Tim Willcox Excuses Terrorist Attack on Jews in France

[Teddy Bear]

(hat tip David Vance)

Tim Willcox, a BBC reporter, is interviewing a Jewish woman in France, about what she is feeling as a result of the recent terrorist attacks there. When she states that there is no doubt that Jews are targets for these terrorists, his response is to tell her "Palestinians suffered hugely at Jewish hands".

The BBC mindset in this area couldn't be clearer.

[Teddy Bear]

BBC Watch have also produced an excellent commentary on this incident, as well as Honest Reporting, as presented below.

BBC Reporter at Paris Rally: “Palestinians Suffer at Jewish Hands”

Barely had the French Jewish community time to get their heads around the appalling terror attack on a Paris kosher supermarket when the BBC’s Tim Willcox interviewed a Jewish woman at the January 11 solidarity rally in Paris. Interrupting her, Willcox says * :

Many critics of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.

Note that Willcox specifically says “Jewish” rather than “Israeli,” thus effectively holding French Jewry (and all Jews) responsible for the actions of Israel.

“Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” is included in the European Union’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism while the U.S. State Department says: “Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.“

And for good measure, Willcox, when he fails to get his interviewee to agree with his offensive logic, adds:

But you understand; everything is seen from different perspectives.

This isn’t the first time that Tim Willcox has demonstrated disturbing behavior when it comes to Jews. As BBC Watch explains, Willcox promoted the “Jewish lobby” trope on a BBC broadcast as recently as November 2014.

Tim Willcox’s inference that the Middle East conflict can in any way explain or justify an attack on Jews in France or anywhere else in the world is simply appalling.

Willcox’s specific reference to “Jewish hands” is abhorrent and unacceptable and suggests that Jews worldwide should be held responsible for the actions of Israel. This clearly falls under the European Union’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism.

Willcox has since “apologized” on Twitter:


Willcox’s apology is not enough. The issue is more than one of a “poorly phrased question” and goes to the heart of how the BBC deals with the subject of Israel and anti-Semitism. The BBC needs to openly acknowledge the seriousness of this incident at a time of growing anti-Semitism and physical attacks on Jews.

HonestReporting CEO Joe Hyams adds:

We’ve been calling for the media to adopt the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism in order to avoid this very situation involving Tim Willcox. It’s no longer good enough to feign ignorance and claim that crossing the line into anti-Semitism was unintentional. It’s high time that a widely accepted definition of anti-Semitism is added to the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The BBC and its journalists need to wake up to the incitement and harm that their shoddy reporting is doing.

Tim Willcox must be held accountable for his latest outrageous interview. The BBC must not be allowed to sweep this under the carpet. HonestReporting subscribers must make their voices heard by lodging complaints to the BBC.

[Teddy Bear]

The Daily Mail now has an article on the subject and also includes another recent comment made by Willcox that highlights his personal anti-Semitic views. For the time being, the BBC are excusing his comments with the claim that his apology is enough, but we'll see with the rising number of complaints and public attention they are receiving whether they are forced to do more.

BBC reporter faces calls to resign after he tells daughter of Holocaust survivors after Paris attacks: 'Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well'

• Tim Willcox was covering yesterday's Paris rally for the BBC News channel
• He spoke to participants during a live broadcast from the streets of Paris
• 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'

By Lucy Crossley for MailOnline

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.

During a live report from the streets of Paris, Willcox was speaking to a number of participants in the march, including one woman who expressed her fears that Jews were being persecuted, and 'the situation is going back to the days of the 1930s in Europe.'

To this, Willcox, who was broadcasting on the BBC News channel replied: 'Many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.'

When the woman, shaking her head, responded saying: 'We can't do an amalgam', he told her: 'You understand everything is seen from different perspectives.'

She was identified during the broadcast as 'Chava', and told Willcox when she was introduced on screen that she had lived in France for 20 years, but was originally from Israel.

She said her parents were from Poland, and came to Israel after the Second World War.

She had attended the rally with a friend, Aziz, who is French-born and comes from a Muslim background, with his parents being originally from Algeria.

Willcox has today apologised for his comments, taking to Twitter to say he had not meant to cause offence.

He wrote: 'Really sorry for any offence caused by a poorly phrased question in a live interview in Paris yesterday - it was entirely unintentional.'

But many viewers also used the social network to express their anger and concerns over Willcox's rally coverage, including historian and BBC presenter Simon Schama.

He wrote on Twitter: 'Appalling of @bbctimwillcox to imply any and all JEWS (not Israelis) responsible for treatment of Palestinians by hectoring lady in Paris.'

