Listening to Nicky Campbell’s ‘Your Call’ (09:40)on Friday and was amused to hear Nicky leap to the defence of a beleaguered minority.

You can have a long diatribe about Obama and his red lines being to blame for violence in Syria, you can say the Rebels used the chemical weapons, you can say Rebels are creating martyrs, and Nicky won’t say a word, but when you say  Muslims are quite happy creating martyrs as they’re all going to heaven (09:43) Nicky leaps in to their defence….

‘That’s a bit of a generalisation, well a lot of a generalisation if I may say so…the whole martyrdom thing is highly contentious within Islam….[and quick change the subject!] let’s bring in Luke from Dorset.’

For anyone thinking of calling in to a Nicky Campbell show let me help you out with a bit of advice…..There are ‘Sunni Muslims’, ‘Shia Muslims’ and ‘Some Muslims’….there is no such overarching classification as ‘Muslims’.

 Though anyone who is white is racist….see BBC ‘Definitions’…under ethics…race.

The BBC is having to play catch up as their initial assessment of Miliband’s performance in regard to the vote over Syria was that he was the ‘architect of Camerons’ defeat’ and that he could now ‘walk tall’.….as Assad supporters fly the Union Jack in Damascus in celebration.

 The BBC’s two senior and important political reporters, Nick Robinson and John Humphrys,  got it wrong.

Apparently even the Labour Party is having doubts about Miliband’s actions:

Syrian crisis: Ed Miliband faces growing criticism from Labour ranks

Ed Miliband is facing mounting criticism from within his own party for his handling of the vote on Syria, amid fears that Labour’s approach has damaged Britain’s standing on the world stage.

And Quentin Letts in the Mail:

A slippery hypocrite no one can trust again

For Ed Miliband this week, it was not about peace. It was not about parliamentary sovereignty, the national interest, chemical-warfare treaties or our (possibly now knackered) ‘special relationship’ with Washington.

It was certainly not about those children whose suffocated bodies were seen wrapped in white burial shrouds after the Damascus suburbs gas attack. Murdered innocents? V. low on the Miliband priority list, they’d be.

Nah. For the Labour leader this week it was, as ever, about just one thing: me, me, me. How could he turn the horrible Syria crisis to his own short-term advantage? That may sound harsh, but it is hard to see any other explanation for the Labour leader’s conduct during Thursday’s ‘war debate’ in the Commons.

The BBC did put a toe in the water on Newsnight on Friday and yesterday, Saturday, they were starting to take the issue more seriously with a discussion of how Miliband’s performance was being perceived.  Tony Livesey actually does a fair old job (08:36) investigating whether Miliband may appear ‘a villain’ eventually.

Amused to hear the presenter rolling his eyes at the Daily Mail headline (above)…‘Guess which paper this came from’.

Ironic because not the other week the author of that eye rolling worthy article, Quentin Letts, had a little series on the BBC, ‘What’s The Point Of….’

and look who else has been moonlighting at the awfully dreadful DailyMail:

Shocking, yes. But Churchill’s war speeches just made many Britons despair, says ANDREW MARR

 (More of which later…the quality and direction  of Marr’s ‘history’ under examination)

I suspect the BBC’s problem with the Mail is that they are rivals for the very same audience…5Live being the BBC’s very own broadcast version of the Mail….both going for the ‘shocking truth’ and trashy titbits whilst posing as respectable and worthy members of the community.

Interesting  clip from 5live on the vote as war photographer Paul Conway relates how the vote was recieved by the regime in Syria:

‘A great day for Syria, it makes us stronger’ (08:12)….Union Jacks were being flown in Damascus….the message is we’ve agreed ‘you can kill 100,000 with conventional weapons…and now chemical weapons are being used’ and if there is no response it gives the message that Assad can carry on killing at his leisure…and diplomatic efforts as put forward as the answer by Miliband are not the answer.

The Sunday Times (paywalled) says that the BBC has hired yet another Labour man…Godric Smith, Blair’s official spokesman between 2001 and 2004 and head of strategic communications until 2006. (mentioned in the Guardian in July)

His PR firm, Incorporated London, has been hired by the BBC, without tender, to ‘help rebuild its  reputation in the wake of the Savile scandal’.

One of his jobs might be….explain how he was hired without tender and why Labourite James Purnell’s (for it is he) department thinks it needs an old pal to  help them out.

Still…he might also explain why Boaden, Purnell and Anne Bulford (also from the Royal Opera House as was Tony Hall) were ‘the only candidates for their posts’.

Maybe he can get some advice from old mucker Alastair Campbell, I’m sure they’ll meet up in the corridors of the BBC, Campbell seeming a permanent fixture there at times.

Obama was trapped by his own Red Line on the use of chemical weapons in Syria…I note he now says action will only be taken if there are significant casualties resulting from the use of chemical weapons…..so presumably that is designed to give him a bit of leeway in not having to respond to attacks resulting in relatively few casualties.

