Rupert Wingfield-Hayes of the BBC is named…

…but is unlikely to be shamed since it’s doubtful he has any shame.

About 6 months ago I Googled for an old video attack on Israel by Wingfield-Hayes – which struck me as particularly vicious at the time and still does. I put it in ‘Favourites’ for future reference and went back to it today. But lo and behold, the video snapshot faded after a few seconds and I was informed that This content is not available in your location.

I found that rather odd since I’m in Israel, the video was filmed in Israel and Ramallah and plonked on the BBC website under the ‘Middle East’ category. Well, I guess the kindest interpretation is that there is a copyright issue and, just as I cannot access old Question Time programmes on the BBC site, I can now no longer have Wingfield-Hayes’ fossilized old bias inflicted on me.

A less kind interpretation is that the BBC has recently become aware of the foul nature of Wingfield-Hayes’ video and blocked it for Israeli viewers.

Anyway, all I can share for now with the good people on this site in terms of evidence is the link and the blurb:

Tel Aviv is like a new Miami but does it help talks?

Life in Tel Aviv is good with no attacks for years, despite the height of the Middle East conflict going on less than an hour away in the West Bank. But does this help the peace talks?

Israeli and Palestinian leaders are resuming their face to face talks in a bid to prevent the new negotiations from collapsing just days after their launch.
They will be joined by the American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheikh.

Rupert Wingfield-Hayes reports.

14 Sep 2010

The analysis will have to be done from memory:

Wingfield-Hayes strolls along a Tel Aviv beach while the cameraman videos Israelis having fun and relaxing. He (or his editor, if such a person exists) must have been particularly happy with the video of two women lolling on deck chairs asleep or half-asleep since that became the snapshot mentioned above and will be the first thing anyone sees when accessing Wingfield-Hayes’ understanding of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The scene changes to an interview with a jeweller who is unconcerned about the conflict and for whom life is just fine.

Then we see Wingfield-Hayes strolling in relaxed companionship through the streets of Ramallah with a good-looking young Israeli-Arab (or perhaps he is Palestinian) who earnestly objects to the ‘occupation.’

The message? The Palestinians (or Israeli-Arabs or both) would create a wonderful future between the river and the sea if only those intransigent Israelis would allow them to do so. They represent the vigorous, young future.

The Je.., er, Israelis, on the other hand, represent the past. They are lazy, indolent, pleasure-seeking and interested in adorning themselves with fine jewelry (and profiting from it) rather than resolving the conflict. They should not become complacent because of the lull in (terror) attacks.

One can of course read a much more insidious message into that last bit. I leave it up to the BBC to consider the implications of it and to Wingfield-Hayes and his conscience (if he has one).

Edit 22/11
On the advice of a friend I have deleted ‘Rupert’ and replaced it with ‘Wingfield-Hayes’ in the text above. Use of the first name alone implies familiarity, perhaps friendship, and Wingfield-Hayes is an enemy of me and mine.

Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Rupert Wingfield-Hayes of the BBC is named…

  1. Dover Sentry says:

    The BBC follow their Labour/Left idols.

    Their absolute bias against Israel is non-stop.

    I blame the BBC for Wingfield-Hayes.


  2. Doublethinker says:

    The BBC is institutionally anti Semitic.


    • john in cheshire says:

      And anti-Christian.


      • TheRebelUK says:

        The BBC are anti-all faiths it seems, except the so called religion of peace. No point in getting angry about something that we have seen plenty of examples of happening.

        What is also annoying is listening to Jeremy vile on radio two discussing how to pay for the BBC and about charging over 75’s.

        He seemed astonished to hear one caller suggesting something called a subscription service. Some futuristic payment system where you pay to access media that you actually like and agree with.

        He quickly moved on from that idea because if the BBC was subscription they would have to actually put things on that people like and stop forcing there biased news on the masses.

        Stupid BBC who at one point, were I think a respected broadcaster, greed, elites trying to control the masses and no pride in the UK has ruined them. More people are waking up to this.


        • Moodswing6 says:

          I’ve definitely woken up. My brand new flat screen is on my bedroom wall. No tv license because I only stream content from subscriptions. The once brilliant bbc is a perfect example of how power corrupts. They will eventually crumble as all empires do.


  3. Richard Pinder says:

    I wondered what had happened to the Daily Mail. I thought the new Editor must have been easily fooled by Theresa Mays Remain-Plus-Vassalage Deal because of low intelligence. So I did some research and found out that the new editor of the Daily Mail actually voted Remain. So the Daily Mail’s new Remain-voting editor, Geordie Greig, is attacking his readership by pushing Remain-voting Theresa Mays Remain-Plus-Vassalage Deal. Ken Clarke says “I will support the deal”

    Am now buying the Telegraph, if any are left, due to Daily Mail readers now buying them in the morning.


