Someone on Harry’s Place Oh look, it was Nearly Oxfordian, has asked whether the BBC has reported this:UK diplomat Suspended for anti-Semitic Tirade
Can anyone help?
Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.
I don’t know whether the BBC reported it or not, but I do know that we discussed it on here at the time it happened. I remember commenting that he should be suspended immediately while the allegation of misconduct and arrest is investigated.
So if you know how to search the comments here… (I don’t.)
Tried a number of searches on the BBC website… absolutely no trace of the incident.
No it was never reported by the BBC. But you can bet an anti Islamic rant would have been.
Good on NO by the way.
Can’t find it on the UK page of the website at all. But they have all this stuff:
MORE FROM THE UK
Councils in ‘ghost town’ warning
Zara Phillips’ handbag stolen
Celebrity climbers reach Africa
Man quizzed on 2001 murder
Goody spends ‘comfortable’ night
Three killed after car hits tree
Injured Miss Whiplash now stable
Woman dies after knife attack
Tories propose mobile jail units
Hell, a top diplomat suspended for anti-Semitism? That’s not news. A stolen handbag is more important.
No Jewish scholars have issued death threats to add any drama to the situation. Perhaps if they had the BBC would have considered the matter newsworthy.
After all, it is the death threats, effigy burning and other hot-headed antics which provide most of the newsworthiness whenever someone speaks their mind about Islam.
Well, at least he has been suspended. Idiot.
No it was never reported by the BBC. But you can bet an anti Islamic rant would have been.
Perhaps that’s because it would be more of a “man bites dog” story as no Foreign Office type is likely to indulge in an anti-Islamic rant.
To be fair I’m watching England v Ireland with Il Trovatore on t’radio. Steady away really.
Has Nearly Oxfordian contacted the BBC to ask them why they haven’t reported this news?
Dick the Prick:
…I’m watching England v Ireland with Il Trovatore on t’radio. Dick the Prick | 28.02.09 – 6:29 pm | #
Me too!! It’s fab.
Saturday evening on R3 from 5pm – Jazz followed by live opera from the Met – is the one time in the week when I love the BBC.
What an admission: love the BBC!
The whole concept of bias by ommission is a curious one: I take the point here, that this story should have been covered by the BBC, but has anyone looked at whether the main papers/Sky covered it either? I haven’t checked, I just wondered. My point being, if the BBC were alone in not covering it, then maybe it is a case of bias, but you need to check which other media outlets covered it, and which didn’t.
They had a show on the World Service called Masterpiece. I first tuned into it to hear a great programme on the song Somewhere Over the Rainbow with Judy Garland singing it and an interview with one of the co-writers of the lyrics. Then they played someone else singing it and I was instantly transfixed. That’s how I was introduced to the late, great Eva Cassidy:
A week later, Masterpiece was off the air.
That’s about the only good thing I ever got from the BBC, apart from Alistair Cooke with his wonderful Letter from America.
Alex Reynolds | 28.02.09 – 8:18 pm,
There’s a bit more to it than that. Through years of following BBC bias many of us have become aware of its many sins of omission and commission, of its propaganda, of the many ways in which it campaigns rather than reports. We know how it operates – the stories it follows obsessively and shouts from the rooftops, and the stories it ignores or gives the least possible amount of exposure to and then quietly shelves.
Take any story and we will know in advance with a fair degree of accuracy how the BBC will handle it.
Alex Reynolds: “I haven’t checked, I just wondered. My point being, if the BBC were alone in not covering it, then maybe it is a case of bias, but you need to check which other media outlets covered it, and which didn’t.”
Indeed, you’d think something as basic as that would occur as a matter of course by anybody writing a Biased BBC article. It doesn’t seem to have happened in this case, and indeed in far too many others.
As it is, the article linked to has not been covered as far as I can see in any UK media. Even more mysteriously, although it’s billed as having come from AP, I can’t find it in any sites which routinely republish AP feeds (I don’t have access to the direct AP wire service, so can only go on what has been published elsewhere).
And in the article it states that an FCO minister “told MPs on Friday” — when the Commons was not sitting for business. FCO written answers were posted on Thursday, but I can’t find any reference to this matter in Hansard (if anybody can find relevant links on either parliament.uk or theyworkforyou.com, please post the links).
For me, that throws up enough question marks to delay laying any accusations at the BBC’s door until more information becomes available.
It was certainly in one national newspaper today as I read it on a fellow passenger’s newspaper sitting opposite him on the train and remember thinking I had heard about his outburst before and that it was only right in these pc times that he had been suspended. But then one of his political bosses, something like Pillock Brown?, is reputedly a tad anti-Israel so probably only felt he was expressing the official FO (and BBC of course)line at the time!
has anyone looked at whether the main papers/Sky covered it either?
Alex Reynolds | 28.02.09 – 8:18 pm
the article linked to has not been covered as far as I can see in any UK media.
Scott | Homepage | 28.02.09 – 9:16 pm
Googling Rowan Laxton, the name of the diplomat, we find 14,400 references, including The Daily Mail, Telegraph, Ha’aretz, Fox News, Huffington Post, Independent, Examiner, Times, Guardian, Metro, Yahoo, Scotsman, and dozens of blogs and online news sources who thought it worth reporting. I haven’t time to link to all of them (and Haloscan won’t let me) but you can start here if you want to check.
I can only echo Byran. Take any story and we will know in advance with a fair degree of accuracy how the BBC will handle it (sic. or ignore it).
