Blogging break

Hi bloggers,

I will be taking a break from blogging for a good few months.

I am currently job hunting in law and I really need to be 100% focused on it.

The problem is that it’s all very exhausting and all-consuming. Applications take ages to complete. I am also finding it a bit stressful. There are so many people I’m competing against so everything has to be polished. Need to prepare excellent answers for questions.

I stay positive, and remind myself that I’m actually a great applicant. I like to think I’m intelligent. I have good transferable skills, I am an honest person, I work easy with people, and I have that Protestant work ethic, I enjoy the legal sector I’m applying for. I just need to people see that.

Hopefully, I will be invited for interviews (which also stresses me) in Jan/Feb 2026.

I’ve been unwinding this week by watching some of those Peter Seller’s Pink Panther movies!! That was my trick at Cambridge the night before my big exams. Instead of walking around my room going through with my notes, I would put everything away and just watch a movie.

I hope to pop in, now and again, Christmas and whatnot, but in the meantime I won’t blogging much.

Thanks for you understanding,

Cherrio. 😸

David Jagger - Jewish Refugee, Vienna (1938) - poignant portrait of Jewish dignity

Beautiful.

David Jagger painted this anonymous Jewish lady after the outbreak of WW2. Today, it’s at Nottingham Castle. 

1938 was the year of the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany.

Vienna’s large Jewish population faced immediate & horrific persecution. Homes and businesses were seized, they were subjected to public humiliation and worse. 

Many of these Austrian Jews sought refuge at a time when lots of nations were hostile to Jewish refugees from Nazi persecution. 

I love the sense of determination and grit in the pose - but a certain sadness too.

Remembering Manfred Goldberg (1930-2025)

Manfred Goldberg has recently died.

He was a Holocaust survivor with a moving story.

I was listening to talk he gave to the University of Sussex. It was beautiful. 

I was most struck by his thoroughly pleasant & generous disposition when talking about his life story and the horrors he witnessed.

What’s interesting to me is the ordeal Manfred Goldberg’s father had to go through to secure papers to flee Nazi Germany. I forget how hard it was for Jews to get papers and leave - and, even worse, if you had a move a whole family to a foreign place. And then start again. His father managed to get out of Nazi Germany first (reference is made to Frank Foley) and had planned on taking the rest of the family with him afterwards on arrival in England. But within days, WWII had started. So, his poor wife and her two little babies were left behind in Nazi Germany. I just can’t imagine the toll on them both - esp. the wife. All alone without her partner/support and she had to look after 2 small kids who don’t understand what’s going on. Her strength and resolve must have been incredible. Hard not to have tears thinking about her despairing condition, while he was giving his talk.

For 6 years, his father, as refugee, was looking for his lost family. The strain that must have taken. He was also in a foreign country and couldn’t speak English, without the knowhow to get going with his life.

And then there’s the account of Manfred being squeezed onto a barge, like animals, in the Baltic sea, with so many prisoners, and being at the mercy of a true psychopath and sadist Captain. Tissues are needed at this point.

The wonderful part, for me, is that - having been reduced to the lowest rung of subsistence a human being can endure - he was honoured by the King of England and awarded an MBE, also met the Prince of Wales.

I wish I’d met him.

“BBC ‘ignored’ pro-trans bias in sports stories”

The Olympics are moving towards banning transgender women from competing in women’s sport. It seems they received “medical evidence” showing being born a male gives you physical advantages (*open mouth*?!) against women in women’s sport.

And ... how was the BBC approaching this subject, you might wonder?

See below for answer ... (esp. Mr Kay-Jelski (boss of BBC Sports) and the JK Rowling spat: “He highlighted evidence which found there was “little to no difference” in performance between transgender women and their female peers”.)

Can the BBC change?

I think it may be too late - it’s far too homogenous now & too much esprit de corps.

They’re part of a bubble who back the same things - back Labour, Hamas/Palestine, against Brexit, trans activism, total adherence to DEI, and everyone who disagrees is some sort of nasty racist.

✲✲✲

BBC ‘ignored’ pro-trans bias in sports stories
Female staff raised concerns about uncritical reporting on transgender athletes almost five years ago, messages reveal
By Craig Simpson & Oliver Brown
11 November 2025 6:00am GMT

BBC bosses “ignored” warnings about pro-transgender bias in its sports coverage, The Telegraph can reveal.

Messages seen by The Telegraph reveal that female staff repeatedly raised concerns over several years about the nature of reporting on gender issues.

BBC Sport bosses were told almost five years ago that stories about trans athletes were often uncritical and celebratory “puff pieces”, while glossing over any potentially negative impact on women’s sports.

However, insiders claim that the BBC persisted with overwhelmingly positive coverage of otherwise controversial athletes, including Lia Thomas, the biologically male swimmer, the weightlifter Laurel Hubbard, the cyclist Austin Killips and Imane Khelif, the boxer.

Concerns were also raised about biologically male athletes who were referred to as transgender “females”, a practice that appeared to confuse sex for gender and to go against the BBC’s own style guide.

BBC staff have reported feeling ignored and feeling unable to voice opinions that went against the prevailing orthodoxy of affirming transgender identity ...

BBC Sport is currently led by Alex Kay-Jelski, who faced criticism for a column he wrote for The Times in 2019 while he was the newspaper’s sports editor.

In the piece, he wrote that Martina Navratilova, the nine-time Wimbledon champion, and the Olympic swimming medallist Sharron Davies, both vocal opponents of allowing biological males to compete in women’s categories, were “not experts” on the matter of trans participation in sport.

Mr Kay-Jelski appeared to compare those who portrayed trans athletes as being “threatening” to racists who warned, “Don’t let black men in the same shops as you or they’ll rape your women”.

Following widespread criticism of his appointment as BBC Sport director in 2024, including from the Harry Potter author JK Rowling, Mr Kay-Jelski said he would leave his views “at the door”.

While some have expressed frustration with the BBC’s position on transgender issues, other institutions have responded to concerns raised about participation in women’s sports.