And added: 'Then he had gall to patronise her at the end - "you see people see it from all sides" That Palestinian plight justifies anti-semitic murder?'

Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard also joined the debate, tweeting: 'What is @bbctimwillcox's problem with Jews? Once is problematic. Twice is a pattern.'

The Campaign Against Antisemitism, which works to combat anti-Semitism in Britain, has circulated footage of the incident, and has called on those offended by it to formally complain to the BBC.

Director of communications, Jonathan Sacerdoti, told MailOnline Willcox's Twitter apology was 'not really good enough'.

'It's an admission he has done something wrong, but it's incumbent on the BBC to make an on-air apology and to investigate his behaviour.'


Many viewers also used the social network to express their anger and concerns over Willcox's rally coverage, including historian and BBC presenter Simon Schama

There have also been calls for the reporter to resign.

Twitter user I Support Israel said: 'Retweet if you believe @bbctimwillcox should be fired for making this anti-Semitic suggestion'.

The comment was re-tweeted 41 times, while others expressed their views on the controversy, adding the hashtag #WillcoxMustGo.

An online petition was also set up, demanding that Willcox 'personally apologise', and calling for 're-assurance that this constant anti-Semitic behaviour from the BBC will come to an end'.

The petition authors said: 'It was the wrong time and place to ask such a disgraceful question. The unity march was a time for France and the rest of the world to come together and unite against the rising threat of terrorism and anti-Semitism, as well as an opportunity to mourn and remember those killed in the horrific attacks.

'Nevertheless, Mr Willcox showed no sensitivity and asked a tasteless question on live TV which has outraged those who have seen the clip, as well as leaving the interviewee speechless and defenceless.'

It is not the first time Willcox has been accused of anti-Semitism.

In November during a review of the following day's newspapers on the BBC News channel, Willcox, who was anchoring the discussion, faced criticism after discussion of a story about Labour leader Ed Miliband reportedly losing Jewish support.

A guest on the programme, political observer Jo Phillips, had referred to a 'Jewish lobby', which had abandoned support for Labour over his condemnation of Israeli attacks on Gaza.

There was anger that Willcox had not pulled up the guest on her comments, and had added: 'A lot of these prominent Jewish faces will be very much against the mansion tax'.

The BBC defended the comments, and said: 'It was clear that he was not suggesting that Jewish people in particular are against the mansion tax.'

Mr Sacerdoti said his organisation and 33 individuals had complained to the BBC about the November broadcast.

'The BBC said there was no anti-Semitism in what he said, but according to the MacPherson definition, if a minority group feels it is anti-Semitic, it should be considered as such,' he said.

'It's obviously offending people.'

He added: 'And now he's done it again in an extreme example when people are mourning the deaths of four Jews, among the other victims, and his reaction is to say this to a Jewish woman who is saying it's like the 1930s.

'To somehow bring in mitigating circumstances, is terrible.

'The EUMC's [European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, now the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights] working definition of anti-Semitism includes collective blaming of Jews for the actions of Israel.'

Alex Benjamin, Executive Director of Brussels-based group European Friends of Israel, told MailOnline he would 'echo the calls for Willcox to resign'.

'I was not the only one who was utterly disgusted at the deeply patronising, offensive and frankly partisan way he hassled this woman - a woman who as a Parisian Jew is genuinely concerned for her well-being – seeking to justify the abhorrent murders of four jews in Paris with the Israel Palestinian conflict,' he said.

'It was tactless, arrogant and he should at resign.'

A BBC spokesman said: 'Tim Willcox has apologised for what he accepts was a poorly phrased question during an in-depth live interview with two friends, one Jewish and of Israeli birth, the other of Algerian Muslim heritage, where they discussed a wide range of issues affecting both the Muslim and Jewish communities in France. He had no intention of causing offence.'

[Teddy Bear]

BBC Watch is covering the response by the BBC to complaints regarding the absurd and callous statements made by Willcox in his interview.

BBC response to Willcox complaints: he sent a Tweet

Below is the response received by a member of the public in reply to his complaint concerning remarks made by Tim Willcox during the BBC’s coverage of the January 11th march in Paris. Others have informed us that they have been sent the exact same reply.

Response Willcox complaint

It is worth noting once again that the majority of the millions of people who watched that BBC broadcast do not follow Tim Willcox on Twitter.

