Bishop Hill Those lovely BBC journalists
Jan 13, 2015 BBC Most of the presenters on the BBC News Channel are a bit of an unknown quantity to me - anonymous, featureless, characterless. The exception was one particular guy, whose casual use of the d-word at the time of the Fifth Assessment Report marked him out as a campaigner rather than a journalist. I noted his behaviour and I have recalled it when he has appeared on my screen but that was the extent of my interest. The BBC is full of people who are campaigners rather than journalists.
That was until this morning when I learned that his name is Tim Willcox and he facing calls for his resignation, after some outrageous behaviour during the march for free speech in France.
A BBC reporter has faced calls to resign after he told the daughter of Holocaust survivors in Paris: 'Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well'.
Journalist Tim Willcox sparked anger during his coverage of yesterday's rally in Paris, held in memory of the 17 victims of last week's terror attacks, including four Jewish people in a siege at a Kosher supermarket.
Potty mouthed, bigoted, biased. He's probably due for promotion.
Reader Comments (171)
Denier-caller, and now anti-Jewish... he must be due an editorial position surely?
Vacant looking Martine Croxhall does the newspapers late each weekday evening.
When one of the many stories about how much windfarms cost us not to generate anything was brought up by one of the London based media luvvies they have on each night she was clearly spooked.
She immediate asked him "You're not one of those climate skeptics are you ?" like it was obviously a bad thing.
Fit for the post of chair of the trust, I would think. Should at least be editor in chief.
But he does have a lot of competition. The BBC appears to be infested with the blighters.
Is it not hilarious that the Je Suis Charlie crowd are probably the same who want him fired, for holding and/or voicing conflicting views. Like charlie did.
Freedom b*tches, it works omnidirectionaly in a 3 dimensional space.
His name is actually Tim Willcox (2 ls). He has been bit of a nonentity as a BBC news reader and reporter. Based on past BBC performance, one would think that his racist remark would automatically bar him from ever again appearing on the PC BBC.
The BBC issues guidance on the use of many words and phrases, especially those that might be considered controversial by one group or another. Because of this I sent them a FOI request asking for copies of any formal or informal guidance on the use of the term "denier". I also asked for their definition of a "denier". This is the response I got:
Since the BBC recognise that the term is a pejorative you should raise a formal complaint whenever you hear one of their presenters use it.
The BBC, along with many other MSM outlets, decided long ago that solely reporting news without instructions about how to think was no longer sufficient or desirable as the focus for its news channels. While privately owned MSM outlets have long had a right to their own editorial political biases, the BBC does not. At least not in theory.
I'm not commenting on middle-eastern politics other than to say that even the BBC has noticed that the topic is a political lightning-rod. They clearly have internal instructions to generally steer clear of courting controversy on the subject without official permission from high up. That a BBC climate-moron stumbled into this minefield doesn't speak well of his training and intelligence, or bode well for his career.
@Philip Bratby: you might think that, but you would be wrong. Anti-semitism, usually promoted in the guise of "anti-zionism", is the last respectable prejudice and it is wholeheartedly indulged at the BBC. Now where was my copy of the Balen report? I can't seem to find it...
It will do little good if Willcox is sacked, as he is only mouthing the opinions of the BBC higher management. He is an odious character and would be better in a back room job.
Ever again.
======
Morph said:
"She immediate asked him "You're not one of those climate skeptics are you ?" like it was obviously a bad thing."
Reminds me of Dr. Joseph Göbbels PhD, from the days the days before the Machtübernahme.
He recommended Nazis that was about to lose a debate that they would ask the the opponent: "You are a Jew, aren't you?"
(Yes, the German Nazis had political debates, they didn't think saying "the debate is over" was a decent thing)
I can't tell whether your post is supporting the criticism of Willcox, or is meant to be sarcasm against those who criticise him.
The reality is the complete irony of the situation. Its clear his wording was a slip, and not intended to express a position or to criticise Jews. The irony is that those who are defending free speech, however provacatively and overtly obscene it may be, are calling for the resignation of a reporter for a verbal slip in the heat of the moment.
Hey BBC
Is every muslim responsible for Saudi Arabia' conduct.. or Iran's (etc,etc)
Israel is a country!!
and French Jews being murdered in France for being Jewish is how their responsibility for Israel's conflict with the region.