Earlier this year, the Football Association ruled that transgender women would no longer be able to play in women’s football in England, and the Rugby Football Union voted to ban trans women from full-contact women’s rugby union.

The International Olympic Committee is also moving towards banning transgender athletes from all female competition following a science-based review of evidence.

A BBC spokesman said: “While we always listen to feedback, BBC Sport has and always will report a wide range of views and perspectives in line with our editorial guidelines. We are unable to say more without further evidence of the points you are putting to us.”

VPN monitoring - gradual erosion of UK civil liberties

Samuel Woodhams writing in Exclusive: Ofcom is monitoring VPNs following Online Safety Act. Here’s how (TechRadar, Nov 2025)

The UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has told TechRadar that it’s using an unnamed third-party tool to monitor VPN use in the UK.

“We use a leading third-party provider, which is widely used in the industry, to gather information on VPN usage. The provider combines multiple data sources to train its models and generate usage estimates. The data we access and use in our analyses is fully aggregated at the app level, and no personally identifiable or user-level information is ever included.”

✲✲✲

So depressing.

The Online Safety Act is a censorship device, and it cannot function if people can easily bypass it.

They will first go after private VPN usage soon, and go after end-to-end encryption.

And this is why accusing Reform UK of fascism doesn’t work anymore.

These proposals are far more authoritarian than anything Reform have proposed.

Is the BBC Immune to Criticism

What happens when a “world class” British institution starts promoting Hamas propaganda, and censuring a journalist for eye-rolling when she’s ordered to use the term “pregnant people” instead of women? Or with President Trump and the Panorama fiasco?

Yes, the problem isn’t that the BBC edited a quote to make it look like the US President said something that he didn’t say - it’s that people have dared to point this out. Rather than acknowledge its critics maybe have a point, as per Ms Polly Toynbee at the Guardian (see below), it’s far better to recite the glories of entertainment at the BBC - e.g. Celebrity Traitors, Strictly (never watched them myself) etc.

And, like the Bolsheviks, you pivot the real issue as being those awful counter-revolutionaries spreading their malice.

✲✲✲

We should only defend the BBC, if it’s actually good. 

It’s true value rests on the quality and integrity of the work it produces. 

What I think the BBC needs to change:

1. BBC recruitment is a problem. I have a BBC friend, and they’re largely from the upper-middle classes having attended elite universities. There’s almost a monoculture of similar people from similar social backgrounds with similar mindsets. They don’t even see their own biases and preconceptions because they all share them. The word “diversity”, to institutions like the BBC, never really touch on how people think. It’s the usual box-ticking exercise on forms, and then, hey-presto, we’ve got loads of diversity.
2. It cannot sanction or punish journalists for expressing a more gender-critical approach to the trans debate.
3. The BBC have forgotten the first rule of journalism: report the news, don’t create news. Especially with the Israeli war, it rushes to report to make Israel look bad.
4. I would also scale-back on the social and cultural deconstructionism of past few decades. Long story, but it’s leading to their own demise.
5. The BBC managers need to respond v. quickly when serious lapses take place. BBC managers, including the Chairman, Mr Shah, and Director-General Tim Davie, knew about the doctored Trump documentary as far back as January. But, rather than take action, they did nothing. Then, by ignoring the warnings of the independent standards adviser Michael Prescott about the Panorama programme when they were raised in internal meetings. The net effect, to any reasonable person, is that the BBC appeared to have hoped the whole fiasco would remain buried.

✲✲✲

Polly Toynbee writing in “If you care about the BBC, stand up and defend it: this could be the beginning of the end” (Guardian, Nov 2025):

The BBC’s enemies have taken two scalps and inflicted maximum damage. The shock resignation of the director general, Tim Davie, and the head of news, Deborah Turness, make it look as if the BBC accepts that it does indeed suffer from “serious and systemic” bias in its coverage of issues including Donald Trump, Gaza and trans rights. But in this political coup, only the BBC’s sworn ideological foes think a cherrypicked sample of journalistic errors amounts to “systemic” bias ....

How right Nick Robinson was on Saturday’s Today programme: “There is also a political campaign by people who want to destroy the organisation that you are currently listening to,” backed up by the veteran broadcaster John Simpson, who said Robinson was “exactly right”. Many more need to speak up everywhere. Boris Johnson said he’d stop paying the licence fee until the BBC grovelled. Bravo again for Robinson’s retaliatory tweet: “Hands up all those who think Boris Johnson is well placed to lecture anyone else on upholding standards & admitting mistakes.” (Attackers calling the BBC a bunch of lefties should remember Robinson is a former chair of the Young Conservatives.)

William Hogarth, The Graham Children (1742)

A painting full of the joy of childhood.

This is William Hogarth’s most famous large-scale portrait at the National Gallery in London. He was the key figure of English Rococo.

It shows the four happy children of Daniel Graham, the apothecary (pharmacist) to King George II. So, obviously a family of considerable wealth and standing.

The painting’s sweetness is undercut be the sad fact that the youngest child, Thomas, in his go-cart, died before the painting was finished. 😞 He is dressed in a skirt - which was, apparently, common for that time. So, it is also a meditation on the fragility of life. He quite possibly steals the show.

I have always loved the detail of the cat peering greedily at the caged bird - it has obvious connotations apropos the ever-present threat of death (i.e. cat) which looms over the fragile & innocent soul (goldfinch - also a significant & recurring allegory/symbol in art history).

✲✲✲

In researching this painting, I was struck by an essay by Diana Francocci about Hogarth’s efforts to improve the lot of impoverished children in 18th century Bloomsbury:

Hogarth’s marriage was childless and yet he had a great affinity with children from all walks of life and this was clearly shown not only in the way he depicted children in paintings and engravings, but also in his position as a Governor of the foundling hospital. He played a considerable part in setting up this institution to take in abandoned children from the streets of London and the surrounding countryside. Coram and his helpers were besieged when the doors opened in March 1741, becoming full in a matter of a mere 4 hours. Hogarth was forced to plead with mothers not to abandon their offspring in the streets to an almost certain death.

