are plenty of these around. Not that anyone cares any more, but strictly for the record, here are some highlights from the Fourth Geneva Convention:

Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.

There is to be no destruction of property unless justified by military necessity.

Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.

Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.

Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.

Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons and must not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.

The last part of the Convention relates directly to the alleged activities of Hamas: “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.” (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28). Tony, you’re a lawyer (and your wife is a human rights lawyer). Advise your Israeli Neocon friends that they might be breaking the law, and while you’re at it, please turn yourself in to the ICC. A whip round at Bilderberg will provide sufficient funds for Cherie to defend you (and make sure you get off) then someone can make a film about it.  Strike that last part, someone already has.

John J Kelly

Media censorship has a habit of rebounding. For example, even friendly media would struggle to describe the actions of Hamas, (whom I’ve already described in several posts as a bunch of criminal sociopaths originally sponsored by Mossad), but who have been morally strengthened by what can only politely be described as Israel’s ill-advised use of disproportionate force. It is entirely likely that they have been firing rockets out of heavily-populated positions  - Gaza is one of the world’s most densely-populated areas, so it’s hard to see how they could avoid doing so. Thus, they must be aware that in doing so they put the lives of civilians at risk. However, this equally means that the invading Israeli forces must have knowledge that in bombing buildings (and UN compounds) they will kill inncocents. Moreover, as the aforementioned grainy YouTube clips (some dating back to 2007) show, they have sophisticated surveillance techniques which show in minute detail the exact position of Hamas armament and fighters. Knowingly Bombing civilians is a crime against International Law and an indisputable breach of the Geneva Convention. Both Hamas and Israel are guilty and both should be censured. (For that matter, so should Britain and the US, for crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that’s another sorry tale altogether).

I am equally certain that Hamas rockets might have done a lot more civilian damage over the past eight years, with a lot more international outrage, had the Southern Israel citizens not organised highly effective early warning systems and educated their children to flee to purpose-built shelters within a minute of hearing a siren. Whether or not the bombs don’t achieve their ‘goal’ of killing people, the effect of constant bombardment, even with toytown rockets, exacts a terrible toll on the hearts and minds of Israeli civilians, up to and including the biblical desire for revenge. Thus, Israel’s efficiency in defending its citizens has possibly and paradoxically contributed to the build-up to the present unequal contest. Allied to the sense of hopelessness in the face of muted international condemnation of Hamas (and Hizbollah), this may have led inexorably to a situation where the military hawks (vicious, opportunistic bullies but never the cleverest or most lateral thinkers) forced their ‘solution’ (bombing civilian populations) to the front of the agenda. 

The (deplorable) default position of the international liberal media is to don the keffiyeh and metaphorically chant Palestinian slogans, in a misplaced parody of 1968 and all that. On the other hand, the (majority) illiberal media, as represented by The Daily Mail and Telegraph in the UK, Fox News and most of the Murdoch gang in the US and elsewhere, are natural Neocon allies of Israel, especially in its current belligerent incarnation. By banning the media (in contravention of international law and in defiance of a ruling of the Israeli Parliament itself) Israel is laying itself open to the charge that it has all but abandoned any semblance of respect for natural human justice. In doing so, it puts itself on the same rogue state level as the criminal sociopaths from whom it so rightly feels the need to defend its citizens. 

Israel has now achieved its domestic objective: the forces of Netanyahu have prevailed and the country needs to dig in for a period of international ostracisation. The US and Britain will veto any Security Council Resolution condemning its actions, so it won’t face international sanctions. Hamas will be deposed and go underground (again), where its hard liners will resort to acts of covert terrorism which will kill many more innocent people. Likewise Hizbollah and other whacko Palestinian militants. The neighbours and relatives of the thousands killed, half-starved and displaced by the bombardments of Lebanon and Gaza will hate Israel even more and aid the terrorists (no change there). There is no other possible outcome at this stage than an increase in the likelihood of Terror – so thanks a lot from the rest of us. On the other hand, Israel will have its Right-Wing coalition and may well try and invade Iran. In which case, welcome to Armageddon (literally). 

Obama has his work cut out, though the composition of his advisors (Rham Emmanuel, Hilary Clinton and her Rubinesque cabal, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Soros et al) make it unlikely that much will change on the policy front. I’m not saying any more about this horrible mess, (even if I told you so) except that I am sorry for all the innocent people killed in the name of political expediency. It was ever thus.

John J Kelly

(Irish, friend of Jews everywhere but not fond of Israel, especially its Neanderthal politicians).