Bryan | 28.02.09 – 8:30 pm
The funny thing is that a fair argument could be made that the fuss was excessive for the crime. Laxton, should have been arrested, if at all, for disturbing the peace. Suspicion of inciting religious hatred – an offense that carries a maximum jail term of seven years, seems a bit much for a rant in a private gym.
deegee: “Googling Rowan Laxton, the name of the diplomat, we find 14,400 references, including The Daily Mail, Telegraph, Ha’aretz, Fox News, Huffington Post, Independent, Examiner, Times, Guardian, Metro, Yahoo, Scotsman, and dozens of blogs and online news sources who thought it worth reporting.”
Most of which concern the initial arrest. As I said before, there has been no UK coverage yet from any reputable source of the report linked to from Sue’s article, which states that an FCO minister told MPs that he has been suspended.
Of the initial arrest, there doesn’t seem to have been any reporting form the BBC either: on that issue, there does seem to be a stronger case.
So the BBC , just report whats in the newspapers, that’s interesting. How many “journalists” and editors do the BBC employ?
deegee | 28.02.09 – 10:16 pm |
But the bloke is a civil servant, and as such should be apolitical. No he should not be prosecuted but he should be sacked.
The story of Laxton’s suspension is reported in the Herald Tribune here
If, as some other commenters have suggested, the BBC is no different to other broadcasters in failing to report this story, then why do we have to pay for the BBC at all?
What is so special about the BBC?
Yes, remember Caroline Spelman?
Google Tory MP paid nanny and the first two results are from the BBC:
I recall that it was wall to wall Spelman on the World Service and the impeccably impartial BBC even had a Newsnight investigation on the ten-year-old non-story with that guy whatshisname Crick, I think, reading out a list of alleged crimes by Spelman related to the nanny case as long as his arm. The reporting was over the top, even for the BBC.
Someone popping in from Mars to access the BBC would have thought that Spelman had at least assassinated a rival politician. It was a truly staggering display of bias against a party that the BBC evidently perceives as the enemy.
The Guardian was also glued to Spelman like a leech.
But when a senior member of one of the BBC’s favourite institutions demonstrates that he is unfit to be a diplomat the BBC grabs a broom and turns the carpet over.
Still, it is baffling how little coverage Laxton’s suspension has received from the media in general. Well, I guess it’s the weekend….
Scott: “Of the initial arrest, there doesn’t seem to have been any reporting form the BBC either: on that issue, there does seem to be a stronger case.”
How gracious of you! This bloody story was all over the newspapers – not that that stops the BBC when they want to suppress anything that goes against their agenda (initial breaking of the Jacqui Smith story, any opinion poll that shows labour in a bad light, any reference to ‘terrorists’, espeically Muslim terrorists, any account of muslim discrimination against Christians in, for example Egypt, etc etc…)
Millie Tant – sotto voce perhaps!
Undoubtedly the BBC would have reported anyone in office saying “**** *** M******”.
However, in this instance, the point to be *very* concerned about is that you can be arrested, yes arrested, for saying something that someone else disagrees with.
Now that I find truly evil and the real issue of the matter – and yet here in the UK we are so good citizens that not a pip of distrees is heard other than to say, well the BBC did not report it!!!
The sleepwalking into Orwellianist Fascism continues unabated.
If public humiliation is good enough for Carol Thatcher, then it should be good enough for this idiot of a diplomat.
Mrs Thatcher was propelled to the lead article on the BBC website, she was debated on BBC radio, yet when it is someone making anti-Semitic comments we get from the BBC………….nothing.
Colin, so you agree this “idiot” should be arrested?
(Btw I agree the BBC is inherently biaised)
GBS, I would agree that arresting people for minor infractions of the law carries risks, this diplomat who is supposed to represent the UK has crossed the line both Legally and Morally.
Jews aren’t on the BBC’s list of protected minorities, so you can be as offensive as you like towards them, the BBC and Ken Livingstone will probably join you.
Colin, so your principle is that people should be arrested for speaking what is on their mind so long as what they say meets somebody’s (but whose standard?) definition of an offense?
Who is the victim in this “offense”? No one.
This is the road to serfdom Colin.
There is no difference between this official being arrested and Geert Wilders.
Next, it could be you.
Be very careful what you say on these public forums as the stormtroopers in Jackie Smith’s jackboots will be at your door.
Check your premises on which you agree with this man’s arrest. They is only one path to which those premises will lead as history has shown.
The thing is that we are not talking about if he should be prosecuted or not. It is the BBCs lack of reporting, it is the double standards that the BBC hold. The left have deemed it necessary to prosecute “hate speech”, it is they who have set the standard, and as such they should be judged on this. If the BBC report “hate speech” against one religion or race then it should apply to all. The bias lies in that they pick and chose what to report if it suits their multicultural agenda.
I’ve also complained to Al-beeb about their glaring omission.
Response?…the sound of silence…so far.
no other media are reprting this. is it even real?
Guardian good enough for you?
In fact searching Google News gave 56 hits today and previously 132 news articles.
course on the BBC ‘News’ nothing.
Didn’t happen…nothing to see here…move along…these are not the droids you are looking for.
Gus Haynes | 03.03.09 – 1:07 am |
Still clinging to the belief that we’re all just making stuff up, eh? Time to re-analyze your belief system, I think.
You don’t like the way people here don’t agree with all of your beliefs, so we must be lying about everything and wrong about everything, is that it? That seems a bit intellectually fascist. This story about a Foreign Office official made you feel bad, therefore it’s not true. How else do you explain your questioning it? And why didn’t you question this story’s existence when people were discussing it (and the BBC’s silence on it) here when it first hit?
I hope you don’t try to take the defensive position that you simply can’t follow every topic on this blog. If you’re going to continue to accuse people here of lying and making stuff up, you really ought to do your homework first.
Yes, the BBC story should be to do with the fact of arrest, and the underlying premise behind that fact – the implications of the type of state we are fast becoming and consenting too.
It’s more terrifying than any terrorist threat people perceive.