Monday, November 20, 2017

David Leask makes serious allegation against Ofcom - but does he have any evidence?

Because I'm now blocked on Twitter by the Herald's legendary David "Let's Block Everybody" Leask (as a result of just one polite interaction with him), it's harder for me to keep up with developments concerning his increasingly paranoid obsession with a 30-minute weekly TV show on Freeview.  Someone mentioned yesterday that he now believes The Alex Salmond Show is the "defining story of our age", which seemed a bit too unhinged to be plausible, so I naturally assumed it was a quote that had been taken wildly out of context for comic effect.  But, remarkably, it wasn't.

David Leask: Scotland's reputation 'damaged' by Alex Salmond's Russian TV show

Fenner: Absolutely pathetic that this is still being discussed.

David Leask: It's the defining story of our age. Are you with Trump, Brexit & Putin lie machines or with, among others, the SNP who oppose them. Your choice.

Jim Gibson: It's "the defining story of our age". Yes! Leask actually did write those words. Forget Brexit, Cataluña, Trump, child slavery, refugees, wars, the Middle East, climate change, Greggs sausage rolls. Forget all of them! The Alex Salmond Show defines our age.

Lyn/SNP member: I am much more interested in Theresa May's relationships with Duterte, Salman, Erdogan and Netanyahu. As we break away from the EU these partnerships will tighten. May herself is no fan of democracy or human rights. She is in office. Salmond is not.

David Leask: So you're an SNP member. Why do you think the party boycotts RT?

Lyn/SNP member: I am. I can't answer that. I haven't spoken to the party about RT. So you're a journalist. Why wait until Salmond has his own show before jumping on the bandwagon? Others sat before him including Corbyn. Why is RT AVAILABLE in UK? Who sanctioned it?

David Leask: People who want to make sure the BBC isn't jammed in Russia. You still haven't explained why you oppose the SNP on this. But alas inn (sic) guessing you're not gonna. Best.

Now let's just hit the rewind button for a moment, and treat the first sentence of that final tweet with the seriousness it warrants. Leask's response to the question "Who allows RT to broadcast in the UK?' was "People who want to make sure the BBC isn't jammed in Russia". For the avoidance of doubt, the "people" he is referring to are collectively known as Ofcom - the regulatory body that gave RT a licence to broadcast in this country and so far have not revoked it.  The only reasonable way of interpreting his words is as an allegation that Ofcom ignored their legal duties, and awarded a licence to a broadcaster that did not meet the very strict criteria laid down.  Furthermore, Leask is alleging that Ofcom broke the rules for political reasons (ie. to prevent retaliatory action against the BBC in Russia).  There may even be a hint in there that they took the decision under external political pressure.

If those allegations turned out to be true, it would be a bombshell that would undoubtedly lead to the resignation of Ofcom's management.  Which begs the obvious question: why hasn't Leask written in the Herald about this outrageous Ofcom scandal?  He would of course require evidence before going into print with it, but doubtless he wouldn't have made such an extraordinary claim in the first place unless he had plenty of proof.

(That said, he does now routinely imply that anyone who speaks in support of Alex Salmond must be in the pay of the Kremlin, and is perhaps even Russian themselves.  He's also in the past advanced a crackpot conspiracy theory that Wings Over Scotland and Wee Ginger Dug were set up by dark forces to discredit the independence movement.  So perhaps he isn't quite as much of a stickler for evidence as you might expect from someone of his profession.  In case you're wondering how on earth two immensely popular pro-independence websites are supposed to have discredited the movement, he appeared to mean that they hadn't shown sufficient deference to the mainstream media, which as we all know is the sole determinant of credibility.)

*  *  *

You might remember that a couple of months ago, there was a discussion on this blog about whether it was reasonable for the media to say that Angela Merkel had "won" the German federal election, given that she had only roughly one-third of the seats in the Bundestag, and that if she remained as Chancellor that would be a decision of other parties, not of the voters.  It was argued by some that yes, it was reasonable, because voters had delivered a result that everyone knew would result in a fourth term for Merkel.  That theory went out of the window yesterday when the FDP pulled the plug on three-way coalition talks with Merkel's party and the Greens, meaning there is no longer any viable majority coalition available to Merkel.  Germany thus reverts to the raw arithmetic the voters actually delivered in September, which won't in itself be sufficient to sustain Merkel for a fourth term.  And yet the BBC reiterated today that Merkel "won" the election.  So here's my customary question - if that non-victory (33% of the votes and 35% of the seats) must be described as a "win", what possible excuse is there for not acknowledging that the SNP won the general election in Scotland with their superior 37% of the vote and 59% of the seats?