One of the problems with the response from BBC Complaints – and with Willcox’s Tweet – is that he was not asking a “poorly phrased question” at all. He in fact interrupted his interviewee to make a statement. And whilst Willcox may indeed have had “no intention of causing offence”, he did just that because the notion he found it so urgent to promote to viewers is based on the antisemitic premise that Jews anywhere in the world hold collective responsibility for the perceived actions of the State of Israel.

If Tim Willcox and the BBC do not understand why his statement – and the thinking behind it – constitutes a problem and why an apology in 140 characters or less repeated in a generic e-mail from BBC Complaints is unsatisfactory, then obviously there are considerably deeper issues here.

Willcox’s Twitter apology does not abrogate the need for an on-air statement from the BBC clarifying the issue to audiences who watched that programme.

The BBC have not published any article relating to this matter whatsoever, as far as they're concerned it was a simple unintentional error and that's it as far as they're concerned.

So let's contrast this with another recent story from yesterday. This concerns a terrorism expert appearing on Fox News in the USA who stated that Birmingham was a Muslim only city and no go area for anybody else.

Following complaints he admitted his overstatement and apologised. Here are the articles that the BBC have run on this story since yesterday.

Apology for 'Muslim Birmingham' claim 12 JANUARY 2015, BIRMINGHAM & BLACK COUNTRY
Our city: Real life in Birmingham 12 JANUARY 2015, BIRMINGHAM & BLACK COUNTRY
Nine real facts about Birmingham 12 JANUARY 2015, BIRMINGHAM & BLACK COUNTRY
Could Fox News comments hit tourism? 12 JANUARY 2015, BIRMINGHAM & BLACK COUNTRY
Fox News terrorism commentator Steven Emerson donates £500 to hospital 13 JANUARY 2015, BIRMINGHAM & BLACK COUNTRY

Besides the number of articles published on the subject, look also at the length of them and how the BBC are using this for a variety of issues that match their agenda, not least doing their best to demean Fox, and of course promote Islam.

They really think that what this man said about Birmingham is far more important than Wilcox's shameful muttering to a woman grieving over what just happened in France,
This is our 'fair, balanced and impartial' broadcaster.

[Teddy Bear]

Most here monitoring usual BBC coverage of Israel would be forgiven for thinking that at best, news reports by Israeli newspapers are never examined by BBC staff to gain 'the other side'.
So here's something to show you that they do, but choose to ignore it if it conflicts with the story they way they want it to be seen.

Clearly they've been scouring Mid-East newspapers to see how they've been reporting on events in France. So out of all of them, and no doubt quite a few which would have been supportive of the terrorists, which one did the BBC choose to focus on?

Well here it is - the third most important story on their Mid-East webpage:
Jewish newspaper removes women from photo of leaders


Notice the article is in Hebrew, and is from an orthodox Jewish newspaper Hamavaser, that nobody will have heard of before, or likely to again. But the BBC think that the fact that the editors photoshopped the photo from France to remove all women leaders was worthy of mention.

However, if they would have looked at some of the main stories in the Israel media about events in France they would have seen
Hamas Publication Praises Paris Terrorists
But clearly they didn't think this worthy of mention.

Any wonder the BBC excuses Willcox for his viewpoint?

[Teddy Bear]

Here's a perfect contrast to highlight the hypocritical mindset of the BBC.

Bearing in mind that Tim Willcox saw no problem justifying the murder of Jews by Muslims for what he sees as the treatment of Palestinians by Israel.

Clint Eastwood has directed a new film, American Sniper, based on the actions of an American war veteran who killed 160 extremists while on duty in Iraq.
Here's what the BBC tell us about this film:

American Sniper film 'behind rise in anti-Muslim threats'

The release of the film American Sniper has led to an increase in threats against Muslims in the US, according to an Arab-American civil rights group.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) has written to director Clint Eastwood and star Bradley Cooper.

Their film is based on US soldier Chris Kyle's service in Iraq from 2003-09.

The ADC said a "majority of the violent threats we have seen over the past few days are result of how Arab and Muslims are depicted in American Sniper".

The organisation, which describes itself as the largest Arab civil rights organisation in the US, said it had collected "hundreds of violent messages targeting Arab and Muslim Americans from movie-goers", mainly from Facebook and Twitter.

The letter asked Eastwood and Cooper to speak out against such messages "in an effort to reduce the hateful rhetoric".

"Your visibility, influence, and connection to the film would be a tremendous force in drawing attention to and lessening the serious dangers facing the respective communities," ADC president Samer Khalaf wrote.