Obama is now seeking a vote in Congress to get the go ahead for any strike on Syria.

It might seem that Obama is running for cover and sees a vote, as per the UK’s, as a way out with ”honour’….able to blame Congress  should the vote go against intervention….‘I wanted to go to save the Syrian people but…..’

Mardell disagrees….he thinks Obama will probably win a vote but….this is democracy in action he says…a ‘canny, democratic move’.  Whilst Cameron was given a drubbing by the BBC for having lost the vote with many a dire consequence predicted, Obama, should he lose the vote, looks like he will be praised for adopting a consensual approach….if he wins Congress can be blamed if the strikes  go pear shaped and Obama can avoid the full blame.

Mardell is providing us with a some positive spin here for Obama whilst, as I said, Cameron was given a rough ride…..only  yesterday the BBC was suggesting that the ‘special relationship’ was over….but as Obama is following Cameron’s lead perhaps the BBC got that wrong….perhaps all that chatter about Britain’s place in the world being diminished, a dramatic change in foreign policy, damage to Cameron’s authority, profound constitutional change, might be seen as so much BBC wishful thinking and rushed, ill judged comment from our eminent broadcaster.

The BBC had it both ways with the vote in the UK…Cameron loses and it is a disaster for him…but if he had won the BBC could have gone on the attack about Britain trying to be the ‘world’s policeman.’ ….no such qualms about being the ‘world’s charity’, handing out billions in world aid….or indeed the £300 million already spent by the UK to help the refugees from Syria which helps Assad stay in power and may feed those refugees but comes nowhere near to providing a real solution to their problems…an end to the war.

It will be interesting to see the BBC reaction and their analysis of the consequences for Obama should he lose the vote and just how that compares with how Cameron was hung, drawn and quartered by them.

Indeed, it will be interesting to see how they react to Obama winning the vote…and how they perceive US strikes will effect his standing in the world and the likely effectiveness of such strikes.

Thursday the BBC  (on 5Live at least) actually performed its task of reporting the events and considerations leading up to the vote on any attack on Syria with a fair degree of balance…though Seamus Milne and Labour’s Madeleine Moon I thought got off lightly without challenge to their anti-war stance.

Friday it all went pear shaped and normal service was resumed with the knives out for Cameron whilst Ed Miliband was being groomed for higher office.

Certainly a great deal of hyperbole in full flow from the BBC….

Nick Robinson on the Today programme stating:

‘For Parliament to defeat a Prime Minister on matters of peace and war is without modern precedent…the question is what does it mean?

First and foremost that Britain will not take part in any military attack on Syria.

The prime Minister has lost control of his own foreign and defence policy and as a result will cut a diminished figure on the international stage and the US may now question the value and reliability of Britain as an ally.

It is however here at home that David Cameron will feel the most pain.  The ruptures with his own party are back on public display.

Ed Miliband has been given the opportunity to disprove the claim that he is weak and he will walk taller as a result.

The repercussions of this vote could be felt for a very long time to come.’

Has Cameron ‘lost control of his own foreign and defence policy’?  

No…he elected to go for a vote when constitutionally he didn’t have to….his choice.  Apart from that isn’t it the role of Parliament to vote on legislation and government policies rather than to just act as a rubber stamp?

The fact is that control over any move to war was not ‘lost’ to parliament but to the likes of the BBC which has had an enormous influence on how the Iraq war is now seen by the Public and hence by politicians….foreign policy is now, at least partly, dictated by the BBC and how politicians think the BBC will react and report and comment on their decisions.

As for a ‘ defeat without modern precedent’ well that’s just a bit of over ripe rhetoric….the British were only going to provide a modest amount of military help to the US and the importance of this initial action and its potential impact was probably quite minimal with Assad unlikely to take much notice…depending of course on the scale of the US attacks.

Will the ‘repercussions be felt for a very long time to come’?  Doubtful….should Assad continue with mass murders, despite the assertion that there will be no military action in Syria, period, it is likely that a second attempt to get a yes vote on subsequent action might be possible and more successful.

But what is most interesting about Robinson’s piece is his reaction, or lack of, to Miliband who has proved shifty, without principle and opportunistic….so much so that Labour’s Dan Hodges has finally resigned in disgust at Miliband’s lack of character and backbone:

The truth about the Syria vote: Miliband changed his mind

and

Miliband was governed by narrow political interests – not those of Syrian children. I have left the Labour Party

Robinson doesn’t bother us with any analysis of Miliband’s dithering and general lack of honesty, nor for the reasons he changed his mind on supporting Cameron….only 20 minutes later do we get the comment that:  ‘This was a major set back for Cameron….but Ed Miliband’s position changed because he too was facing a pretty big rebellion from his own backbenchers.’