BBC needs disbanding, not for his words, but for the BBC's lack of reaction to them and a cultural bias that will protect it's own, or worse see nothing wrong in what he said.
This isn't the first time he has been accused of anti-Semitism. From wiki:
Well, if you can stand it , watch this:
http://bbcwatch.org/2012/11/22/not-enough-israelis-killed-by-home-made-contraptions-for-bbcs-mishal-husain/comment-page-1/
How it must have hurt Ms Husein to be in Paris this week having to restrain her pro-Islamic bias.
oakwood,
We're not calling for his words to be banned or him to be prosecuted, as a human being he should be allowed to say what he likes, and that is free speech. But free speech doesn't mean "no consequences" to the words people say. If you libel or slander someone then they should have legal recourse and it's up to a judge whether you harmed someone or not.
In this case, if you pretend hold a position of journalistic neutrality, and are paid by the taxpayer to be neutral, but your public words betray a bias one way or the other, then you are unsuitable for a position requiring professional neutrality. It's nothing to do with free speech, he's allowed to say what he likes if he's not in a position of reporting and interpreting world events. If he wants to criticise Jews or deniers, then he's free to do so, as a private citizen.
I know you can see this difference, but your BBC apologism needed a rebuttal.
Was it a slip? Could well be. However, it's funny (read the article) that the guy has made anti-semitic sounding slips before. I actually think the comments about the mansion tax were in some ways more distasteful.
So my conclusion is - at the very least - at least in some circumstances, the guy can't control his mouth. Which is kind of major failing for a TV reporter.
But should be fired because of the howls from a twitter mob? I think not.
Hello, The Farmer (can I just call you The?). An interesting link, and one that really should have us shuddering, as she smirked her way through an interview with an utterly bemused correspondent, who could not understand why she considered it okay to fire missiles (or “mistles”, for any Americans reading – and 700 of them, to boot!) into Israel as they are not killing enough people. Smug point made, she signed off.
He also runs a company. This company was started at about the same time as he joined BBC News 24.
The company doesn't seem to do much except advance him £15,000 every month which he then repays some of at the end of the year.
Do people here actually believe you can pay someone to be neutral? Mind boggling self delusion. Everyone has an agenda no matter how they disguise it. If someone says what they think then I stand a damn sight more chance of knowing where they are coming from than when I hear the politically correct utterances from careerist yes men and women who are pretending to be neutral. Very, very few are able to dissociate from their beliefs to put an equally forceful case on both sides of an argument, that's pretty obvious when you watch any of the news channels and programmes. We need more Yin interviewing Yang and vice versa to start to get to real truth behind all the political dogma and ideological claptrap we are constantly being patronised with..
But to be fair it was a free speech march! We must all defend the rights of others to say things we think contemptible or where will we be?
Well on this occasion I must support Mr. Willcox. His words were ““Many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.”
It seems ironic that one day you post a wonderful video of Christopher Hitchens on free-speech and the next day complain because someone says what is obviously true and needed saying.
It's the ease of the comment coming out at a time it is CLEARLY inappropriate, given Jews had just been murdered for the crime of being Jews.
Also an example needs to be set to stamp out the casual nature of anti-semtism creeping in to our every day lives.
Should he be fired for this one example? No. Should he be fired if there is a pattern of anti-Semitism in his reporting? Absolutely! Bear in mind that had he replaced the word jew/Israeli with Blacks, Gays or Muslims this guy would be out on his ear without a second thought by the BBC intelligentsia.
It seems that some races/religions/political beliefs are less worthy of respect than others.
Mailman
While I hate the BBC and would be happy to see its biased butt kicked and its funding vanish, like Oakwood I also see a double standard TBYJ. ‘But free speech doesn't mean "no consequences"’ no, actually that is exactly what it means. The BBC charter isn’t as binding as a law. Is it fair that someone be allowed to incite murder with no hindrance but another should lose their job for being biased and grossly tactless, just because he is publicly funded? Does that mean anyone publicly funded is equally gagged? Soldiers, teachers, scientists, the unemployed, MPs?