Jack Horner, a spokesman for the Warner Bros film studio, which released the film, told the Reuters news agency that the company "denounces any violent, anti-Muslim rhetoric, including that which has been attributed to viewers" of the film.

He added: "Hate and bigotry have no place in the important dialogue that this picture has generated about the veteran experience."

Spokespeople for Eastwood and Cooper had no immediate response to requests for comment, Reuters news agency reported.

American Sniper has been a major hit in North America, exceeding box office predictions by taking $90m (£59m) in its opening weekend - a record for a January release. It also has six Oscar nominations.

Film controversy
But it has caused controversy. Some have hailed its portrayal of Kyle as a war hero, but others have criticised it for glorifying violence and for Kyle's attitude towards his victims.

Kyle, a Navy Seal, served four tours of duty in Iraq and killed more than 160 people, making him the most deadly sniper in American history.

The film is based on his book, also titled American Sniper, in which he claimed to have no regrets and referred to those he killed as "savages".

Kyle was killed in February 2013 on a firing range in his home state of Texas.

Keep this passage in mind: The ADC said a "majority of the violent threats we have seen over the past few days are result of how Arab and Muslims are depicted in American Sniper".

Now I haven't seen this film, but I'm aware of what Muslim extremists have been doing in this part of the world. If Clint Eastwood has portrayed them honestly, and I believe he would have, then 'savages' would be an apt description, and they got their just deserts before they could murder others.

Where in this article do you see any justification a la Willcox to the ADC that considering the many terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims they should understand why the film portrays them as they do? Let's face it - REAL MUSLIMS WERE NOT KILLED TO MAKE THIS POINT LIKE MUSLIMS DID IN FRANCE TO JEWS AND HEBDO STAFF!

But the BBC are all over themselves to be on the side of Islam. Honest Reporting is still trying to get action by them over Willcox's statements.

Here's what Breitbart has to say on the matter. Shows clearly just which side the BBC is on in our society.

BBC DESCRIBES TERRORISTS KILLED IN WAR BY CHRIS KYLE AS ‘VICTIMS’

by JOHN NOLTE

According to the BBC, Chris Kyle shot “victims” not evil barbaric terrorists determined to take the lives of American Marines and/or innocent Iraqi civilians. In an irresponsible piece of reporting that details no facts about the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) claim that “American Sniper” is “behind a rise in anti-Muslim threats,” the BBC writes:

But [American Sniper] has caused controversy. Some have hailed its portrayal of Kyle as a war hero, but others have criticised it for glorifying violence and for Kyle’s attitude towards his victims.

Kyle, a Navy Seal, served four tours of duty in Iraq and killed more than 160 people, making him the most deadly sniper in American history.

The film is based on his book, also titled American Sniper, in which he claimed to have no regrets and referred to those he killed as “savages”.

The last paragraph is correct but incomplete. Kyle not only referred to the terrorists he shot as “savages,” he correctly referred to them as “evil savages.”

Describing terrorists killed in war before they could murder as “victims” is like describing the BBC as unbiased morally literate news outlet.

Kyle killed those savages in an act of self-defense, and served with honor and distinction in a barbaric war the barbarians chose to make barbaric.

[Teddy Bear]

Honest Reporting received a reply from the BBC concerning the numerous complaints made in response to Willcox's remarks. Unsurprisingly they rejected the complaint and justified Willcox.

My comment to Honest Reporting on this is:

I think that complaints made about Willcox's remarks should ask the BBC what it s about Israel's actions, in the light of continued terrorist attacks by the Palestinians, and refusal to come to a peace agreement, that Jews should feel justify an attack on themselves.

It appears that Willcox, and as we know all too well, the BBC, always sees and reports the Palestinians as victims. This is what Muslims and racists use to justify attacks on Jews. Let the BBC show ONE ACTION that the Palestinians have done to secure a peace agreement. Let the BBC show one attack by Israel that wasn't preceded by an attack by Palestinians.

The BBC are completely racist in their dhimmi obeisance to Islam.
SCUM & SUCCUMB

BBC Rejects Tim Willcox Complaints

The BBC’s complaints procedure is a drawn-out process. HonestReporting and many others initiated complaints concerning Tim Willcox’s outrageous reporting in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo and kosher supermarket terror attacks in Paris.We have now received a detailed response from the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, which can be read in full below:

BBC Editorial Complaints Unit Response to Tim Willcox Complaints

British Broadcasting Corporation White City, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ
Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]

Editorial Complaints Unit

20 February 2015

News Channel, 11 January 2015

I’m writing to let you know the provisional outcome of the Editorial Complaints Unit’s investigation into complaints about the interview conducted by Tim Willcox. I shall address the points of complaint as summarised by my colleague Andrew Bell in his email to you, but, as it’s clear from the terms of many of the complaints we received that the complainants had seen only a brief clip from the interview, I’d like to begin by filling in some of the context.

