‘At first it seemed like Armistice Day…..The resemblance soon passed, but it is peace, however high the price and whoever has had to pay it’

 It might seem churlish to express any doubts about the Munich agreement, given this tremendous outpouring of gratitude and relief. But doubts there are. Of course, having accepted, under enormous pressure, the terms of an agreement dismembering their country that they were not party to, the Czechs are none too happy about it: there have been massive protests in the streets of Prague.

The BBC has gone from hero worship of Ed Miliband after the vote on Syria to painting him a potential villain of the piece….or peace.

Nicky Campbell talking about Syria opened with the question: (08:12)

‘How many people are going to die now Ed Miliband has put the brakes on taking action over Syria?’

But such difficult questions seem beyond Victoria Derbyshire  who let Labour’s Chuka Umunna spout a stream of hypocritical dross without challenge  (10:40)….this is not so much ‘bias’ just outright bad journalism, a lack of awareness of issues, what is being said and what that means in the context of other events….and she misses out on a big hit against Labour and its hypocrisy in the vote on Syria.

It is reported that the government granted an export license for dual use chemicals that could be used to produce chemical weapons….these chemicals were not at the time banned by the EU for export.

The full details are as yet unknown, needless to say Labour are shouting loudly claiming the Government is being hypocritical for possibly allowing the export of such materials…..‘It beggars belief…reckless and negligent….the government has serious questions to answer.’

The ever bright and ‘with it’ Chuka told us that this was outrageous.  He tells us that the Joint Intelligence Committee had provided intelligence which proved that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons in the past….and that the production of these weapons may have been enabled by the government if the export had gone ahead…which it hadn’t.

Whoa …whoa there fella…..hang on…the JIC provided proof that chemical weapons had been used…which you now accept as ‘proof”?

Only a couple of days ago Labour was demanding ‘compelling evidence’ of chemical weapons being used…and denying there was any…on which basis they refused to vote even for the  approval of the principle of military action.

So now Labour accepts chemical weapons were used and it has been proved.

Derbyshire didn’t pick that up at all…..surely a major point of interest for any journalist looking for a ‘scoop’?

The whole basis of Labour’s ‘principled’ stance in the vote was that there was no real evidence.  But it seems there was…..or good enough for them to accept it now when politically convenient.

Labour may claim it was looking solely at the use of chemical weapons on the 21st August but why is that different from its use before that?

Labour’s amendment to the vote stated that this qualification should be added to the government motion:

This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.

 “We’re just playing politics now”, said one formerly supportive shadow minister on Thursday afternoon.

The JIC said the regime used chemical weapons 14 times previous to the 21st  August…..why does Labour think that only the attack on the 21st August is the ‘red line’ that should precipitate action…but only if ‘proven’ to be by the regime?

Labour didn’t believe the JIC last week, why has it suddenly changed its mind?

After all this sounds pretty compelling to me, probably 100% certain of regime use of CW, and ‘highly likely’ it was the regime on the 21st August:

We have assessed previously that the Syrian regime used lethal CW on 14 occasions from 2012. This judgement was made with the highest possible level of certainty following an exhaustive review by the Joint Intelligence Organisation of intelligence reports plus diplomatic and open sources.

We think that there have been other attacks although we do not have the same degree of confidence in the evidence. A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been established.

There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition. The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility.

Against that background, the JIC concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the CW attacks on 21 August.

And note this…Miliband will also have been privy to the actual intelligence and not just the letter:

Some of this intelligence is highly sensitive but you have had access to it all.

5Live  ‘Bringing you all the breaking news’

I was sorry to read of the death of Seamus Heaney but am no fan of his work. The BBC went into a paroxysm of activity, with Andrew Marr telling us this morning Heaney had been our greatest living writer! Talk about hyperbole. I have endured a stream of abuse from alleged Heaney fans for simply suggesting that IN MY OPINION, Heaney was dire. But that’s beside the point. What irritated me was the BBC 10 News on Friday evening repeatedly stated that Heaney was born in “County Derry”. There is NO such place. He was born in County Londonderry, the only name for that county. Why did the BBC feel the need to repeat Irish Republican slang? Can’t they be bothered to actually research what they say?

It’s funny, really. Obama is looking so far out of his depth on Syria that it is posing a problem for some of his BBC fan club. So, cue the bugle and send for Mark Mardell. Here’s Mark with the entirely neutral headline “Obama’s canny, democratic move”.  Canny in the sense that Obama is desperate to ensure he doesn’t take sole responsibility for doing that which he has argued for. When Cameron went to the Commons, the BBC portrayed it as weakness. When Obama scuttles to Congress, the BBC portray it as strength,

Was just about to fold up the tent and steal away for a beer by the riverside but I couldn’t let this lie:

Syria crisis: ‘Blair to blame for Cameron downfall’

From the journalist who exposed the Iraq War deceits, a searing indictment of MPs’ failure to act against Assad’s brutal regime from Andrew Gilligan

‘Scarred by the hubris and lies of their predecessors, the British and American leaders just did not want to get involved.’

In one respect Gilligan is correct…the Syria vote was a vote in  fact on the Iraq war and not Syria…however the finger of blame actually points at Gilligan himself, Humphrys and the BBC for totally changing, falsely in my opinion, Public perceptions and attitude towards the war and thence how politicians conducted that war and subsequently the one in Afghanistan…. essentially being afraid to commit men and resources, and the will power necessary to win those wars outright.

Gilligan goes on:

Hope no one’s been rudely cut off mid stream….here’s a fresh page to list the bias and other things of note and interest….

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.