But that was it.  Miliband has got away with murder…or allowing Assad to continue to murder unchecked and a good portion of the blame can be layed at the door of the BBC for their campaign against the Iraq War and the pressure that puts on MPs to vote in a certain way….and Miliband is unchallenged in his new found role as honourable ‘peacemaker’ when in reality his position is one of convenient, opportunistic indecision and sloping shoulders.

John Humphrys added to the overwrought commentary and undue tone of great import:

‘It has been described as the greatest foreign policy defeat since Suez in 1956….the leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, was the architect of that defeat.’

Personally I don’t think it was of such huge importance…nothing at all on the scale of Suez.  And didn’t Tony Blair get shunted out of office by his defeat over Israel and Lebanon?

The expected attack by the US and UK, and maybe France, would have been a minimal strike designed to make Assad think twice about usng chemical weapons…and that’s all.  For the UK to decide not to participate is hardly earth shattering.

Humphrys goes on to tell us that this has changed Britain’s role in the world…a very significant thing for Parliament to have done he claims.

Well….it’s a one off vote about a single issue….and even that vote could be reversed at a later date.

When challenged on his assertion…pointing out Libya for instance…Humphrys claims ‘that was then, this is now’.

Fundamentally, he tells us, British foreign policy has changed….we have  a new role in the world…of sitting back and doing nothing?

Well, yes….and this is now and tomorrow is another day and another decision which could be completely different.

Will we also have a new foreign policy then or merely something that adapts and changes with each new circumstance that arises as any sensible nation would adopt?

Humphrys goes onto say that Cameron’s ‘authority’ is diminished….again when challenged and told it was temporary Humphrys insisted that it was permanent.

Guess he has an agenda.

Nick Robinson is similarly excited:

‘This is not a one off…Parliament has used its power to rein in a Prime Minister and effect a  profound constitutional change…the genie cannot be put back in the bottle.’

As far as I can see this is a very minor political and military affair…one that should blow over in the normal course of events unless continually whipped up by Miliband with support from the likes of Robinson and Humphrys, unwitting or not.

The BBC (and the rest of course) has been giving this story a far greater significance than it merits….and has led them to draw all sorts  of conclusions that seem all too conveniently in line with their own politics….claiming this is highly damaging for Cameron whilst Miliband has risen Phoenix like from the ashes of his  more usual political roastings.

The reality is Cameron stood by his principles and allowed Parliament to take a vote on whether to go to war (of a very small kind) whilst Miliband dithered and changed his mind and took the line of least resistence rather than stand up and be counted even if he knew he would face defeat.

That is not a picture we get from the BBC at all.

 Listening to 5Live today I heard a report about an attack on a school by a Syrian aircraft using some sort of incendiary bomb.  Now I’m fairly hardened to images of war and the resultant carnage that results but I have to admit when I heard one man making his plea to the UN (10:14:30) it kind of stopped me dead in my tracks. 

Dear UN

What kind of peace are you calling for?

Don’t you see this….

Don’t you see this…

What do you need to see?

We are human beings.

We want to live.

You have to listen to it to get the full emotional impact, coming suddenly out of the radio in the middle of the day is very effecting….here is the BBC video report of the same thing with graphic images of the injuries….the ‘walking dead’.

Parliament, that body of fine upstanding men and women has voted….to look the other way.

Paddy Ashdown responded to that vote:

“In 50 years trying to serve my country I have never felt so depressed/ashamed. Britain’s answer to the Syrian horrors? none of our business!”

 He’s not wrong is he?

If the vote in Parliament had been one to merely delay military action brought about by the use of chemical weapons that may have been excusable….to ensure the culprit was correctly identified.

However that wasn’t what the vote ended up saying.

The vote has apparently put any possibility of military action off the table, for ever….regardless of any future events that may occur, however terrible, however many people get killed, whatever the means used to kill them.

Assad can murder as many people as he likes, in whatever manner he likes and the worst that will happen to him is a diplomatic flurry of indignation and condemnation.

He must be shaking in his blood filled boots.

But Ed Miliband is happy with that, in fact he’s trying to make as much political hay as he can out of events.

 He piously grandstands demanding ‘compelling evidence’ of chemical attacks…..and yet already over 100,000 Syrians have been killed and more die daily from ‘conventional weapons’…such as napalm bombs…..just how many have to die before he feels so ‘compelled’ to help them out, how many more millions have to be displaced, how many towns and cities destroyed?

What is Miliband’s ‘red line’?  I forgot…of course….he doesn’t have one….he’s already decided…there will be no military action at all.

Miliband states that we should learn the lessons of Iraq and that political and diplomatic pressure will persuade Assad to come to terms.

So what is the lesson of Iraq?   The lesson of Iraq is that after 12 years of UN sanctions and huge diplomatic efforts Saddam was still in power and totally unwilling to negotiate and happily murdering and gassing his own people.