This must have had a huge effect on his work as an artist and although he painted beautiful and sensitive paintings of children such as the one discussed above and for which he received payment, much of his work was inspired by the underclasses of the London streets. It has to be realised that the mortality of rate of children during this period was high. There was an enormous disparity between the children if the rich and the poor. Children as young as four or five were expected to help earn the daily bread, by such work as stone picking, bird scaring and berry picking in the countryside. Of course with the Industrial Revolution they had to take on much less healthy work in the factories.

The Poppy Field by Claude Monet (1873)

A fleeting visual impression of a breezy, summer’s day.

A simple subject: Monet’s wife, Camille, and their son, Jean, taking a casual walk; integrated in their environment.

This painting was exhibited at the first-ever Impressionist exhibition. He returned to France (from the UK) on the ending of the Franco-Prussian War:

Claude Monet painted The Poppy Field near Argenteuil in 1873 on his return from the United Kingdom (in 1871) when he settled in Argenteuil with his family until 1878. It was a time that provided the artist with great fulfillment as a painter, despite the failing health of Camille. Paul Durand-Ruel, Monet’s art dealer, helped support him during this time, where he found great comfort from the picturesque landscapes that surrounded him and provided him with plenty of subject matter from which to choose. It was a time that Monet’s Plein air works would develop, and this particular painting was shown at the first Impressionist exhibition of 1874. 

✲✲✲

   

The dabs of red paint were revolutionary for their time.

 The loose & sketchy field of poppies - step towards modern abstraction.

Self-Portrait by Thomas Gainsborough (1759)

Born May 14th 1727.

It features the artist in his early thirties (wikipedia).

Himself in the dignified & refined pose of the Rococo.

More impressionistic and less rigid than his Mr and Mrs Andrews of a decade ago.

From the National Portrait Gallery.

Why the Supreme Court should strike down Trump’s tariff authority

I have two points to make on this issue: first is a broader point, and, second, a legal analysis. 

✲✲✲

1. MAGA have given up on the American system of government

President Trump justified the tariffs, as usual, by invoking a national emergency.

And, why is that?

I think it’s because MAGA is that contingent of the right-wing that regard the Constitution as a museum relic.

It’s almost always a response of “but the Democrats ...”. If the Democrats abused power, then abuse of power is the new norm. In a very real sense, MAGA doesn’t really believe in the democratic republic anymore. They aren’t concerned with things like separation of powers, federalism, constitutional conventions etc.

MAGA are liberated from the quondam ideals of conservatism. They don’t at all believe in things that I regard as a virtue in government: self-restraint, the inherent desire for limited-government, checks-and-balances, deep skepticism of concentrated power, the norms of due process, not being swayed by the “passions of the moment”.

For example, judicial review, or the complex process of passing a bill, are classic examples of especially conservative governance that we get from the Founders. They are mechanisms of restraint to force compromise, reconsideration and long-term thinking. The separation of powers and federalism are not merely tools of efficiency; they are designed to limit power by dividing it and making it compete with itself.

MAGA see an opportunity, and call it a “crisis” or “emergency”, because they consider these old-fashioned notions outdated & frustrating obstacles towards their goals. MAGA doesn’t understand that, as a result of the system itself, they’ll lose occasionally. Many don’t even understand that the system was designed that way. For them, every defeat becomes a missed opportunity to solve a problem. They are Nietzscheans, just like the post-modernists. Radicals even. 

To me, it seems so obvious that national security is the inherent competence of Congress. To the extent that we are threatened, it is upon their authority to control trade with hostile nations. For example, by imposing on transactions the cost of its related externalities (such as regulating oil with Iran, or the fishing industry to mitigate the blight of overfishing etc). However, such power should be as limited as possible - not as expansive as possible (see below). Especially if the President turns out to be a moron.

✲✲✲

2. Is it against constitutional principles?

It doesn’t look it.

Andrew C. McCarthy has written (in “Trump Is Down, but Not Out, in the Tariffs Court Case”, NR) that, while it seems elementary that taxes are the business of Congress, the courts (including liberal judges) have accepted that the Presidency has in fact been empowered by the IEEPA. 

The IEEPA granted the President power to “regulate international commerce” after declaring a “national emergency” in response to “any unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States. As he says, “even though Trump lost, he persuaded seven of the eleven judges that the IEEPA gives presidents tariff authority, to some extent”.

I have excerpted him at length below as he raises some very interesting points about how our constitution has (unfortunately) evolved towards greater executive power. Against this tide, the US Supreme Court has ruled (in favour of strengthening the legislature’s inherent power) by ruling that, in respect of “major questions” of public policy, legislative power cannot be assumed to have been delegated via vague and general language. It needs to be expressly rendered. This was the basis on which the judiciary - correctly, in my view - struck down Biden’s efforts to govern without Congress in the student loan forgiveness case of Biden v Nebraska (2023).

✲✲✲

Trump Is Down, but Not Out, in the Tariffs Court Case
By Andrew C. McCarthy
September 6, 2025 6:30 AM

This is not a constitutional law case; it is a statutory interpretation case. It is not about delegation; it is about what is meant by Congress’s grant in the IEEPA of presidential authority to “regulate” imports — i.e., are tariffs encompassed within regulatory power? (in other words, we just have to accept that Congress has empowered the President - the question is to what extent). We must stop focusing on delegation. That ship has sailed. Let’s just stipulate that we conservatives would like to pare back Congress’s penchants to delegate its powers and to prescribe vaguely defined “emergencies” as a pretext enabling presidents and executive agencies to legislate (a joke) ...

Fretting over delegation will cause you to miss one of the best arguments against the tariffs ... Remember, in the IEEPA, neither the word tariff nor any of its close analogues (e.g. duty, surcharge, or tax) appears. Sure, maybe Congress should never have delegated tariff authority in any statute; but the statutes in which it has done so powerfully illustrate that, when Congress truly intends to delegate tariff authority, it requires the executive to jump through many procedural hoops, and it restricts the amount of exaction the executive may prescribe, as well as its duration ... That’s a strong argument against the tariffs, especially when conjoined with two other points (lack of conditions and oversight by the legislators). First, in the IEEPA’s near half-century on the books, no president prior to Trump had invoked it as a rationale for imposing tariffs. Second, in enumerating Congress’s powers, Article I of the Constitution separately confers the powers (a) “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and (b) “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”; if the Framers had intended the power to tax (including to impose tariffs) to be subsumed by the power to regulate foreign commerce, there would have been no need to have discrete provisions (an interesting point that goes to regulating being separate conceptually from taxing).