I’m absolutely sure that the discussion of important issues has been smothered by the PC brigade and the BBC specifically, but I can see that free speech is not and never should be entirely free. By all means call for Tim Willcox to be drop kicked out of his comfy job but be aware that you oppose free speech.
What I prefer to see an end to is that a small section of society gets to decide what is taboo or not. The rules are unfairly applied and far from creating a better atmosphere these biases generate more hate. Things that need to be said are quashed and problems fester because people are too afraid to be labelled and condemned. The media and BBC in particular have unrivalled opportunities to set agendas. It’s time the public were listened to more without first being filtered though the media’s selection process.
The BBC clearly aren't bothered about what he said as he's currently reading the news on their News Channel.
How does this post relate to the Christopher Hitchens one from yesterday?
Discuss.
BigYinJames
I'm not making a "BBC apologism". I'm pointing out the irony, or even hypocracy of attacking a journalist for a comment perceived to be politically incorrect, under the circumstances of defending free speech, however provacative and offensive it may be. Where is the "liable and slander"? At worst, he said 'Jews' in place of 'Israel'. And as I said, that was a momentary slip, not a considered expression of opinion or deliberate bias.
Pointing out that Palestians have suffered under Israel does not automatically mean you are anti-Israel or anti-Jew. I'm proudly British, but recognise the British have been both the 'good guys' (eg. against Hitler), but also often the 'bad guys', as in many attrocities committed under colonialism, and lying itself into invasion of Iraq.
The hypocracy of much of the 'Charlie Hebdo' issue is astounding. Millions are marching to defend politically incorrect free speech, yet continue to condemn anyone who says anything the slightest bit politically incorrect.
Oops. Thanks for the warning. I'll keep that opinion to myself then.
Tiny (et al)
No, no, no. Free speech does not mean "free from all consequences" - all it means is free to speak the truth. If what you say is true then you should be immune from all prosecution, no matter who it offends. The corollary is that it should NEVER be legal to be allowed to tell lies about someone and remain free from legal consequences.
If I say that a religion is a piece of superstitious twaddle, then I am expressing a personal opinion which is absolutely true and incontestable in court, so I am free and immune to say so. If it offends some, then tough tittie. That is free speech.
If I said a religion was condoning the secret abuse of children, then that is no longer only a matter of opinion about the general worth of the religion, it's a damaging specific allegation of illegality which IS contestable in court. They could sue me. But if I could prove it was true, I would be again immune from prosecution.
Free speech is not "saying what you like" - that would indeed be madness. Free speech is the ability to tell the truth without being prosecuted for it, or silenced or censored by authporities in case it offends anyone.
So if PIE want to say they love children, or Irving wants to claim there was no Holocaust, or alarmists want to say they want all deniers thrown in jail, then all of that MUST be permitted in a free society, no matter how distasteful or offensive.
Once you start saying "ah but that is too extreme..." you fall into the very trap Hitchens described.... if you draw a line, then who do you get to decide what is one side or the other? A judge? The Government? The BBC?
For adults, there can be no line. Unless you're telling lies, all should be permitted.
We can't have it both ways and demand free speech we like and stifle free speech we don't like. I think our outrage comes from the insensitivity of the moment, it is surely not the job of a BBC, or any reporter, to point out to the victims, and the grieving, that they somehow deserved what they got because of events thousands of miles away.
Re: TinyCO2
> Does that mean anyone publicly funded is equally gagged? Soldiers, teachers, scientists, the unemployed, MPs?
That all depends upon what their public funding is for.
The BBC receives its public funding to provide a neutral viewpoint. If a journalist, representing the BBC, produces reports and/or acts in a biased way then he should suffer the consequences. If the same reporter produces the same reports but for a different news broadcaster (ie one that does not receive funding for being neutral) then there should be no consequences.
Teachers are employed to teach children, if they start indoctrinating children in a particular viewpoint then they should be penalised. Outside of the classroom they can espouse whatever viewpoint or philosophy they wish.
A private individual (or a person acting as a private individual) has the right to say whatever they wish. An individual acting on behalf of an organisation represents that organisation and if that organisation has a mandate for a particular viewpoint or stance then the individuals speech is restricted to that.