Still it’s good that Miliband and his family can be reassured that his own kids will be safe…and how ironic that he wears a poppy, the man who won’t stand up for those who suffer and die:

Shame about the Syrian kids that he has abandoned to their fate:

Miliband says that what  is important is that the war is brought to an end.

His plan?  To talk softly to Assad but not to wave a big stick just in case he gets angry.

Why would Assad negotiate?  He’s winning and getting arms shipped in from Russia and Iran.

What would make him come to the negotiating table?

A military strike that so reduced his own military capability that he couldn’t beat the Rebels…not only that but make it likely that the Rebels may win.

Because Assad would then have to think….what next if the Rebels win?  Does he end up swinging from a lamp post or at the very least in the dock for war crimes.  Either way he loses.

The only thing that will do that and force him to end his attacks is a massive strike against his airforce and main weaponry.

Miliband has ensured that Assad remains in power and that the war goes on, killing countless more people, until that victory is assured.

Shame the BBC have yet to seriously challenge Miliband on his stance.

They know he is on dodgy ground , they asked Cameron if Miliband had behaved ‘dishonourably’, and yet I have heard no building of any momentum on that line of questioning yet.

‘Unarmed civilians being killed….I don’t think we can touch this…UN’s jurisdiction, we can’t intervene…return to base’

If you’ve seen the film ‘Blackhawk Down’ you might think no lessons have been learnt since then…or indeed from Bosnia and the Srebrenica Massacre when Dutch troops had to stand by and watch 8000 Bosnians being murdered….in a UN protected ‘safe area’.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGHRWRsJ8dw

Sure none of you will have time to fill this one up…too busy applying for the newly vacant position of HR Director, BBC….or you could win the lottery this weekend….either way, you’d be in the money.

£320,000 per year for a Human Resources director.

No wonder the BBC is 75% repeats.

For what was Ms Adams paid so much money, what outstanding values did she bring to the BBC?

Ms Adams was accused of a “dereliction of duty” for her role in authorising the pay-offs, and Conservative MP Stewart Jackson said the practice would be called “corporate fraud and cronyism” in any other organisation.

And….

Michelle Stanistreet, the NUJ’s general secretary, met Lord Hall on Tuesday and outlined serious allegations that BBC human resources staff targeted staff union activists during a bitter dispute about changes to the employee pension scheme in 2010.

The Telegraph has seen a witness statement which claims that BBC HR officials “monitored” the emails of a member of staff who was an NUJ representative during the industrial dispute over the pension changes.

The statement by Byron Myers, a former BBC head of human resources, which forms part of a legal case brought by the union against the corporation over the new pension scheme, also alleges that HR staff used “underhand tactics” to collect information on NUJ activists and “bring cases of disciplinary action for intimidation and bullying as a means of control”.

Glenn Greenwald is already sharpening his pencils at the Guardian for an exposé.

Via BBC Watch and Archbishop Cranmer:

It seems the BBC has been giving a platform to an organisation, greenbelt, that hosts an anti-Israel manifesto, its main motivation seems to be centred around Israel/Palestine.

It has a strange notion of what exactly Christianity teaches:

Our history is firmly rooted within a Christian tradition which is world-affirming, politically and culturally engaged…….. inclusive and accepting of all, regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, background or belief.

Hmmm…OK…I guess God loves a sinner.….’Archbishop urges Christians to ‘repent’ over ‘wicked’ attitude to homosexuality’

As you can see Israel is a major pre-occupation with greenbelt:

This is what Greenbelt attempts to do: to make links with people in situations around the world struggling for justice and peace and to bring them to Greenbelt and give them a stage. We view this as part of our mission.

In addition, in terms of our programming on and highlighting issues around Israel/Palestine, Greenbelt also aligns itself with resolutions of international law, drawn up by the United Nations, that deem:

• The continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as illegal
• The separation wall being built since 2002 as illegal
• The continued building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal

Read BBC Watch and Cranmer….and you can see just how ‘non-inclusive’ and anti-Israeli this group is.

Any surprise that the BBC is giving such a significant boost  to greenbelt’s credentials and therefore to its, unmentioned by the BBC, main political narrative?….and it is essentially a political organisation with tamboreens. 

And just out of interest that bastion of BBC righton-edness, Richard Curtis, is friends with Jim Wallis, guest on the show, and another prolific anti-Israel campaigner.

Jim lives in Washington DC, with his wife Joy Carroll, one of the first women ordained in the Church of England, and who was advisor, inspiration and role model for Richard Curtis for his comedy series “The Vicar of Dibley”.

 Small world.

Isn’t it great that the BBC is in essence a private club for the likes of Curtis who can take license payers money and use it make programmes that are blatant propaganda for one of his many pet causes…whether poverty, anti-Tory or pro-climate change lobbying.