*  *  *

I was surprised earlier today by a number of angry reactions I received when I made what I thought was a pretty obvious point on Twitter - that while I admired Richard Leonard's honesty, it was likely that his admission that he supports England against Scotland at football would be quoted back at him a million times.  One point that a few people made was "he's English, so why is this surprising."  Well, is he English?  Or is he someone with a more complex identity because he's lived in Scotland for longer than he lived in the country of his birth?  Presumably that was one of the points the question about football was intended to illuminate, and I'm not sure that's totally unreasonable.  Imagine the reaction if a New Zealand party leader said they weren't supporting the All Blacks against the Springboks, for example.  In Australia, political leaders aren't even allowed to have dual nationality - the implication being that wherever you originally come from, seeking political office means that you're a fully paid-up member of Team Australia now.  I personally think that takes it way too far, but it's scarcely an uncommon attitude.  How long would a US presidential candidate of any national origin last if they didn't show sufficient American patriotism?

As frivolous as it seems to many, it's become one of the ritual duties of political leaders to speak on behalf of those they represent by offering encouragement and congratulations/commiserations to national sporting teams.  I think that may prove to be a little awkward for Leonard in certain circumstances, because the media won't be shy about reminding their readers and viewers that he's an England supporter.  However, as I said - good for him.  I think it reflects well on him that he answered the question honestly, even though there may be a political cost.

*  *  *

The Scottish subsample from the latest Britain-wide Opinium poll: SNP 38%, Labour 30%, Conservatives 29%, Greens 3%.  This is the twenty-first subsample in a row, across all firms, to put the SNP ahead.

25 comments:

  1. David Leask has lost the plot , he is sounding now like a child standing in the street stamping it's feet and screaming because it can't have sweets .
    Lenonard might be being honest (a first for a Unionist I know )but if he is the leader of Labour in Scotland I think he will have to learn diplomacy fast , his followers won't take too kindly to remarks like that !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An Englishman cannot be a Jock nat sis. That is exclusive to narrowback Jocks who want to be run by the EU hoping for continuous welfare benefits.
      In the Union you work for a living.

      Delete
    2. Yawn!ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

      Delete
  2. Looks like Brexit is on course and the Jocko nat sis are aff course. Will the Nat sis accept the democratic wish of the British voter or support the Junkers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yawn!ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

      Delete
  3. Just picking a fairly typical quote from the timeline:

    "That isn't good perspective. It's a fair point in itself but it misunderstands the scale and nature of the current Kremlin disinformation war under way. A lot of folk have failed to engage with reality on this matter."

    "A lot of folk have failed to engage with reality on this matter"

    This is the problem with such tweets, and with other such comments made, that it presumes the writer has a better grasp of the situation, and that others are inferior in their understanding. Rather than treating others as potential equals but with a different opinion.

    Opinions are always opinions, but at times there are also facts. There is no fact that RT is neccessarily a "propaganda" outlet, who knows, it might actually represent the views of the journalists there, fairly and squarely? There are of course probabilities, and degrees of propaganda if such exists (in my opinion, it does).

    But an opinion is never a fact, unless and until it becomes true or gets proven beyond any doubt. I think some folk have failed to engage with reality on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Alex Salmond with a genuine voice in the media, terrifies the Scottish/British media.

    It was stated Labour Party policy, to demonise AS, and the media dutifully collaborated with Labour in this stated aim.

    Many people have expressed how much they hated Alex Salmond because he was 'shifty' 'arrogant' 'dishonest' 'living in a fantasy land' and so on, all of them simply repeating the propaganda put out in soundbites by Labour, and reported by the Scottish/British media.

    The thing that most terrifies Leask and the rest of them, is that people can now see Alex Salmond as he really is, without the media editing or shouting over him, in order to ensure that every time AS appears in the news, the viewer is left with a sense of him being 'trouble' (hence the baffling Jon Snow's interview)

    If people start seeing AS, being charming and honest, they may start questioning why they thought he was the exact opposite, and that will result in even more people realising just how corrupt our media is.

    Remember this: if any journalist was honest and unwilling to 'do what they are ordered', they would not be a journalist in Scotland for long.

    People like Leask are in the position they are in, because they are Yes men and nodding donkeys.

