Party Posturing (Part 2)

Credit where credit is due. Following Today’s attempted ambush of William Hague yesterday over the alleged Nazi sympathies of Michael Kaminski, the leader of Poland’s Law and Justice Party who are the Conservative party’s new European allies, the programme invited on this morning Michael Shudrich, Poland’s chief rabbi, to clarify whether or not – as David Miliband alleged yesterday – he believed Mr Kaminski was anti-semitic. Very cooly and precisely, Mr Shudrich said that, although Mr Kaminski had in his youth belonged to a neo-Nazi party, he had long since moved on and was now strongly pro-Isreal and “anti anti-semitic”in his beliefs. Not only that, again despite what Mr Miliband disgracefully alleged, the Law and Justice Party was not right-extremist (ie racist), but a respectable centre-right party.

So the programme definitely went out of its way – by tracking Mr Shudrich down to be interviewed – to demonstrate that David Miliband’s claims were preposterous.

However, and there is always a big ‘however’ when the BBC finds something that supports a view to the right of centre, Nick Robinson came in on the act at the end to say that – despite the clarification over Poland -problems still were in store over the new Conservative grouping in the European Parliament, because there were big (unspecified) questions about the Latvians, another member of the new group. The menacing innuendo in his claims was so strong that he virtually nullified all that had been said by the chief rabbi.

Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Party Posturing (Part 2)

  1. FrankFisher says:

    Robinson’s response was breathtaking – even for him. Totally ignored the Rabbi’s point by point rebuttal of Milliband’s claims – no suggestion from Robinson that Milliband might have screwed up, that he need apologise or recant, nothing. Instead, straight on to explain why the tories were in a lot of trouble becaus eof these (refuted) allegations, and a new batch re latvia. Amazing. And we have to pay this guy’s wages, or they’ll send us to jail… Actually, I don’t pay his wages – and yet they haven’t sent me to jail yet. I urger everyone to just STOP. The BBC are now beyond a joke.


    • NotaSheep says:

      This is the agreed Labour/BBC line of attack on the Conservatives and it will be followed until the next smaer campaign is invented.


    • Lurking Blackhat says:

      It is worse than that.

      The BBC would have known roughly what the Rabbi was going to say.

      Robinson was only there to nullify the Rabbi’s comments.

      A typical BBC/Labour trick. Never mind the truth, let’s go for a lie and smear.


  2. John Anderson says:

    I agree that the interview with the Polish Chief Rabbi was entirely fair and full.   With useful quotes that Hague et al will use against the child Milliband.

    Robinson’s comments were ludicrous in light of what had just been broadcast,  a total disconnect, and utterly biased.

    I would expect Hague to continue the pushback – especially about all the dodgy allies in Europe of NuLab.  But I won’t hold my breath waiting for the BBC to track down some of those dodgy allies.


  3. cassandra king says:

    I listened to the whole report and was satisfied untill Nick Robinson chipped in his tuppence worth and it was a disgrace, we could have been listening to a new labour spin doctor at work.

    Toenails seemed to think that the Milliband dirty smears were just rough and tumble and all part of the political game, then ignored Milliband completey and went after the Tories for new labour taking the same attack line as them.
    Would toenails be so understanding and forgiving if it was a senior Tory found out for engaging in gutter smears and sewer politics?
    Time after time new labour gets away with things that no other party could.
    Is Robinson after a K?

    Having said that, it must be said that the today show was certainly on the ball to ‘fact check’ Mr banana man even though it was spoiled by having toenails do a cover job for him.


    • NotaSheep says:

      You were “ listening to a new labour spin doctor (in all but name) at work.”


  4. Roland Deschain says:

    Actually, I took Nick Robinson’s response to be that this rebuttal by the rabbi wouldn’t lead to an apology by Miliband but would simply result in him trying to show that other members of this alliance were extreme. I didn’t take it as bias from Nick, rather an explanation of Labour’s mindset on the issue. I stand to be corrected here, but did he not describe these tactics as “ugly”, which I would not have thought was particularly supportive of them?


  5. Will says:

    And (much though it pains) to be fair to Naughtie in particular, he did set the scene about the appropriateness of a blanket apology for the 1941 massacre & for such apologies for old wrongs more generally.

    The rabbi pointed out Kaminski’s support for the state of Israel. It is the leftists opposition to Israel, whilst getting hysterical about anti-semitism, that most amuses me about the affair.


    • cassandra king says:

      Good point, the leftists hate Israel, support the nastiest Jew haters the world has to offer and harbour within their own ranks anti semites of the worst kind and yet these very same leftists have the nerve to accuse other parties of allying themselves with the very people they themselves ally with?
      Then again, its typical of the left to engage in that kind of transference of sins, Its a typical attack line carried out by socialists for decades, the Tories are not going to engage in the tactics of the gutter but it would be very interesting to dig out some high profile Jew haters in the ranks of the newlabour/leftist axis wouldnt it?


  6. sue says:

    This subject has many  ramifications, but in my view it’s not particularly about BBC bias.

     James Naughtie was indeed more sympathetic to Miliband than Hague in Thursday’s interview, and this morning Rabbi Schudrich seemed to indicate that Hague was right all along. James Naughtie accepted that.

