Since I'm in the Daily Mail this morning I suppose I'd better mention the story here.
The Mail picked up on some tweets I wrote on Thursday evening during BBC 2's Newsnight. My point was a simple one: Newsnight was taking about tax avoidance They were using a methodology I had developed to explore the issue and on Wednesday they had called me to ask me to suggest someone who could be on the programme to make the case for those criticising tax avoiding companies. There was just one proviso: that someone had to be female and could not, therefore, be me.
When I asked why I was told it was because Bill Dodwell of Deloitte was to present the case for tax avoidance and so anyone opposing had to be female. I made the, I think, reasonable point that given that they were using my methodology to do their work and given that I have probably written more on this issue than just about anyone that seemed rather odd, especially as (and this is true) the tax justice movement does not have that many people working for it in the UK, and had no women who had worked nearly as much as me on this particular issue. Couldn't they just swap Bill Dodwell for any number of women (I made the case for several) on the other side of the debate who could do the job equally as well as Bill, I asked, thereby creating gender balance that way?
Apparently it was impossible to change Bill Dodwell. It's intriguing to know why that was so.
I'm aware the BBC then rang other people asking for suggestions - all of whom I know suggested me to be told it had to be a woman. By the time they reached John Christensen at TJN the request was not just for a woman, but a young woman.
Now, in the end Ellie Mae O'Hagan did the job - and as I tweeted on the evening, made a good job of it. She's got a strong record as a campaigner and she's a good journalist. But she did have to, and I'm grateful to her for it, basically quite a lot of my work to make her argument. In addition, she rather wisely, made her role a commentary one. She did not, as I admit I would have done, challenge David Gauke's inappropriate comments on methodology. Nor did she chalenge Bill Dodwell on transfer pricing and nor did she say that there are alternatives to the current system that could replace the absolutely ridiculous system we have. I don't blame her for any of that: she stuck to a story and came over credibly, but I think she'd agree, she's not a tax expert, although she is an expert campaigner.
And that's what annoyed me. I felt that the BBC quite blatantly discriminated against me on the grounds of gender. If a young woman had not been allowed on for the same reason when she was more expert than a middle aged man I would have been very annoyed, and rightly so. I could see no reason why I should not be annoyed in return.
Mind you, I had no idea when tweeting that the Mail would pick it up.
And I do think that some of the comments attributed to me in the Mail are out of context of a conversation at 11.30pm on Thursday evening. It sounds as though I said, for example, that Ellie Mae was just "quite good" when I know contextually it was much more enthusiastic than that, and the claim that I was the only person doing this work was also heavily contextualised with regard to the methodology used, and this particular line of story, which I first developed when working on Microsoft in 2005 and Google in 2008. It is of course not true that I am the only person working on tax justice or tax gap issues. That though is the risk of talking to the press.
Still, let's get back to the main point which is a simple one: if the BBC is to fulfil its mandate then it has to offer debate between people best able to offer opinion. Worrying about their gender and age should not be a major criteria in that, unless there are people of equal qualification, when I'd entirely agree gender balance might then be a reason for selection, and appropriately so. But they refused that with regard to the other side of the debate. Why did it have to apply to one side only? That's the question that needs an answer.
PS: The BBC never told me David Gauke was on the show. If they had I would, of course, have suggested Catherine McKinnell MP to oppose him - his Labour opposite number: younger than me, female, master of her brief and well able to take him on. Again, the question has to be asked, why wasn't she invited?
The feeling that this was rigged to give Gauke and Dodwell and easy ride is very strong.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Here’s my conspiracy theory…. They were happier to lose you rather than Bill Dodwell because they wanted David Gauke to appear on the show and guessed he might not agree to face you.
Just an unfounded guess.
I’d put money on that. Gauke wouldn’t want Richard anywhere around him and the Beeb were eager to oblige. I watched last Wednesday’s Public Accounts Committee hearing where the Committee took evidence from the Comptroller and Auditor General of the NAO over his refusal to show the Committee the report of Sir Andrew Park over HMRC’s sweetheart deals. The Govt sent a lawyer to support the C&AG’s decision to withhold the report and for the first time in this Parliament the Committee was divided along party lines with Margaret Hodge and the Labour members laying into the C&AG while the Tory and LibDems defended him. So the govt are clearly out to stem the damage caused by public outcry over tax avoidance and Gauke has been sent out to do the job and he knows the best way to do it is to exclude Richard.
I’ve disagreed with you on here a few times and got some quite sharp comments in reply. On this point you are absolutely right and the BBC owe you, and the rest of us, a proper explanation and, failing that, an apology.