The tariffs were challenged in Yoshida International v. United States (in the Nixon era) ... Just as in the Trump tariffs case, the lower court ruled against the president, concluding that the TWEA’s authority to regulate did not include the power to impose tariffs. On appeal, however, the CCPA reversed, reasoning that the word “regulate” encompassed tariffs that were “appropriately and reasonably related . . . to the particular nature of the emergency declared.” ... These judges thus rejected Trump’s tariffs only because they were not as deliberative and reasonable as Nixon’s. By contrast, the four dissenting justices would have gone all the way with Trump — deferring to a president’s foreign policy and national security judgments — a position Yoshida plainly supports. (This shows that the courts (incl. liberal judges) have been minded to agree with Trump on the history/scope of the power).

Why the Nixon Precedent Is Inapposite ... one of the salient purposes of the IEEPA — in conjunction with another post-Watergate statute, the 1976 National Emergencies Act — was to curtail the president’s ability to usurp legislative authority by the facile declaration of emergencies. Over time, ironically, the statutes seem to have had the opposite effect ...

For originalists, that should be the end of the case. Nevertheless, because the non-political branch is self-aware that national security or foreign policy are political matters that lie outside the judicial ken, there is a tendency to defer to the president in cases touching on such matters. Perhaps that makes sense when a private litigant, particularly a non-American, is challenging a president’s actions on the world stage, or when national security risks are palpable. But deference to the president is inappropriate in a case that turns on the separation of powers between the political branches. In that situation, any deference to the president could only come at Congress’s expense. (Good argument here, that the scope of the power is abridged by the separation of powers considerations - but I don’t think the courts are that concerned about Congress’ powers). The Framers gave Congress, not the president, the power to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs on imports. If anything, then, there should be a presumption against presidential action absent an unambiguous congressional grant of authority ...

Second, it is worth revisiting Biden v. Nebraska (2023), in which the Court rejected the last administration’s attempt to massively cancel student loans. I invite your attention, in particular, to Justice Elena Kagan’s spirited dissent. She berated her conservative colleagues over what she portrayed as their textualist pretensions. The statute at issue (the so-called HEROES Act) empowered the executive branch (the secretary of Education) to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision” and to replace old loan agreements with new “terms and conditions.” For Kagan, the plain reading of the text — i.e., giving the words their most commonly understood meaning — easily embraced cancelation (indeed, she faulted the majority for overhyping the word modify in isolation, decoupling it from waive, which is undeniably close to cancel). Further, she scolded her conservative colleagues for resorting to the “major questions” doctrine — the concept that Congress must be especially clear if it intends to empower the executive power to take actions that have vast economic or political significance. In Kagan’s telling, this is just an artifice by which self-proclaimed textualists evade text when they don’t like the result it portends. (This contention prompted a thoughtful response from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who concurred in the ruling against Biden’s loan cancellations. Barrett countered that the major questions doctrine is a valuable tool for illuminating the context of the statute, not for nullifying its text.) Intriguingly, the Federal Circuit’s majority opinion against Trump’s tariffs relies heavily on the major questions doctrine. (I think Justice Elena Kagan is trapped and exemplifies the flaw of contextualism. She excoriated her judicial colleagues against adopting the “major questions” doctrine when it came to Biden’s desire to override an inherently Congressional power. How does she push back against Trump? Her school of thought is purposive interpretation. I.e. we should interpret the text in light of the context for which it was written (national emergency) and to achieve its stated purpose (regulate international commerce)).

Of course, the tariffs case is different from the loan forgiveness case because the contested statutory word in the former, regulate, has constitutional pedigree (as we’ve seen, Article I does not subsume the power to impose tariffs in the power to regulate foreign commerce). Even with that said, her Biden v. Nebraska dissent makes it hard for me to foresee Justice Kagan voting against the Trump tariffs, and she is one of the most influential justices on the Court. Consider that in conjunction with the number of Democratic-appointed judges who have signaled sympathy for the premise that the IEEPA empowers a president to impose tariffs. Doing so convinces me that many progressives like the idea of a future Democratic president unilaterally imposing tariffs in an effort to manage the economy — even if they have to let Trump wield that power for the next three years. (I think so too - that ship has sailed already).

Whalers by J.M.W. Turner (1845)

Beautiful.

I came across this sublime painting at the Tate recently.

This painting is typical of Turner’s atmospheric style characteristic of his later years (died in 1851).

According to the Tate:

This painting shows the violence and danger of a whale hunt. Turner uses an arc of white paint and downwards strokes of grey – a flurry of rain and wind – to draw attention to a whaler dressed in white. He draws back a lance, aiming for a bleeding whale. Turner had read about whaling in Thomas Beale’s Natural History of the Sperm Whale (1839). Describing a hunt in Japanese waters, Beale talked of the whale as ‘a victim to the tyranny and selfishness’ but also the ‘great power’ of man. Turner was no doubt drawn to this tension – between the idea of whalers as heroes and murderers.

Interesting that you can barely make out the whale’s emergent head (adding to the unease?) ... and the whaling ship appears ghostly in the background.

I love the power & energy of Turner’s atmospheres - the terrifying ocean depths and man’s inherent vulnerability. A great contrast between the modesty and the cruelty of man.

Boy Bringing Bread by Pieter de Hooch (1663)

Wonderful.

Pieter de Hooch moved from Delft to Amsterdam around 1660-61, so this masterpieces is from the outset of his Amsterdam period (so, still Delft-influenced).

It’s the classic theme of Dutch virtue in genre paintings - a polite/industrious boy, with a basket of bread, offering some to a respectable lady standing in the doorway of her perfect & orderly home.