There had been live coverage of events in Paris throughout the day on the channel, presented by Tim Willcox, Lyse Doucet and Mishal Husain. Reportage was interspersed with interviews, a number of which reflected on the respective situations of France’s Jewish and Muslim communities in the light of the recent events. The sequence containing the comments which prompted you to complain began at about 4.40pm, with Mr Willcox having taken up a position on a balcony overlooking the Boulevard Voltaire, the main route being followed by the march. He introduced a pair of friends, one Muslim (Aziz, born in France of Algerian parents) and one Jewish (Chava, born in Israel of Polish parents). His first question set the tone of the interview:

How important is it today for people from both your backgrounds, do you think, to show the world, to show extremists, that actually two cultures, two religions, live side by side happily?

Chava replied to the effect that there was no option for them other than to live together. He next asked Aziz why the gunmen involved in the attacks (like him, from north African Muslim backgrounds) felt so alienated. Aziz referred mainly to social issues in France, a sense of exclusion among some in the Muslim community, and instances of extreme poverty in some predominantly Muslim areas. After a question to Aziz about the impact on the Muslim community of cartoons depicting Mohammed, Mr Willcox had the following exchange with Chava:

TW: Do you ever feel threatened or frightened by the Muslim community here, because if you look at the figures more Jews in France seem to be leaving France than in other European countries , and yet France has the biggest population of Jews, as it does indeed of Muslims, in Europe. Do you feel that fear?

Chava: I didn’t feel this fear until last days, I have to say. As I’m coming from...it’s not the same for Jews being born here and Israeli coming to here. This is two different populations. Israelis, when they come to France, they have something already inside them, they are not, we are not afraid, we know that every moment we can go somewhere else. We have like a back very strong. The Jews which were born here, they are coming from another culture, so it’s completely different. But I can tell that since a few days I feel again not secure and not...It’s something which is very, and I was talking to Aziz also, I feel that now it’s like in 1930s, we are...the situation is going back to these days of 1930 in Europe.

TW: But do you think it can be rescued now with the right approach, with a more inclusive society addressing the problems that people have?

Chava: I didn’t understand completely your...

TW: Do you think that can be resolved, though, now, before it’s too late?

Chava: Yes of course – we have to, we have to not to be afraid to say that the Jews are being the, they are the target now. It’s not only the...the...er...

TW: Many critics, though, of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.

Chava: We cannot do an amalgam...to...between...

TW: But you understand everything is seen from different perspectives...

Chava: Of course, but this is not my...er...

TW: No, I understand.

The exchanges concluded with two further questions to Aziz, about what the day’s demonstration might have achieved, and about French legislation on the wearing of the veil in public.

I think it’s clear from what I’ve quoted above that Mr Willcox’s reference to the Palestinians, though framed as a statement, was in effect a question put to Chava for comment. I would accept that (as Mr Willcox has himself acknowledged) what he said was poorly-phrased, but what the Editorial Complaints Unit must decide is whether his words amounted to a serious breach of the BBC’s editorial standards. That’s the question I’ll be keeping in mind as I address the particular points of complaint as summarised by my colleague.

• That the question put by Tim Willcox to an interviewee was misleading in that it linked the Paris killings in a kosher supermarket with events in the Middle East;

Nothing in the day’s coverage of events in Paris suggested a direct link between events in the Middle East and those killings, and I can’t see that such a suggestion can readily be derived from what Mr Willcox said.

• That the question was offensive and anti-Semitic in that it suggested that all Jews were responsible for the actions of Israel

Many complainants argue that the question must be regarded as anti-Semitic because it falls foul of a definition of anti-Semitism which includes “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel”, and which they attribute to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) . That, however, seems to me an unduly harsh construction of what Mr Willcox said. In the light of the opening reference to “Israeli policy”, it seems to me more natural to construe “Jewish hands” as referring to Israeli Jews (insofar as they might be responsible for the formulation or execution of Israeli policy), rather than to Jews collectively. I would accept that it was inept to use a form of words which was even open to the first construction, but I would regard that as an aspect of the poor phrasing already acknowledged, rather than a manifestation of anti-Semitism.