    • xplod says:

      Me as well! Just cancelled my on-line subs to the Mail, swapped to the Telegraph. Crosswords are harder, too!


      • taffman says:

        While you are at it, you can cancel your Telly Tax, because It robs from the poor to give to the rich.
        Besides, it broadcasts fake news.


    • vesnadog says:

      “I wondered what had happened to the Daily Mail”

      You should see the online version! Its more like a soft porn website! I was disgusted by the side-show images re celebs doing this or that to each other! No wonder children are so depressed these days if they see how adults behave in public/TV/Movies!


  4. Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

    You need to access via a VPN.


  5. jip says:

    Poor Moya, engaged in pillow talk and found herself in bed with a racist “… Anything to avoid the answer that was almost certainly coming. He kissed the top of my head and smiled. “I love mixed-race girls.” he said”…

    So you fancy mixed race girls?, well, you are a racist right BBC???…

    So I have decided mixed race girls are dogs, they are awful…. oh no, i read a bit further down the BBC article…

    “… , it’s now far easier to track insidious racism, previously only highlighted via word-of-mouth stories from those on the receiving end. Now, we’ve got studies to show how ethnic minorities are passed over as romantic options… ”

    So if you don’t fancy other races?, you are a racist right BBC???…

    Why are people dragged in to court and forced to pay for this rancid fetid organization?


    • jip says:

      Also from the above BBC article, “… aims to bring an end to nakedly racist statements which are all too often received on the platform. Declarations like: “No blacks, no Asians, no Hispanics” are frequent and unchallenged say users, and while the campaign aims to promote inclusivity, … simply the visible tip of an iceberg of unabashed racism.”

      Oh, ok… so maybe i’d better become gay to even this anomaly out straight away?. Can i check that with my wife first BBC, or would that be too hetronormative?


      • Richard Pinder says:

        Do nice diverse members of the more civilised Islamic hetronormative culture at the multicultural BBC have to wear the badges of this decadent western ideology?


    • Navets says:

      I’ve seen worse on the BBC:

      A clear attempt to ram something down someone’s throat.

      I’ll get my coat.


    • The General says:

      How tiresome all this is. I am a white, british born, middle class, heterosexual male father of four. What a despicable racist individual I must obviously be.


      • Lefty Wright says:

        The General Sir
        Apart from the “middle class” bit your post could have been written by me (four kids and all)
        OK, so my present standard of living could be considered as so called ,”middle class” but owing to my life history, I still think of myself as a working class bloke. I think anyone who earns their living by using their hands or their brains or, in the case of skilled tradesmen , who need to use both, are indeed working class people.
        In conclusion Sir, I salute you.
        What this has to do with the BBC I haven’t a clue but then, neither have they. SHUT THEM DOWN NOW. THEY ARE A NATIONAL DISGRACE!


  6. TrueToo says:

    Thanks for those responses esteemed colleagues! In the interest of academic research into the sins of the BBC, I am trying to gather evidence of the extent of the censorship of the attack on Israel which was the subject of the article I wrote above the line. And so I will be contacting friends elsewhere on the planet to see whether they can access Rupert’s foul propaganda.

    I’m guessing that UK viewers can access it, but to be certain can someone click on this link and verify that it is indeed viewable?

    Thanks in advance.


    • Up2snuff says:

      TT, am here to express some sympathy to you. An important, subject-specific Thread and every single response of the twelve above yours is off-topic.

      Where is Pounce when you need him? 😉 🙂

      The general climate now in much of Europe and the UK is ‘anti-Israel’ for ‘what they are doing to the Palestinians’. I think it is driven in large part by academe – students and their teachers – and by political activists. The BBC have decided to go along with this trend, not merely report its occurrence from a position of neutrality.

      No definition of the loose term ‘Palestinians’. No mention for what ‘Palestinians’ are doing to Israel. As I mentioned on the general S-t-W Thread, what the BBC doesn’t say is as revealing, even more revealing sometimes, than what they do say.


      • BigBrotherCorporation says:

        Up, it seems typical of the polarised and hysterical times we live in that it’s not acceptable simply to have an impartial/neutral/balanced/rational view on any ’emotive’ subject.

        I’ve been to Israel, and had Israeli friends, and I’ve had Arab friends (Jordanian, Saudi, Iraqi) who were opposed to Israel, and Jews in general (basically, because of Israel). As a result I’d rather not take sides in a dispute, which I feel is both beyond my comprehension, and nothing to do with me. Is it not possible to sympathise with both sides, and simply say “I sincerely wish they’d resolve things peacefully, but if they won’t then I’d rather not take sides”?