As always with de Hooch, a technical tour de force.

 

Beautiful way the light & shadow interact with both people.

Skirt’s red-orange silky vividness greatly contrasts with her black velvet jacket.

   

The doorkijkje technique of nested spaces that draw the viewer deeper into the painting.

A distant female figure - perhaps the boy’s mother?

Incredible window, with the stained glass windows and the yellow curtains filtering the light softly.

The BBC Bias Dossier - It Can No Longer Be Trusted

The Telegraph has just got a major scoop from a whistleblower about the rot at the BBC. 

It is a private internal dossier (made public) on the corporation’s blatant biases which then, even worse, after having made serious journalistic errors, BBC executives opted to hide them from the public rather than correct the record.

This is huge news. 

I’m going to comment on the three aspects in the reports.

✲✲✲

Dishonest editing of President Trump

Being biased is one thing - but deliberately distorting and lying is quite another. 

The internal memo on the BBC’s Panorama programme about Donald Trump is utterly damning. The BBC had artificially spliced together two v. different and unrelated sections of video to create an impression that President D. Trump had said something he did not actually say. The BBC wanted audiences to get an impression that the former President expressly incited the Jan-6 riots. Not true.

In America, the best example of an organisation crossing-the-line was CBS, last year. It surreptitiously & selectively edited their much-vaunted “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris. She gave a ridiculously meandering “word salad” answer on the subject of Israel. And so, the network distorted and edited it to create an alternative version in which she looked “better”. It gave an impression that she rendered a more “succinct” answer (as opposed to a kindergartener fumbling to find words). I think Mr Trump was right that these were covert attempts - by the quondam “reputable” establishment - to sway the presidential election in their preferred way. 

Some people hate Donald Trump so much that they’re prepared to accept a major broadcaster breaking its own rules of impartiality merely to read negative news on Trump - I don’t accept this compromise at all.

✲✲✲

Trans ideological capture

The memo accuses the BBC of “effective censorship” of its coverage of the transgender debate.

This is completely true. 

The BBC has been completely and ideologically captured by the “progressives” in the trans debate.

E.g. JK Rowling recently attacked BBC gender identity “ideology” after the BBC used the word “she” to describe a male neo-Nazi who was jailed for incitement of hatred in Germany after switching genders through a simple declaration. The BBC’s use of language couldn’t be clearer. It’s a rolling back on the rights of actual women and spreading of misinformation about reality.

Then, there’s Dame Jenni Murray. Host of BBC Radio 4’s show “Woman’s Hour” (a joke, right!!). She says she was “banned” from discussing her TERF views for fear of a backlash at the organisation. Why can’t a decent & honourable lady, like her, express reasonable views in the organisation? Why.

Or, as Suzanne Moore has pointed out (“The BBC is spouting gender nonsense again with its new trans drama. When will it learn?”, Telegraph), a new BBC drama What It Feels Like for a Girl is based on a 15-year-old boy’s transgendered memoirs. Yes, an adult man is supposed to tell us all what it feels like to be a girl.

✲✲✲

Pro-Hamas bias

This is the worst part of the BBC.

I’ve been cataloguing the BBC’s failures for some time. It’s not just that they make mistakes - it is, as the memo reveals, they consistently take a pro-Hamas slant in their reportage (particularly the BBC Arabic service which is basically a toilet, at this point).

First, the BBC didn’t, and probably still doesn’t, wish to call Hamas “terrorists”, esp. after Oct-7. From the point of view of the BBC, they don’t think it’s their function to demarcate the bad guys from the good guys. I don’t have the words for this dereliction. It strikes me as total insanity. How can you equivocate on using the correct moral language to describe an event/phenomena? Then, as an example of bias, the rush to blame Israel for negative things even before the facts arrive (same blog: in the context of the Al-Ahli Hospital).

Then, there’s the tendency on the BBC (and especially Channel 4) to dispatch a reporter to discuss a bomb site in Gaza to report on the tragedies of that day, without ever correspondingly addressing what Israel had to respond to. The net effect is that viewers get only the half story. Israel made to appear to kill for the heck of it.

There are plenty of other things - like allowing the son of a Hamas official to narrate a documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone for the BBC. That’s basically terrorist propaganda on the waves of the UK’s major broadcaster! Hamas, and their civilian sympathisers, have been playing the media for decades. Channel 4 eventually bought the rights and broadcasted this garbage.

Well ... in breaking this news, Mr Gordon Rayner writes in “BBC’s bias ‘pushed Hamas lies around the world’” (Telegraph, Nov 2025):

The BBC’s Arabic news service chose to “minimise Israeli suffering” in the war in Gaza so it could “paint Israel as the aggressor”, according to an internal report by a whistleblower. Allegations made against Israel were “raced to air” without adequate checks, the memo says, suggesting either carelessness or “a desire always to believe the worst about Israel”.

BBC Arabic, which is funded partly by a grant from the Foreign Office, gave large amounts of space to statements from Hamas, making its editorial slant “considerably different” to the main BBC website even though it is supposed to reflect the same values, managers were warned.

The BBC also gave “unjustifiable weight” to Hamas claims about the death toll in Gaza, which are widely accepted to have been exaggerated for propaganda purposes, and incorrectly claimed the International Court of Justice had ruled that genocide was taking place.

An aspect which I found v. interesting in Mr Rayner’s report is the BBC’s prevarication over their dishonesty with regards to the much-repeated genocide claim against Israel:

The BBC repeatedly reported that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had ruled in January 2024 that there was a “plausible case of genocide” in Gaza.

It was mentioned by Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s International Editor, among others, and on Newsnight and various television and radio reports.

Joan Donoghue, the former ICJ president, told the BBC’s HardTalk programme that the media had widely misinterpreted its findings and it was not correct to say the ICJ had found a plausible case of genocide.

An internal BBC review into the matter found that the ICJ’s ruling “is very clear and explicitly states that the court is not making any determination on the merits” of claims of genocide, but only on whether what was being alleged was covered by the genocide convention.