• That the question was offensive and anti-Semitic in that it suggested that Jews were responsible for the murder of other Jews;

• That the question was offensive because it trivialized the Holocaust;

I take these points together because I think they both go beyond any meaning that can legitimately be taken from Mr Willcox’s words. In the immediate context of what Chava had just said, the meaning seems to me to be only that there are some (“Many critics...of Israeli policy”) who regard at least some Jews as perpetrators of violence or discrimination rather than (or as well as) targets of them. I can see that such a question might be regarded as inopportune at such a juncture, but not that it was offensive, or anti-Semitic, in the senses complained of above.

• That the question displayed bias against Israel;

There might be grounds for such a complaint if Mr Willcox had endorsed the view he attributed to critics of Israeli policy, but he didn’t.

• That Tim Willcox’s comment “But you understand everything is seen from different perspectives” suggested there was a justification for the killings;

Again, this seems to me to impute more meaning to what Mr Willcox said than it can bear. As may be clear from the portion of his exchange with Chava I’ve transcribed above, they were having some difficulty in maintaining mutual comprehension, and I think Mr Willcox’s comment is better understood as an effort to draw the exchange to a conclusion rather than to make a particular point. In any event, “everything is seen from different perspectives” is barely more than a truism, and it doesn’t suggest that all perspectives are equally justified.

• That the interviewee was not treated with appropriate respect;

I see nothing in Mr Willcox’s comments which is intrinsically disrespectful, and I saw nothing in Chava’s demeanour to suggest that she felt disrespected. I understand that Mr Willcox’s producer contacted Chava after the broadcast and that she assured him that she hadn’t been in the least offended.

• That the terms of the apology from Tim Willcox were inadequate and failed to address what was inaccurate and offensive about his remarks;

• That posting an apology on a private Twitter account was inadequate and that it should have been published by the BBC.

These points rest on the premise that Mr Willcox’s comments constituted a serious breach of editorial standards, of a kind which would require due public correction and apology. I hope it’s apparent from what I’ve written above that I don’t share that premise. I share Mr Willcox’s view that his comments were poorly-phrased, but I think they were no worse than that.

Accordingly, I’m not proposing to uphold the complaints received by the Editorial Complaints Unit. This, however, is a provisional finding, and I’ll be happy to consider any comments you may wish to make before I finalise it, provided you let me have them by 6 March.

Yours sincerely

Fraser Steel
Head of Editorial Complaints

In response, HonestReporting Managing Editor Simon Plosker said:

The BBC’s latest response to the Tim Willcox affair is yet further evidence that the BBC cannot be trusted to investigate its own journalistic failings. While this may be a provisional finding, there’s no reason to believe that we are looking at anything but a complete whitewash.

The arguments laid out by the BBC make me wonder if the Editorial Complaints Unit reviewed a completely different piece of footage to the rest of us. Let it be clear: Tim Willcox should be held accountable for the appalling statements and questions that he broadcast from Paris that day. Clearly, the BBC is unwilling to make this happen.

[Teddy Bear]

Hadar Sela at BBC Watch gives her take on the BBC dismissal of complaints on this issue.

Let’s take a closer look at Steel’s interpretation of the most crucial part of the interview. As he notes, the initial question raised by Willcox raised the topic of the fears of the Jewish community in France in relation to the Muslim community in the same country.

TW: Do you ever feel threatened or frightened by the Muslim community here, because if you look at the figures more Jews in France seem to be leaving France than in other European countries, and yet France has the biggest population of Jews, as it does indeed of Muslims, in Europe. Do you feel that fear?

His interviewee’s response noted that whilst Israelis like herself living in France feel less insecure because they have alternatives more accessible than those available to the non-Israeli Jewish population in France, nevertheless she – as an Israeli Jew living in France – felt less secure in recent days.

Chava: I didn’t feel this fear until last days, I have to say. As I’m coming from…it’s not the same for Jews being born here and Israeli coming to here. This is two different populations. Israelis, when they come to France, they have something already inside them, they are not, we are not afraid, we know that every moment we can go somewhere else. We have like a back very strong. The Jews which were born here, they are coming from another culture, so it’s completely different. But I can tell that since a few days I feel again not secure and not…It’s something which is very, and I was talking to Aziz also, I feel that now it’s like in 1930s, we are…the situation is going back to these days of 1930 in Europe.

Willcox then turned to the topic of possible solutions to that feeling of insecurity, with his interviewee expressing the opinion that the solution must include recognition of the fact that Jews living in Europe are being targeted.

TW: But do you think it can be rescued now with the right approach, with a more inclusive society addressing the problems that people have?