    If you follow the story backwards, as I belatedly did this morning, the original article in the New Satesman by James Macintyre very clearly and unequivocally said that Kaminski is a far right antisemite, and that Jewish leaders, including Rabbi Schudrich, are alarmed at his political ascent in Poland.
    He was a member, albeit in his youth, of a party that has in its manifesto, direct from Mein Kampf:  “ Jews will be removed from Poland, and their possessions confiscated.”
    In an interview  Kaminski said his own president should withhold an apology over the massacre of hundreds of Jews in Jedwabne in 1941, and instead he should apologise for ‘other things.’

    No-one could blame David Miliband for criticising the Conservatives for brushing these the concerns aside as William Hague is alleged to have done, if Miliband genuinely believed what was expressed in that article.

    But the plot thickens. First, grimly echoing Nick Griffin’s rebranding as an ex-antisemite, Kaminski says all that was in the past, a mere youthful flirtation.

    Today’s interview did go to the trouble of getting the Rabbi to explain his position. He says James Macintyre misrepresented his views,  and stressed that Mr. Kaminski is a friend of Israel after all.

    So now  we’re left with the devil’s advocate question. If Mr. Kaminski can be rehabilitated for political expediency, can Mr. Griffin?

    Today’s interview with the Rabbi made Naughtie’s pro labour, anti tory interview style  yesterday look  poor, but having read the Macintyre article Miliband had  a point.
    However, the thing I was getting at in my post yesterday was the hypocrisy of  politicians who have deliberately conspired to promote mass Muslim immigration for the purpose of providing themselves with enough votes to stay in power,   then next minute turning round and producing Jewish ancestry out of a hat, or  ‘asaJew ‘ credentials to suit some party political  point-scoring exersise.

    As for Nick Robinson, I’m not so sure, because we must beware of dodgy alliances, and who am I to say the menacing innuendo isn’t ’t justified?


  7. Jonny says:

    Am I not correct in thinking that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer was a militant Trotskyite in his 20s? And that several other current cabinet members were active Communists, seeking the overthrow of the UK’s democracy?


    That rather puts Kaminski’s teenage exploits (taken under a repressive communist dictatorship) into perspective.


  8. David Preiser (USA) says:

    I think this is a rare instance where the BBC actually did provide some balance, notably in a way that could benefit the Tories.  So definitely credity where due.  Well, partial credit, anyway.  It’s kind of a joke when Naughtie introduces the segment as a situation wher e Labour has started attacking the Conservatives over their EU associations when it was in fact started by the BBC during their election night coverage.  The BBC started this story rolling, and Beeboids have been critical of the Tories for this on air.  Aside from that, Naughtie was ok on this one.

    Nick Robinson, though, once again betrayed his lack of impartiality when it comes to giving his analysis.  I grant that he did refer to this as “dirty” tactics from Labour.  He was trying to speak generally about things getting heated in both parties’ quest to sway voters, but as this was the only tactic being discussed, the implication was obvious enough.

    However, Robinson revealed his lack of impartiality at his job in his opening comments when, while explaining that Miliband was using Rabbi Shudrich’s words, failed to point out that Miliband was taking them out of context and thus misrepresenting the Rabbi’s position.  Sure, anyone listening to the Rabbi’s exchange with Naughtie will realize that, but Robinson should have said it himself.  He didn’t.  Neither did Naughtie, come to think of it.

    I see this as yet another example of how Nick Robinson is compromised as the BBC political editor.  I submit that he deliberately held back from calling Miliband out because he was afraid to lose that precious access.  While this may not be direct pro-Labour bias, Robinson ends up lending them support by his failure to do his job properly.


  9. dave s says:

    If Israel decides to destroy the nuclear capability of Iran then I wonder what sort of reaction will follow from the BBC/Guardian axis.
    Lynching the Israeli ambassador on Question Time? Every news bulletin attacking the “Zionist entity”?
    Then I suggest is the time to ask Mr Karminski which side he is on?
    I know little about him but I do know the left in Britain and Europe is viscerally hostile to Israel.


  10. George R says:

     David Miliband is the BBC’s kind of dhimmi; an ideal candidate for the undemocratically invented post of ‘EU foreign secretary’, in which he could build  Eurabia as quickly as possible.

     Miliband’s weakness in the face of Islam is not explored by the BBC.

    Nile Gardner nailed it in a ‘Telegraph’ blog a few months ago:

    “David Miliband cowers before the mullahs of Iran”


  11. Ben says:

    Miliband should have checked with Il Presidente first. Then he would have found out that Kaminski isn’t persona non grata.  In fact he’s the sort of chap you invite for tea.


  12. Allan@Aberdeen says:

    Why would anybody believe that Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Straw et al have somehow outgrown their marxist beliefs? They have trashed our economy, ruined our society and conspired to import without any health or abilities checks over 3 million people from the 3rd-world in order to make the UK multi-cultural and multi-racial. That is pure Marx as amended by Gramsci for the modern infiltrationist age.


  13. Grant says:

    And, of course, it all helps to distract from the BBC’s institutional anti-semitism.


  14. Tarquin says:

    Give it up – you admit they did a good job and then you try to use anything from the reverse angle as evidence of another bias

    I think Robinson is bang on here – this is turning into a big fight, Milliband won’t back down over this and will probably start to throw other things at him to get out of ‘being wrong’, the true labour weasel that he is, labour will stick to this line of attack