Mr Prescott said in his letter: “The ICJ report runs to just 26 pages and is written in non-technical language. Had no BBC reporter troubled themselves to read it?”

It took months for the BBC to issue a clarification.

Mr Prescott wrote: “The BBC is prone to downplaying criticism by saying it receives similar numbers of complaints from both sides. Looking at the evidence set out above, it seems very hard for any pro-Palestinian observers to make a compelling case that the BBC has a pro-Israel bias.”

Here is a video of Mr Rayner on the pro-Hamas bias.

The Balfour Declaration is a Milestone of Moral Clarity

The Balfour Declaration is celebrating its centenary. 

It’s a short letter from the British Foreign Secretary to Lord Rothschild, leader of the British Jewish community, dated November 2, 1917. 

The full key sentence says:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

✲✲✲

The Balfour Declaration represented, not just a diplomatic statement, but the moral recognition that the Jewish people - long persecuted, displaced and/or impoverished - had the right to safety in the restoration of their homeland. 

More than a mere political document, it carried deep symbolic weight. It affirmed that a people without a state could still claim a history, an identity, and a belonging. Since this recognition was granted from one of the world’s great powers, it endowed that promise with legitimacy and hope - suggesting that safety and justice was not beyond reach.

It is a testament to humanity’s nobler instincts in the age of our history often degraded by its cruelties.

At a time when antisemitism was open, casual and systemic - from the pogroms of Eastern Europe to the prejudices of Western capitals (e.g. mob violence, the Dreyfus affair etc.) - it was a rare spark of moral courage. In hindsight, it shines all the brighter against the tragedies that have ensued, as hatred and denial continue to target the Jewish story.

The standard rebuttal against the Declaration is that it disregarded the Palestinian aspirations of independence. But, it’s important to note that the Declaration expressly recognised the need for a homeland without detracting from the civil rights of Arabs already living there. The Peel Commission ended-up recommending that the Arabs receive 77% of what was said to have been the “Jewish homeland in Palestine” promised in the Balfour Declaration. If anything, the Jews got shafted. So, it’s completely untrue to argue that the Arabs were disregarded.

The Declaration is not a relic of a empire, but a declaration of principle - even in darkness, safety and justice can still have a voice.

The troubles that Israel has endured since are because of Arab rejectionism, and not at all due to the Balfour Declaration. I think that might be my next post.

The Haredi community and Israel’s defence

This is a thorne for Israel, and I’m not sure I know what the answer is.

On the one hand, I can understand the moral resentment by the serving soldiers (and their families), especially those that have lost their loved ones in the war. The IDF is the backbone of Israel’s continuing survival. And while Israel should respect religious identity, so it should  respect defending the land that guarantees the study of the Torah. Zionism preserves Judaism.

On the other hand, I see young men that simply want to live a humble life studying the Talmud. Additionally, the Haredi community seem to live in a bubble, from what I can see in London. That’s how they developed in Eastern Europe centuries ago. The IDF is a secular institution, and the Haredi are the complete opposite. I don’t think they can cope. It’s not cowardice or disloyalty to Israel as much as their belief in their lifestyle.

It’s also not just Torah study per se. I understand that it’s the Torah lifestyle they wish to preserve which guarantees Jewish survival. Otherwise, generations down the line, Jewish continuity may be impaired by secularism.

What do you all think?

“Colour and Illusion”: The Rembrandt-Hoogstraten Exhibition - Part 2

Note: This is a continuation of my write-up of the Rembrandt & Hoogstraten exhibition that I visited earlier this year. Part 1 can be read on Rembrandt-Hoogstraten: Colour and Illusion. Unfortunately, I forgot to finish this write-up.

✲✲✲

Room 3 - Emulation and eclecticism

This part of the exhibition focuses on the theme of emulation. 

The two artists collaborated in Rembrandt’s studio, and obviously came to dominated the market for portraits in Amsterdam for his use of light and his illusionistic styles. 

The exhibition explains that Van Hoogstraten adapted and became an eclectic artist whose works covered a broad range painting styles - from Pieter de Hooch and Gerard ter Borch, to Anthony van Dyck.

This part of the exhibition was excellently curated.

✲✲✲

Still Life with Two Dead Peacocks and a Girl by Rembrandt (1636)

Rembrandt rarely painted still lifes. 

Two dead peacocks next to a girl. She is looking out of a dark window at the colourful feathers of the hanging bird. A pool of blood forming under the body of the left peacock on the left.

Bird’s head, with impressive shadow, protruding beyond the boundaries of the pictorial space.

✲✲✲

Still Life with a Dead Cockerel and a Cat by Van Hoogstraten (1669)

Stunning.

Exhibition suggesting this might be a response to Rembrandt’s Still Life with Two Dead Peacocks (above).

Unlike Rembrandt’s painting, Van Hoogstraten’s features a cat - and not a girl - gazing at the viewer.

✲✲✲

Man in Oriental Costume by Rembrandt (1632)

This painting was popular theme for Rembrandt (known as tronies which means “head, face, or grimace”) and often depicted anonymous people with interesting facial features or costumes rather than a formal portrait.

This is the Alte Pinakothek version.

The man in a turban and rich clothing is consistent with Rembrandt’s interest in “Oriental” style, exoticism and trade.

✲✲✲

The Prophetess Anna by Rembrandt (1635)

Love it.

This is Rembrandt’s mother. 💕

According to the Bible, the Prophetess Anna recognises that the infant Jesus in the temple is the Redeemer. 

The way the light falls on her face highlights her realisation.

Portrayed with quiet dignity and quiet resilience. 

The model for this paintings was probably his mother, Neeltgen Willemsdr. van Zuytbrouck.

Reddened eyes and slightly opened mouth draw our attention.

✲✲✲

Titus van Rijn, the Artist’s Son, Reading by Rembrandt (1658)

Affectionate.

This picture depicts the love of a father.

Titus van Rijn was Rembrandt’s only surviving son from the marriage to his first beloved, Saskia van Uylenburgh. He is a recurring subject to Rembrandt.

Here, Rembrandt captures his son - probably a teenager - absorbed in his readings. His soft chiaroscuro illuminates Titus’s face giving him a focused expression.