Chava: I didn’t understand completely your…

TW: Do you think that can be resolved, though, now, before it’s too late?

Chava: Yes of course – we have to, we have to not to be afraid to say that the Jews are being the, they are the target now. It’s not only the…the…er…

At that point Willcox inserted an interruption with which he did two things: firstly he quickly diverted the topic of conversation away from the limited framework of French Jewish and Muslim communities previously under discussion by introducing the issue of conflict in the Middle East. He also cut short discussion of the topic of the targeting of Jews in Europe by inserting a false equivalence – evident in his use of the words “as well” – in the form of ‘Palestinian suffering’ which he attributed to “Jewish hands”. In other words, Willcox falsely implied that – like Jews in France – Palestinians are targets because of their religion and/or ethnicity.

TW: Many critics, though, of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.

Chava: We cannot do an amalgam…to…between…

TW: But you understand everything is seen from different perspectives…

Chava: Of course, but this is not my…er…

TW: No, I understand.

Fraser Steel’s claim that Willcox’s statement “was in effect a question put to Chava for comment” completely ignores the issue of why Willcox found it necessary to divert the conversation away from both the events in Paris and the topic of the targeting of French Jews by interrupting his interviewee.

“I think it’s clear from what I’ve quoted above that Mr Willcox’s reference to the Palestinians, though framed as a statement, was in effect a question put to Chava for comment. I would accept that (as Mr Willcox has himself acknowledged) what he said was poorly-phrased, but what the Editorial Complaints Unit must decide is whether his words amounted to a serious breach of the BBC’s editorial standards. That’s the question I’ll be keeping in mind as I address the particular points of complaint as summarised by my colleague.

That the question put by Tim Willcox to an interviewee was misleading in that it linked the Paris killings in a kosher supermarket with events in the Middle East;

Nothing in the day’s coverage of events in Paris suggested a direct link between events in the Middle East and those killings, and I can’t see that such a suggestion can readily be derived from what Mr Willcox said.”

But that is exactly what Willcox did and it is inconceivable that Steel’s powers of English language comprehension are so limited that he cannot see it. Willcox’s statement clearly not only introduced the subject of the Middle East into the discussion but also misled BBC audiences in that it misrepresented events in the Middle East by means of the inaccurate suggestion that “Jewish hands” cause Palestinians to “suffer” because of motives identical to those of an Islamist terrorist who carried out a pre-meditated attack on identifiably Jewish targets at the Hyper Cacher supermarket.

Steel continues:

“That the question was offensive and anti-Semitic in that it suggested that all Jews were responsible for the actions of Israel

Many complainants argue that the question must be regarded as anti-Semitic because it falls foul of a definition of anti-Semitism which includes “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel”, and which they attribute to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). That, however, seems to me an unduly harsh construction of what Mr Willcox said. In the light of the opening reference to “Israeli policy”, it seems to me more natural to construe “Jewish hands” as referring to Israeli Jews (insofar as they might be responsible for the formulation or execution of Israeli policy), rather than to Jews collectively. I would accept that it was inept to use a form of words which was even open to the first construction, but I would regard that as an aspect of the poor phrasing already acknowledged, rather than a manifestation of anti-Semitism.”

Steel’s obviously erroneous suggestion here is that “Israeli policy” is formulated and executed exclusively by “Israeli Jews”: he conveniently ignores the fact that among those formulating Israeli policy and those executing it are members of the non-Jewish communities in Israel making up over 20% of the country’s population. Hence, his transparent attempt to rewrite Willcox’s reference to “Jewish hands” to make it mean Israelis is obviously disingenuous.

It is worth noting at this point that Steel’s rejection of the classification of Willcox’s statement as antisemitic is based on the following claim inserted as a footnote:

“In fact the phrase isn’t part of the EUMC definition, but is one of a number of examples provided of what might be considered anti-Semitic under the definition, subject to “taking into account the overall context”. The EUMC definition was withdrawn in 2009 by its successor organisation, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, which has published no definition of its own.”

This of course is not the first time that the BBC has exploited the fact that the European Agency for Fundamental Rights has not put out its own definition of antisemitism because its mandate does not include such activities. Whilst the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism was indeed removed from the FRA’s website along with other EUMC documents in 2013, it has not been “withdrawn”.

But beyond the technicalities, more importantly what we see here is that the BBC apparently believes itself to have both the authority and the expertise to make pronunciations on what is – or is not – antisemitism. Clearly that arrogant assumption flies in the face of the MacPherson Report which recommended that racist incidents should be defined as “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”. Had Fraser Steel bothered to consult with expert bodies and/or representatives of the Jewish community (and there is no evidence in this document of his having done so) he might have been better placed to understand the essence of the complaints he was tasked with reviewing.