    Mr Leask is certainly an establishment Nodding Donkey, if you look to him to be informed, you're going to end up with Hee-Haw (I'll be here all night)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kim Yung Eck is a Putin dunkie... He takes the British pound and the Putin Ruble. A wee money grabbin shite and an idiot dunkie like you Roden praises him.

      Delete
    2. I'm presuming, GWC2, that you are posting this puerile rubbish during your Primary school playtime.

      Delete
    3. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13140055.Cameron_s_plea_to_Putin__help_me_stop_Salmond/

      Delete
  5. James, I believe someone of non-US origin cannot be US president under any circumstances. There's a similar rule in Finland, and I imagine in other countries as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be eligible to be US president you have to be a "natural born citizen", but there's some dispute over exactly what that means, and I don't think it's ever been put to the test.

      Delete
    2. The Usual Suspects in America gave Obama hell with that, but (not) surprisingly they raised not a peep about the appalling Republican candidate Ted Cruz, who was born in Calgary. That is, until his rival Trump started in on him with the Birther thing as well.

      Criz is a bonkers right-wing Cuban / American type - his dad, the original refugee from Castro, is even worse - and he is very far to the loathsome end of the spectrum, both personally and politically. Lindsey Graham, who is a senior sort of Republican senator, has been quoted as saying "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you."

      Delete
    3. The usual interpretation of that is 'not naturalised' which means having at least one parent who is or was an American citizen but as James said, it's never been tested. Being born outside the country does not affect someone's citizenship one way or the other, so the stuff about Obama (not surprisingly) was pure bullsh*te. Cruz is bonkers but but his mother was an American so that makes her son an American. I have reason to know something about this as I was born outside the US with an American mother and non-American father. My birth certificate was an American one held in the American Embassy. By pure chance, my daughter was also born outside the US and the same was true in her case. (Eventually the Consular Report of Birth Abroad is transferred to Washington DC) Here's a link to a government site that explains the process: https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

      Delete
    4. I have no question that Obama was born in Hawaii but it wouldn't have mattered to his being a "natural born citizen" if he had been born in elsewhere. That is what makes the whole 'issue' so stupid.

      Delete
  6. I think Alex's show is on again this Thursday so should I bother washing any more shirts or is it the end of civilisation as we know it?

    This Leask chap should get a TV show of his own, sounds like it would be UK version of that US Prison Planet nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Leask seems like a pompous arse. I was unsure about him, but he's always got to have the last word an doesn't come across well at all on Twitter - houlier than thou type.

    The RT hysteria is absolutely pathetic. Yes, they are a dubious origination ; but the BBC have an incredibly murky past too.

    Brillo heid of fake hair Neil tweeted some shite last night about Germany being at their worst political crisis since 1940. What an absolute joke, he is! So there may not be a coalition? That's no big deal, most of Europe and the democratic world has coalition governments and there are problems at times - so what happens? Germany will have a minority government, or they'll have another election?

    One thing though fake hair is that when it comes to Brexit. Government or not! Germany will be united.

    Apologies for the language ; but the press in this country are an absolute gutter joke.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I suppose Kevin you are happy an ex KGB dictator is still a dictator and has people assassinated at home and foreign lands. And all those bodies that were piled up in the lubianka nick were a myth as were the Gulags. You are clearly aware of this so why would a democrat vote for the Jock nat sis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yawn ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Of course all those bodies that piled up during the Butcher's Apron Colonial days is fine and after all it was your Master at Wastemonster who invented the Concentration Camp but then I suppose a nut job like you will deny that.

      Delete
    2. Robert Muggerabe friend of the Left. Maoist, Marxist Catholic, friend of the Vatican now apparantly gone. Search for the pretend lefties bank accounts now inevitable.
      And the Jockos were at the forefront of the British Empire with the bayonet making profits and prosperity for Scotland. And the Holyrood crowd still cashing in on it. Yawn zzzzzzzz up yer kilt ya hypocrite Paul Wilson. Brexit soon and demolish the Jocko Parliament and restore the brewery.

      Delete
    3. Not sure why you're being so hard on Putin. He shares your favourable opinion of Brexit.

      Delete
    4. Not sure why you think I am being hard on Putin.

      Delete
  9. Vatican to make muggerabe a Saint. He was seen in two different places at the same time according to reliable witnesses. Its a miracle.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jocks given twa billion by the Chancellor tae spend. We can expect Jock foodbanks to end. Aye Right.

    ReplyDelete