        If the conflict was to spill over onto the streets of the UK (as I believe it may do, if Corbyn gets elected), then that’s a different story, but so far it’s not REALLY an issue the UK is involved in, or should be involved in, other than to try to keep the peace and facilitate peaceful talks if asked to.

        I see it a bit like the neighbours having a domestic row, uncomfortable to listen to, but none of my business… unless one of them chases another down the street with a knife, then I’d call the police.

        As a British citizen, I’d also really like OUR national broadcaster to report impartially (as per its remit) on this conflict on foreign soil – something it seems woefully incapable of doing.


        • TrueToo says:


          Good points, well taken. However, I’m not sure it’s possible for the UK to remain neutral because of the history.

          The Arabs are furious with Britain for the Mandate, more than a hundred years ago, to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Jews are furious with Britain for reneging on the Mandate, arming the Arabs and even fighting on the Jordanian side during Israel’s War of Independence.

          As for the BBC, with its motley Middle East crew including the likes of Jeremy Bowen, Lyse Doucet, Paul Adams, Kevin Connolly and so many others, there is no chance at all of it reporting fairly on Israel.


        • Will Jones says:

          Hi Big: That was a very reasoned and understandable message but I must take exception to one part of your comment. You state that your Arab friends were opposed to Israel and Jews in general (because of Israel). I do hope you understand that most of your Arab friends would be opposed to Jews even if the state of Israel did not exist as they subscribe to the teachings of the Holy Koran which predates the current State of Israel by quite a few centuries. Other than that, good post.


          • TrueToo says:

            Will Jones,

            My sentiments exactly and I meant to point that out to BigBrotherCorporation re his otherwise-reasonable post.

            Throughout the centuries Jews have for the most part been third-class citizens in Arab countries. It’s true that the establishment of Israel added emphasis to this vicious and uncalled-for discrimination, but it was certainly not the cause of it.

            Post-Israel, the Arab world stepped up its oppression of Jews and violence against Jews to the extent that hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced out of Arab countries with only the shirts on their backs. Today only a small minority of those Jews remain in Arab countries and the majority of those countries are now completely without Jews – something even Hitler did not manage to achieve in Germany.

            I wonder what BigBrotherCorporation’s Iraqi friends would have to say about the fact that, out of the Jewish-Iraqi community that once numbered in the hundreds of thousands, only a handful of elderly Jews remain in Baghdad.


    • David R says:

      Works ok for me in Wales.


    • Loobyloo says:

      Not available in the USA. I thought this message comes up sometimes because of license issues as with iplayer, maybe I’m wrong.


      • TrueToo says:


        It’s probably not available anywhere outside the UK. But I’m puzzled by the fact that I was able to access it until around June this year.


  7. TrueToo says:

    Thanks, Up2snuff!

    There I was, typing above the line with only two fingers of my left hand (though fully with the right) because I had an argument with two heavy metal doors and lost and the only ones responding on topic are your good self, and Dover Sentry and doublethinker above!

    (But I welcome and read all responses.)

    Well, the hand will be OK in a week or two but will the BBC ever have the inclination to struggle up out of the pit it has dug itself?

    Where is pounce, indeed.

    …what the BBC doesn’t say is as revealing, even more revealing sometimes, than what they do say

    So true. It cannot call itself a news organization because it shies away from news that doesn’t fit its far-left ideology.

    And that fact is really evident in its reaction to practically all happenings on the planet including the Israeli-Arab conflict.

    It is especially galling for me to find that the BBC, in the form of Wingfield-Hayes, can now dump its implacable bias on the Israelis, of whom I am a loyal part, without us even being able to identify what is dumped and so defend ourselves against it.

    I ascertained from an Australian friend that he also cannot view the foul video by Wingfield-Hayes. He gets the same message: This content is not available in your location

    Can you view it in the UK??


    • Up2snuff says:

      Yes, TT, it is viewable here.

      Funnily, I usually have problems with both BBC vid clips & radio iP programmes, with the Beeb telling me I need Flash Player or it needs to be activated in my browser when I already do and it is. The solution is to ‘refresh’ several times, although sometimes that doesn’t always work. (The BBC really are their own worst enemies when it comes to winning friends and favourably influencing people.) Strangely, this archived clip played perfectly straight off after a spot of buffering.

      There have always been lulls and peaks in the antipathy, pardon my understatement, of the Palestinians and Arab world to Israel since the end of 1973. What is significant, to my mind, is that despite the obvious Palestinian aggression – most recently 3000 (did I get the number right?) rockets in a week or so! fired from Gaza at Israelis – parts of the Christian Church are now, sometimes unthinkingly, succumbing to the pressure to conform to this pro-Palestinian view. The Church of England most noticeably so.