The issue of the BBC’s self-regulating complaints system is one which has been under discussion for quite some time and is likely to be raised again when the BBC’s Royal Charter comes up for renewal next year. Many people have become convinced by their experiences of navigating the system that it does not serve the interests of the corporation’s funding public and that it fails to ensure that the BBC adheres to its obligations to accuracy and impartiality.

Fraser Steel’s dismissive response to the high volume of complaints made about Tim Willcox’s statements can only further entrench the growing view that a self-regulating BBC is incompatible with the public purposes defined in its constitutional document.

[charmbrights]

I also note that of all the Jews in France the BBC chose to interview one who did not have a very good grasp of English. Then when she said she didn't understand a question Wilcox put a very ambiguous and somewhat irrelevant "correction".

[Teddy Bear]

Which is typical of the BBC - more interested in the message they want to transmit than that being told to them.

[Teddy Bear]

Honest Reporting are clearly upset by the failure so far of the BBC to acknowledge the legitimacy of complaints made about Willcox's comments.

BBC Watch too have commented on the BBC failures today as well.

BBC’s Internal Complaints Process “Not Fit For Purpose”

The BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) released its provisional findings in February concerning Tim Willcox’s outrageous reporting in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo and kosher supermarket terror attacks in Paris.

The BBC’s complaints process has dragged on for over four months since HonestReporting and many others initiated complaints. Now, we’ve received the ECU’s final correspondence. Here are the relevant paragraphs from ECU Head Fraser Steele (emphasis added):

Thank you for your comments on our provisional finding on your complaint. It’s clear from what you and others have written that I’d understood the first of the summarised points of complaint (“That the question put by Tim Willcox to an interviewee was misleading in that it linked the Paris killings in a kosher supermarket with events in the Middle East”) in a different sense from a number of people who complained. What I had in mind was a direct causal relationship between particular recent events in the Middle East and the Paris killings, and it was on that basis that I wrote “Nothing in the day’s coverage of events in Paris suggested a direct link between events in the Middle East and those killings, and I can’t see that such a suggestion can readily be derived from what Mr Willcox said”. I accept, though, that Mr Willcox’s words suggest a link in a broader sense between perceptions of Palestinian suffering and the incidence of anti-Semitic incidents. However, that doesn’t alter the outcome because I don’t think suggesting a link of that kind can be viewed as a breach of editorial standards (or even as particularly controversial, considering the correlation between anti-Semitic incidents and Israeli actions which have an adverse impact on Palestinians which has been noted by organisations such as the Community Security Trust).

I had no objection to complainants referring to the EUMC definition, which they are of course perfectly entitled to do. My primary argument in that respect was that, even if that definition were to be applied, it would be unduly harsh to construe Mr Willcox’s words in a sense which fell foul of it. I accept that it’s not for the ECU to arbitrate what any group – or, for that matter, any individual viewer or listener – may find offensive, but we are charged with arbitrating (subject to correction by the BBC Trust) whether the offence expressed by complainants is based on, for example, a misunderstanding of the sense of what was broadcast.

I’m not sure how you can take my previous letter as suggesting that Mr Willcox “had nothing to apologise for” when in fact I wrote that I shatter (sic) his view that his comments were poorly-phrased. What I did suggest is that they didn’t constitute the kind of breach of editorial standards which required the kind of apology which most complainants were calling for. My footnote pointing out that his apology was posted on his personal BBC account was simply intended to correct a misapprehension, shared by a surprisingly large number of those who complained, which would otherwise have lain on the record. The distinction between private and BBC twitter accounts has no bearing on my reasoning in this case, though there are some circumstances in which it would be a relevant consideration.

In response to Fraser Steele’s letter, HonestReporting Managing Editor Simon Plosker said:

Why have we waited months for the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit to produce what amounts to a whitewash? Throughout this painfully long process, the BBC has demonstrated a willful blindness to the issues. The BBC is clearly incapable of effective internal review and it’s time that responsibility for this process is handed over to a fully independent body. The BBC complaints process is not fit for purpose and we call on the new UK government to take remedial action as part of a wider review of BBC management.

In the meantime we will be taking our Tim Willcox complaint to the BBC Trust on a matter of principle in the faint hope that this may lead to a proper outcome. Tim Willcox and the BBC must not be let off the hook.