Bang on! I was so underwhelmed by the line up on Newsnight [or rather the part of the line up that mattered] that I just felt bemused that Newsnight had run a decent story [investigation] and then presented a rather anodyne discussion afterwards where Gauke and the Deloitte man must have felt they got a very comfortable ride and Newsnight viewers unfamiliar to the debate would have wondered what all the fuss was about. Ellie Mae O’Hagan was not up to speed and having not heard of her I wondered why the Newsnight team had selected her. Now I know! The most riling part of the exchange for me though didn’t involve Gauke but the Deloitte man who had the chutzpah to claim that UK companies did actually observe the ‘spirit of the law’ rather than just the letter and this went unopposed whereas he should have been made to look embarrassed by that laughable assertion. That he wasn’t left me deflated, frustrated and bemused by Newsnight’s ‘apparent’ inability to do justice to an issue they themselves had sought to highlight. Shame.
Not the first time the BBC have gone into doing this type of thing, makes you wonder who they are really working for, one thing is for sure, its not the great british public.
Here…
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/naming-anna-ardin-on-newsnight/
And here…
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/nafissatou-diallo-and-anna-ardin-why-opposite-bbc-policies/
Why did you try to get Bill Dodwell replaced, instead of telling them they were being stupid? Really, though, if you claim to be of the Left, you have to accept this sort of nonsense – this is political correctness gone mad.
The BBC are basically just a mouthpiece for the tories.
“The BBC are basically just a mouthpiece for the tories.”
When Labour were in power it was said…
“The BBC are basically just a mouthpiece for Labour”
You can’t win!.
It is a misconception that the BBC has ever been one way or the other, it was in its hayday (at best) liberal in outlook. The right wing have nerver liked the BBC because it did try a little to do “truth to power”, the right wing have tried over the years to bring the BBC into their way of thinking, they waited for the opportunity (patience is a virtue), that came with the “Gilligan” affair, the BBC was taken over. But let us face the truth, we are not really talking about the BBC are we, we are talking about the mainstream media as a whole, the right wing own it all.
The explanation is quite simple – large chunks of the BBC are deliberately giving the ConDem Coalition and their allies and supporters an easy ride because, a few months after (not) winning the 2010 election, representatives of the Tory Party went to see the BBC and basically gave them an ultimatum: either bias your reporting in favour of us, or we’ll destroy the BBC. In the event the govt imposed a 16% real terms of cut on the BBC anyway – so it’s just being killed slowly rather than quickly. But large parts of the BBC’s news and current affairs output are just a conduit for government propaganda at the moment.
Newsnight’s argument that they needed a woman to go up against Bill Dodwell doesn’t stack up because, if there were a BBC requirement that all 2-person interviews should include a man and a woman, every time you’ve been on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 they would have had a woman taking the opposing view. Whereas in fact, most times you’ve been on Jeremy Vine, they’ve had another man as the opposition. By the way I should point out that in general I think the Jeremy Vine show has a pretty balanced range of opinions – obviously when the memo went round to toe the govt line Jeremy wasn’t listening – and good for him that he wasn’t!
“a few months after (not) winning the 2010 election, representatives of the Tory Party went to see the BBC and basically gave them an ultimatum: either bias your reporting in favour of us, or we’ll destroy the BBC.”
Do you have absolutely any evidence for this whatsoever?
I think evidence of this will certainly emerge before the next election – possibly as a by-product of the shake-up of the BBC in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.
I’m not sure it was put in those terms, but there was a reasonably well reported story about the Head of the BBC entering Downing Street with documents (visible to the cameras) that said the BBC would report ‘favourably’ on austerity for fear of the country being attacked by the financial markets.
Now, there are two massive issues in that – both related to whether we live in a democracy or not.
Does anyone remember or have a link to that story? I’ve struggled to find it again.
It just gets harder and harder to keep up the defence of the BBC. These days I have to point to what it once was, and speak up in favour of what it could be and should be, but as to what it has become………..
A clear case of discrimination? Surely it falls under the Equalities Act 2010? Get a solicitor on to it. People tend to consider changing their ways when the law gets involved.
Now that would be a waste of time…
Just love that the Mail has a piece criticising the preference in the media of using pretty, young women, whilst down the right hand side of their website is photo after photo of… pretty, young women.
Let’s be clear, the Mail is a ghastly paper
It’s also one that has been good at tackling tax abuse
If I wished to stay clear of papers that were free of hypocrisy I’s stay clear of them all – including the Guardian
Er, not the Morning Star. That’s owned by supporters.
“The dangerous cult of the Guardian”
http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2011-09-28/the-dangerous-cult-of-the-guardian/
It seems someone objects to editorial freedom
I consider myself pretty left wing but have always deeply disliked identity politics. It has often been a conver for reactionary agendas. I agree the BBC feels vulnerable, they are terrified of losing the licence fee, the Jimmy Savile scandal has struck fear into the BBC brass and they are not standing up to government bullying in the public interest in the way they should.
Interesting that they chose to set left leaning campaigners against one another. Clearly many top Beebs have tax avoidance arrangements and they’d like it to stay that way.
“While we working on the documentary he told me that he had become interested in political conspiracies because of his experiences at the BBC and in government. He had been appalled about how the BBC had quashed great stories while he was working as a political journalist. He told me one story that involved a paedophile ring in the British government in the 1980s.”