      Interestingly, on TODAY this a.m. there was an item about Quaker disinvestment in Israeli businesses. Didn’t listen fully as I was doing about four things at once but you should be able to pick that up on Radio iPlayer. Perhaps Stew Green or other knowledgeable bods will rip some video/audo files of the Wingfield-Hayes piece and the TOADY item for you.

      The mantras at present seems to be ‘illegal settlements’ and ‘settlements declared illegal by the UN’, although IIRC, Israel pulled all its settlers off Palestinian territories – at the point of a gun in few cases – some years ago. That last bit is never mentioned. Have I remembered it right?

      Hope the hand gets better soon.


      • TrueToo says:

        Thanks, Up2snuff, hand healing fast.

        Buffering?? I remember several years ago that word used to appear on the screen when a video was struggling to get through the Web to me.

        It was over 300 rockets in one day a week ago and then about 150 more during the latest spate of violence. It was in response to an elite Israeli unit that went into Gaza and killed a top Hamas terrorist. That killing was itself in response to the escalation in recent months of Hamas terrorism. The Israeli commander was also killed – a hero who lost his life because so many Arabs cannot bear to live in harmony with the Jews between the river and the sea.

        I find it bizarre that Christians would support the Palestinians when the latter are part of a concerted Muslim effort to drive Christians out of the Middle East and elsewhere.

        Good idea about enlisting the aid of the eminent Stew Green. Would be great if he could plonk the Wingfield-Hayes video on this thread. I’ll scout for the Quaker item.

        It was 2005 when Israel pulled all settlements out of Gaza, and yes, soldiers often had to physically drag the settlers out. Once Hamas and company had finished celebrating that event, they resumed firing rockets into Israel, proving two things: they see Israeli withdrawal as weakness, not as a good-faith move towards peace, and they have no intention of ending the conflict and negotiating peace.


  8. jip says:

    “MPs and peers mark 100 years of women in parliament”… my god women allowed in parliament for just 100 years. Men in the UK should be shot for this historical patriarchal oppression….

    Oh, hang on, 100 years ago in 1918 men were being shot in WW1…. Great, kill the patriarchy!!!,

    Oh wait, it turns out that there was only universal suffrage for men in the UK after millions were killed in WW1 in 1918…

    So there has only been 100 years of universal male suffrage!!!!

    Could it be, perhaps, maybe, just a smidgen… that the BBC lives in ideological distorted reality field as it vampires from the general public to pay for it to push lies by omission???


  9. Demon says:

    I haven’t watched it but is the fact that it chose to show a jeweller, from the whole list of potential businessmen, just one of the old anti-semitic tropes about Jews being rich and controlling the world jewellery market?


    • TrueToo says:

      My thoughts exactly, Demon, when I first saw the video.

      And as I watched the whole thing, it seemed virtually certain that the effort by Wingfield-Hayes was a thinly-veiled anti-Semitic attack on Israeli Jews.


  10. RJ says:

    In the 20th century there may have been space to argue the rights and wrongs between the Israelis and Palestinians. In the 21st century Israel is the front line in the battle between Western Civilisation and Islamic Barbarism. There is no equivalence between the two – no matter how much the BBC might pretend that there is.


    • TrueToo says:

      So true, RJ.

      And the BBC has chosen the wrong side in the battle. And it will never admit that fact.


  11. Dover Sentry says:

    I worked in Israel for a few weeks. It’s the only safe haven in the middle east for all faiths.

    About 22% of the population is Muslim and they have no interest in living in a Muslim country as they value their freedoms!!

    How long would a Jew last in an Arab country, assuming he was allowed entry?

    Yet the BBC regard Israel as being racist?

    Each one of the rockets sent into Israel is an attempt at multiple murder.


    • TrueToo says:

      Dover Sentry,

      I just posted a comment re the violent oppression by Arab countries of their Jewish minorities – to the extent that most of those countries are now completely without Jews. That was something even the monster Hitler failed to achieve in Germany.


  12. smoogie7 says:

    As long as the BBC continue to support the Labour Party (They have been very cosy with McDonnell this week) then they will be classed as Anti Semitic.

    A disgrace to the British!


    • Demon says:

      Don’t forget that this is also Oswald Mosley’s Labour Party. The one in which he rose to Cabinet level.


      • TrueToo says:


        Yes, Mosley, that anti-Semite.

        And of course there are now a number of Jewish Labour MPs who have become distinctly uncomfortable because of the vile torrent of abuse they have received from Corbyn supporters.


    • TrueToo says:


      I can only agree that the BBC is a disgrace, and not only because of its anti-Semitism.

      Funny thing is, David Dimbleby does not seem to be a great fan of Corbyn, judging by the number of QT programmes where he seems content, even eager, to take questions on Corbyn’s anti-Semitism and other failings.

      But it could be that Dimbleby is a minority of one in that regard at the BBC.