Unfortunately, despite being the BBC and despite the racist overtones, the journalist is right to point out that the Israeli state (which is almost synonymous with "Jewish") has de facto concentration camps on its borders where people whose land has been illegally seized are forced to reside and where in action very akin to the Nazi state around 100 people are killed for each Israeli who is killed during the Israeli state's illegal incursions.
Would it likewise be acceptable if the Israeli state had taken over part of Paris and were killing 100 Parisians every time one dared to resist the Israeli takeover?
Would it likewise be acceptable for the Israeli state to bomb London?
So why do we accept Nazi style behaviour from Israel and then complain when people point this out?
MikeHaseler, that's where I'm at too. Israel defines itself as racially Jewish, and uses a Jewish religious symbol as its national flag, so to refer to the actions of Jews in Palestine is to use a catch-all.
Given this, I don't think calling for Tim Willcox to resign is proportionate.
Why is he right!! he seems to be blaming murders of French Jews, on the behaviour of another country!
how is anybody in a butchers shop in France, accountable for the actions of Israel
Barry, I didn't get the impression he was.
This march was a protest against violent extremism replacing civilised discourse, not free speech per se. Hitchins for all his fine words about free speech, was also a highly vocal critic of such islamic extremism to the point of being an apologist for the Iraq invasion. Bertrand Russel says it all for me; "war is not about who is right but who is left".
For me the march was a protest against political correctness and was in support of speaking to the truth of things. It was in support of the freedom of expression without fear of reprisal.
The irony, it burns.
Potty mouthed, bigoted, biased...Andrew, I think you need to explain why you give exception to this one leading question.
Perhaps you only thought that the context of the question made it disrespectful and so it was especially inappropriate for a journalist to ask in a vox pop (agreed!). But it seems to be more than this.
Is it your view that journalists should not ask questions that provoke with the other side of the debate? (Would we not encourage alarmists to be provoked with one of our questions - say, a question on 'the pause' when they say temperatures are rising faster than ever?) Or perhaps it is only that you strongly disagreed with the view the journalist invoked. Or you find that those who promote such views are usually motivated by bigotry?
To fine the relevance of this post to the usual discussion on this blog, one is driven to look for higher reason for calling Willcox these names. However, these are difficult to find, or at least confused, after your flurry of postings on free speech, and especially following your approving posting on Hitchen -- which features him saying that the proudest moments of his life has been defending David Irving.
It is an absurd distortion of the notion of free speech to suggest that what somebody says should have no consequences. Willcox is free to call climate skeptics, deniers, but he has no expectation that I should respect him or his opinion - only his right to utter such silliness without fear of physical violence. He certainly has no right to assume that what he says has no personal consequences.
If I work for Coca Cola and go on public record as saying that soft drinks have little nutritional value and can be bad for your teeth and can lead to health problems, I should expect to be fired. If I work for the BBC and utter politically inflammatory remarks then it is quite possible that I could be fired or that the public's view of the BBC be modified if I am not fired. What should not happen is the use of the power of the state or physical violence or the threat thereof to silence me.
Or Ben defend the right of others to say what we find abhorrent where would we be ?
Kicked out the 2015 Celebrity Big Brother House or sacked off BBC New for anti Semitism.
Simon Hopkinson
Clearly you never read charlie hebdo then. They don't represent truth - they just poke sticks at people whether right, wrong or irrelevant and much of it is offensive in a juvenile way. I'm no believer but I wouldn't like to see Christ portrayed with such viciousness.
My impression of the Israeli state is that they want peace but they are dealing with a extremists who deny their right to even exist. These extremists are so extreme they will even blow themselves up in a crowd of civilians. No western government yet has the answer to people who are prepared to do that. What if that happened in London more often? How would we react?
Most Palestinians want peace too but they are prevented from this by the extremist nutcases in their midst. When such extremists take control you get Naziism and the IS 'caliphate'; ie people who kill anyone that doesn't share their extreme narrow-mindedness. IS isn't representative of Islam any more than lefty cartoon caricatures are representative of Jewry The world isn't so black and white as we'd like. Sometimes both sides are wrong.
Getting back to the point. the BBC journalist was just plain stupid. That's my only objection to him. He apologised and that should be the end of it. It would be nice if he stopped using the D word too but i put that down to stupidity as well.