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19658&hl=
Richard,
This should keep you busy for awhile…
http://www.searchthemoney.com/
Can’t wait for BBC to do live heart surgery on this basis. OK, I know a lady, but she isn’t young and wasn’t around this week. the issue of the BBC being unable to organise a drinks party in a distillery comes to mind.
Identity politics is necessary and in general I do think that it is important to try for more female representation on serious issues. However that does not extend to an automatic insistence on gender balance where the person best placed to address the issue does not happen to fit the policy. That does nobody any favours: not those trying to understand the different points of view; not those trying to promote equity for all groups, either.
I wholeheartedly support all attempts to create gender balance: a hatred in discrimination of all forms drives my work
But I also agree with your sentiments
If I could have offered a suitable candidate meeting the spec I was asked for I would have willingly and happily done so. In other areas I have done so, often
Has anyone thought that all this maybe the start of trying to destroy the BBC ?. I say this as…
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
Franklin D Roosevelt 1882-1945.
I can see why Richard feels so strongly about this. But in my opinion this more (if not entirely) about BBC’s bias against leftwing/anti-Coalition Govt views than a perceived bias against middle aged white men. It is well known that the BBC have not given Richard a fair crack of the whip despite his preeminence position of this subject. Compared to Martin Lewis and his campaign for consumer rights Richard has clearly had a raw deal from the BBC.
But that is because of what he says rather than his he gender. The gender balance issue raised by the BBC is just a pretext to exclude Richard or more precisely to shield Gauke from Richard. As Richard pointed out, it would have been very easy to replace Bill Dodwell with any of the hundreds of women that can speak for the MNCs.
It’s unfortunate that Richard failed to keep the gender issue out of his criticism because that would be why the DM would be interested – White Middle Age Men vs Young Females – and why many in the left found themselves attacking Richard.
This is all very unfortunate but if the bigger issue of BBC’s bias against tax justice is brought to the limelight that will make up for all the recent unpleasantness.
Agreed: I had no idea who the woman who was the main feature of the article was – and the treatment of her was objectionable.
I was also misquoted, as noted. That lead to a wrong impression and Ellie Mae O’Hagan, to whom I have apologised as a result.
I do not think I could have kept the gender issue out of this, but you’re quite right, the DM spin on it was wholly inappropriate. I have to say that on tax the DM have always been reliable when I have spoken to them. On this they were far from that. Lesson learned, and not to be repeated.
In my post above I was referring to the many happenings at the BBC at this moment in time, one more nail in the coffin you might say, what Richard has undergone is painting a picture for me…
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/09/banned-by-the-bbc/
OT, again…
“In the 1950s the Chancellor of the Exchequer Harold Macmillan put the financial benefits of cigarettes over the nation’s health, records show.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7427001.stm
I think that should read…Tory shareholders were making a lot of money out of it!. I wonder if people that now have health problems from smoking could put in a claim against the estate of the late Harold Macmillan and members of his cabinet ?.
Did the BBC actually tell you that Bill Dodwell was presenting the case for “tax avoidance”?
He was presented as the defender of the companies’ position – and since they are tax avoiding, that follows
Like Forlornehope I don’t always agree with you- but it was not right that you did not appear.
You should be given due credit and exposure for your stance on tax avoidance. But I have noticed that over many programmes, and the BBC are not alone, the standard of debate re tax matters is very poor. What is most disconcerting is the lack of knowledge about tax from MPs. Perhaps tax should be on the national educational curriculum? It does not require a left wing view to notice it does underpin all our vital services.
If its any consolation, I for one and I’m sure many others no longer bother watching BBC news for informed debate. I’d rather come here where I feel there is still some integrity.
I have to admit being on C4 news is always better
The BBC have a complaint procedure which is open to viewers if they so wish.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/where-to-complain/
I would agree the BBC looks as though it deliberately stacked the deck (gender issues aside). It should have considered its approach given the many talented experts available within the professional firms.
Is the BBC another captured institution serving itself rather than the public?
Still its only one program they are capable of re-visiting the issues, to redress any un-intended bias.
The BBC license fee is a pretty good example of an efficient tax. Just imagine how the BBC would react if a large number of people were easily able to avoid the license fee and still use the dominant live TV broadcast technology and publicly funded broadcasts? Please note, they don’t seem to mind avoiding tax themselves.
People defend or attack the BBC depending upon who/what they report.
The right-wing attack it because of its perceived left-wing bias, while the left-wing attack it because of its right-wing bias !
Then both attack it when it shows no bias.
Note that the attacks on the BBC over the paedo-gate story have declined somewhat since the welsh care-homes and important people came on the horizon….mainly right-of-centre important people it would seem.
My personal view is that they are on a hiding to nothing, since whatever they do is wrong depending upon the viewpoint of the attacker (which includes doing nothing)
It is very hard, if not impossible, to get away from all the hidden agendas here.
I note that a certain Mr Obama has been re-elected again, decisively (303/206)….