This was painted during the time of Rembrandt’s 1656 bankruptcy which was a financially and emotionally devastating event for the artist.

✲✲✲

View of the North Transept of Westminster Abbey in London by Van Hoogstraten (1662-67)

A monumental painting of the interior of Westminster Abbey from Van Hoogstraten’s time in London.

He combines different genres into a single architectural focus and perspective.

✲✲✲

Inner Courtyard of the Vienna Hofburg in a Feigned Picture Frame by Van Hoogstraten (1652)

A trompe-l’oeil painting.

Van Hoogstraten blurs the line between the painted world and the viewer’s reality with a feigned frame.

✲✲✲

The Slippers by Van Hoogstraten (1658)

Outstanding. 

This was, apparently, once confused with a Pieter de Hooch.

A masterful doorkijkje (vista) of a Dutch interior.

A mysterious scene devoid of human figures - with slippers in the middle of the floor & a broom leaning against a wall - in which the viewer is trying to piece together what has taken place. 

In Dutch 17th-century art, discarded slippers were an erotic/amorous symbol, and so are keys (which are very conspicuously dangling). As Louvre DNP says:

Despite the absence of figures in this peaceful interior, a human - specifically female - presence is skillfully suggested by several details such as the typical 17th-century Dutch slippers that have been carelessly removed and left in the hallway, and the book that lies open on the table.

As the eye moves from one room to the next, it encounters a number of objects of varying significance, from the broom that leans against the wall to the painting in the background. The longer the viewer looks, the more he is drawn into this scene with its aura of mystery.

It’s also a nod to Gerard ter Borch’s painting, The Gallant Conversation, which is depicted on the wall of the back room. One of themes of that painting is courtship. This is the painting:

✲✲✲

The Portrait of Joris de Caullery by Rembrandt (1632)

This painting comes from San Francisco.

Rembrandt was 26 years old when he painted this portrait (same year as Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp).

He had moved from Leiden to Amsterdam and was establishing his reputation as the finest portraitist. This was an age when portraits were no longer the preserve of the Royalty and Popes etc.

According to the San Francisco museum:

Joris de Caullery was serving as an officer in the city’s guard of armed infantrymen when he posed for Rembrandt. At the outset of his career in Amsterdam, the young artist met De Caullery while working on commissions from the Dutch chief magistrate’s court in The Hague.

Rembrandt captures the officer’s energy - the direct gaze, left hand confidently on hip, and casually gripping a musket. His signature chiaroscuro across the face gives a his face a vivid & fleshy quality, and a rather reddy nose. The self-assured pose of his subject.

✲✲✲

Portrait of a Woman by Rembrandt and workshop (1632)

See below

✲✲✲

Portrait of a Man by Rembrandt  (1632)

Very engaging expressions.

These two portraits are said to be pendant portraits - husband & wife.

The identity of the sitters is not known, easily the upper bourgeoisie.

The man is easily Rembrandt, but apropos the woman’s portrait:

The somewhat stiff and passive posture of the woman led the researchers involved in the Rembrandt Research Project to determine that this portrait was not an autograph work (by his own hand). Ferdinand Bol, who, however, only began working in Rembrandt’s studio after 1635, was proposed as the artist.

✲✲✲

Portrait of Sir Norton Knatchbull by Samuel van Hoogstraten (1667)

Excellent.

Sir Norton Knatchbull has an interesting biography as a biblical scholar and politician who sat in the House of Commons.

Recently sold to The Dodrechts Museum, it “makes clear the portrait painted in 1667 in London takes inspiration from both Van Dyck and Rembrandt (van Hoogstraten’s teacher)”. 

Thus, the detailed & character-filled realism of Rembrandt and the grand full-length manner of the English portraits style, of Sir Anthony van Dyck.

Knatchbull’s presence is both convincing and commanding.

✲✲✲

Portrait of the Preacher Eleazar Swalmius by Rembrandt (1637)

The preacher depicted was a minister for the Dutch Reformed Church in Amsterdam.

Swalmius’s portrait is beautiful. 

He has a kindly face with a warmth. The mastery of chiaroscuro means the preacher’s face and white ruff stand out from the darker background.

Rembrandt masterfully depicts the psychological hallmarks of his sitter.

Jew-haters and the Conservative Movement

Around Halloween, appropriately, the online algorithms furnished an interview between Tucker Carlson & Nick Fuentes.

I watched it.

It’s one of the most disturbing things I’d seen in a very long time.

I was shocked by Fuentes’ shameless effrontery: he doesn’t even pretend to camouflage his insane views, including on the subject of women.

It was frightening when Tucker didn’t push back against Fuentes’ assertion that organised Jewry in America is a challenge to America’s problems and that Jews can’t be assimilated. The inference is that Jews have no place in America! 

These online discussions may appear as the odd irritation but, as the recent National Review editorial (“A Time for Choosing on Antisemitism”) points out, it may be an attempt to reshape the discussions in the Republican party post-Trump.

✲✲✲

I think lot of conservatives tend to follow the “no enemies on the right” line. As strategically defensible as it may be, antisemitism is nature’s way of telling us that the holder of those views has an empty mind and a nasty heart.

Of all the brilliant minds Tucker could pick, he chooses some YouTuber/influencer whose sole contribution to conservatism is rehabilitating the worst despots of the 20th century and, all-the-while, blaming Jews for our problems.

I’m all for debate and discussion and I don’t believe in no-platforming people, but when you give such a clown softball-questions in an interview (while conducting such a nasty & argumentative interview with Ted Cruz earlier this year over Israel) - then your bias is fairly plain to see.

Almost seventy years ago, one of my heros, William F. Buckley Jr. expelled the Jew haters and the Birchers from the American conservative movement. 

Buckley was an intellectual and a deep thinker. And sorely needed today. 

Fuentes is a virus and Carlson is the carrier.

I also think JD Vance may be more sympathetic to Tucker than the National Review editors appreciate. As such, for me, I would prefer Marco Rubio getting the Trump endorsement in 2028.