Yawn non story, non climate
"One woman he spoke to expressed fears Jews were being persecuted
She told him 'the situation is going back to the days of the 1930s'
Willcox replied: 'Many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well'
Comments sparked anger and calls for him to resign
Willcox has apologised for offence caused by 'poorly phrased question' "
Wow the BBC got some complaints after somebody mentioned Israel ..big surprise
(and as every day 100,000 died early across the planet ..and news didn't mention them)
JamesG, FWIW I have read Charlie Hebdo and agree with your assessment of its content. But I have broad shoulders and don't care how they portray Christ. My assessment of Israel and Palestinians also differs somewhat from yours but primarily I think in the level of generalisation. For example, I would more directly equate IS and zionist Israel on matters of collective punishment and other war crimes.
And yes, I agree that Tim Willcox is apparently stupid. :)
Should have said at Israeli Government's hands.
Bigoted, ignorant, prejudiced; all the attributes for success at the BBC. Ah ... what colour is he?
Free speech or jot, it's highly improper to ask this question during the mourning of the jewish victims. Plus he rubs extra salt in the wound with his second remark. Just bloody tasteless.
Meanwhile Boko Haram are committing bigger atrocities in Nigeria and no marches yet. Regular car bombs or indiscriminate rocket attacks in Israel from exactly the same type of extremists don't seem to matter either to our pseudo-intelligencia. Only the heavy-handed response of Israel to these atrocities seems worth storing away.
TBYJ @ 12.04 : "Unless you are telling lies, all should be permitted."
Ah, but what if you do not know that they are lies? All knowledge is received - even that perceived by your own senses.
How can a lie be challenged if it cannot be heard and how, if heard, if the truth cannot be?
Christopher Hitchens says at 5.08 on the video "Why do you think you know what you know?". Who do you trust to shield you from challenge without motive?
I am struck in this debate by fear of what other people may hear, about others being manipulated -but not themselves.
This manipulation, rabble rousing, is seen as evil ( not without good reason). But you cannot rouse a rabble of the disinterested.
"who ever heard of the persecution of the apathetic by the bone idle" - (Reginald Perrin). The militants and extremists WANT their emotions aroused, indeed ,demand it. The rest of us just go to the cinema (or church) and pay for the same privilege.. Why else do we pack the terraces but to bask in collective euphoria and triumphalism. "except at Craven Cottage - that's where you go when you want to be alone" (Dennis Potter - "The Singing detective).
At least Hitchens was logically consistent - ANY constraint negates the principle. However, lack of constraint always has consequencies.
Diogenes,
Those are good questions.
On the question of truth, the rule of thumb is you should never say something in public you have heard unless that source is also verifiable. So if you heard from someone in the pub that a famous actor likes underage boys, then you would be very foolish to repeat that on a public forum or in a public place, because you become the initial verifiable source. If you read it in a newspaper and say it in a public place, then it is highly unlikely you would be prosecuted - the newspaper would.
So on the question of truth, people have to be sensible about what they say. If it's untraceable rumour, then the first person to go on record becomes the source, so don't do it unless you have a verifiable source.
Against all this is the actual mechanics of the legal system in this (and other countries) which favours the rich and powerful who can choose to pursue or otherwise litigation when they feel maligned, whereas the ordinary joe cannot. That doesn't detract from the point that if you say something you cannot prove is true, then you shouldn't have said it.
MikeHassler,
Firstly to even attempt to justify the murders in France by tieing the actions to Israels RIGHT to defend its citizens from terrorists is wrong on so many levels.
Secondly the reason Gaza is as it is is because Hamas wants it that way! Instead of spending the billions it receives in aid from states like Qatar, the US, the UN etc and actually improving the lives of its people Hamas has instead sunk HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in to tunnels in to Israel for no other reason than to kill Jews. Then again, what do you expect from an organsation whos charter dedicates itself to the destruction of israel.
As you are an individual I will fight to the very end for you to have the right to say what you want regardless of how offensive that may be or how wrong you are. Id expect nothing less from lefties or those who say they care about Palestinians (but in reality only really care about destroying Israel).
However, I have higher expectations from a news organisation supported on the pain of imprisonment by tax payer cash, who supposedly is meant to be unbiased in how it reports the news because the lies, deceit, progandising its activism spread has very real consequences for those of us who live in the real world.
Mailman