✲✲✲

A Time for Choosing on Antisemitism
By The Editors
October 30, 2025 6:30 AM

Tucker Carlson, knee-deep already, has taken another step into the muck with a friendly interview with Nick Fuentes.

The issue isn’t merely that Carlson “platformed” a white-nationalist influencer.

This framing allows Carlson and his defenders to portray the interview and others like it as an effort at open debate, as a good-faith attempt at engagement with alternative views.

The deeper problem is that Carlson didn’t actually challenge any of Fuentes’s noxious views that he has spelled out quite clearly over the years. Fuentes has engaged in Holocaust denial, called Adolf Hitler “really f***ing cool,” and said that if his movement gained power, it would execute “perfidious Jews.”

Carlson didn’t even need to go back through old clips to find objectionable statements. In his appearance, Fuentes stated that the “big challenge” to unifying the country against tribal interests was “organized Jewry in America,” and he expressed admiration for Soviet butcher Joseph Stalin. He did not receive any pushback from Carlson.

It also can’t be said that Carlson’s interviewing style is simply to let his guests speak. In June, Carlson held a combative interview with Senator Ted Cruz that descended into an extended shouting match. Why would Carlson choose to take an oppositional tack to a senator who has been fighting for conservatism for decades, but not to a podcaster who praises Stalin? The obvious answer is that Fuentes is an avowed Jew-hater while Cruz is a staunch supporter of Israel.

Carlson stated during his interview that he thinks Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and other figures who are Christian and support Israel have been infected by a “brain virus.” About these “Christian Zionists,” he said: “I dislike them more than anybody. Because it’s Christian heresy, and I’m offended by that as a Christian.”

It would be easy to dismiss Carlson, and his now-extensive history of promoting antisemitism, as the handiwork of another personality desperate for attention in the online economy. But Carlson is one of the nation’s most prominent and influential commentators. After the death of Charlie Kirk, Carlson has become a leading speaker for the organization that Kirk founded, Turning Point USA. When Vice President JD Vance subbed in as a host on Kirk’s podcast after the assassination, Carlson was his guest.

Carlson’s sway, though, is currently limited by the fact that President Trump — who happens to like Jews and who has been the strongest supporter of Israel of any U.S. president in history — is in charge of the Republican Party and ultimately defines MAGA.

In June, Trump ignored Carlson and joined Israel’s effort to take out Iran’s nuclear program, which was successful in neutralizing a threat that had been looming over the Middle East for decades without any U.S. casualties. Carlson had predicted that it would trigger World War III and that it could kill thousands of Americans within a week. Trump dismissed him as “kooky Tucker Carlson.”

Trump won’t be around forever, though. Which is one reason that Carlson, Fuentes, Candace Owens, and other online influencers are pushing so hard to try and remake the Republican Party and the conservative movement into one that is hostile toward Israel and the Jewish people.

The idea that it should be seen as the America First position to oppose Israel and American Jewry is not only a moral abomination; it makes no sense. Israel is a technologically innovative, staunchly pro-American nation in the heart of a strategically important region. Over the past several years, with U.S. support, Israeli actions have weakened the anti-American terrorist group the Houthis; neutered Hezbollah (the terrorist group that slaughtered 241 U.S. servicemembers in the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing); and crippled the nuclear program of a nation that has for decades vowed “Death to America.” It isn’t pro-Israel protesters in the U.S. who are burning American flags and calling for the “total eradication of Western civilization” — it is the so-called pro-Palestine movement. It wasn’t Israelis who handed out candy to celebrate the September 11 attacks — that was Palestinians.

George Washington, in a famous letter to a Jewish congregation in Newport, R.I., in 1790, wrote, “May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants.” American Jews have enjoyed more security and freedom here than at any place in world history and rewarded that welcome by making positive contributions to the nation in just about every field imaginable. A version of America that is no longer safe for Jews to live in securely, and that is overtaken by anti-Israel zealots, is not an America that any conservative should want to live in.

The Wheelbarrow, Orchard by Camille Pissarro (1881)

I saw this painting in Paris.

I really love Pissarro’s rural landscapes - serene, evoking the simple pleasures of life.

Camille Pissarro was a socialist, so he often depicted the workers with a heroic and dignified bearing.

✲✲✲

 

The daubing with a vibrant palette to capture the shimmering sunlight, and the dappled patterns of light and shadow on the grass.

Halloween and the burying of the dead

 

This is the cartoon at the Telegraph today.

The Prime Minister on the verge of announcing that they’ll be breaking the 2024 election manifesto.

They made a huge fuss - during the election - of insisting they won’t raise taxes on “working people”.

But ... as we all know ... socialists love raising taxes, and spending more of our own money for us.

😅

A Poulterer’s Shop by Gerrit Dou (1670)

It’s hard not to love these little Dutch so-called “niche paintings” (an interior seen through a window).

This particular little painting is one of Gerrit Dou’s masterpieces at the NG.

He was a student in Rembrandt’s studio and obviously perfected his skills there (esp. chiaroscuro).

It’s a wonderful idealised snapshot of everyday Dutch life from centuries ago. A young lady at the entrance of a poulterer’s shop, negotiating with the shopkeeper. The lady gestures towards a hare being held up, as duck and other game birds sit on the windowsill.

Incredible skill in depicting textures and the way light falls on different surfaces.

✲✲✲

 

Leader of the fijnschilder movement, Dou captures different textures with meticulous detail and precision. Such as the softness of the birds’ feathers, the smooth, cold stone of the window, peacock’s beautiful fibrous feathers fibers. 

Also, why did Dou depict children playing with a goat as a carved decorative detail on the stone’s bas-relief? Why include that detail - narrative? symbolism? Perhaps a commentary on the relationship between humans and animals? Perhaps the usual erotic subtext of the Dutch paintings? 

William Shakespeare in the gardens of Leicester Square - “There Is No Darkness but Ignorance”

I took this photo recently.

Statue of William Shakespeare, by the sculptor Giovanni Fontana.

Shakespeare points to the words “There Is No Darkness but Ignorance”.