OFCOM’s response to complaints about remarks from BBC’s Tim Willcox

Less than a month has gone by since British government ministers vowed to do more to combat antisemitism in the UK following the Paris terror attacks.Theresa May

“The UK must redouble its efforts to “wipe out anti-Semitism”, Home Secretary Theresa May has said. […]

“I never thought I would see the day when members of the Jewish community in the United Kingdom would say they were fearful of remaining here in the United Kingdom.”

“And that means we must all redouble our efforts to wipe out anti-Semitism here in the United Kingdom,” she said. […]

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said that education was the way to tackle anti-Semitism.”

One of the places where such education is apparently lacking is the partially government-funded communications regulator Ofcom which recently addressed complaints concerning remarks made by the BBC’s Tim Willcox during coverage of the march held in Paris on January 11th.

In its initial response:

“The broadcasting watchdog ruled that the comments was “justified by the context in which they were presented.” “

Subsequently, Ofcom issued further clarification:

“…in a new statement issued a day later, Ofcom said it had “carefully assessed complaints about alleged antisemitic comments” and “decided not to take the issue forward for further investigation.”

It explained: “While the comments clearly had the potential to cause offence, Ofcom considered a range of factors, including the live nature of this coverage and the need for an appropriate degree of freedom of expression, especially in news coverage of such a significant event.” “

Clearly Ofcom is neither familiar with accepted definitions of antisemitism nor appreciative of the consequences of the propagation of pernicious antisemitic tropes beyond “the potential to cause offence”.

Common sense would suggest that Mr Pickles and his colleagues might find it effective to begin their education drive by remedying the ignorance obviously prevalent among the people responsible for regulation of the mass-media in the UK.

5 comments on “OFCOM’s response to complaints about remarks from BBC’s Tim Willcox

  1. This further proves that the British obsession with demonizing Israel is not confined to purveyors of media.

  2. Duvidl is not surprised at OFCOM’s typically British anti-semitic response.

    This response from a paper-tiger-regulator embodies the heart and soul of British armchair antisemitism. It is the kind of response they might give to Sky News TV’s recent hostile interrogation of the British Chief Rabbi. It is the kind of response mirrored in the Charities Commission refusing to withdraw charitable status from well-known Arab terrorist-funding and enabling registered charities. It is mirrored in the Law Society emboldening and institutionalising sharia wills and investments. It is mirrored in the courts’ decision that they have jurisdiction over who can be considered a Jew and in the education system harbouring “Trojan Horse” “sharia” Jew-hate schools all over Birmingham It is mirrored in the BBC’s unconscionable Trot-infested Isra-hate bias and various other atrophying British institutions’ complicity in tolerating policies sympathetic to Jew-hatred.

    Teresa May, the Home Secretary, has herself banned the very informative American Jewish blogger Pamela Geller of “Atlas Shrugs” and Robert Spencer of “Jihadwatch” from entering the UK for no empirically-based reason.



    Little wonder then that British Jews now feel more uncomfortable than ever before in Duvidl’s lifetime. Little wonder then that the much-loved British Jewish actress Maureen Lipman is considering leaving the UK. Little wonder that the prescient British Jewish journalist Melanie Phillips is now presenting a superb radio show from Israel on Voice of Israel radio.



    As the author Anthony Julius finished the introduction to his 2010 book “Trials of the Diaspora” , “…my provisional judgement is that it is quite bad and might get worse. Certainly it would seem that the closed season on Jews is over.”


  3. I found the way they invoked ‘freedom of expression’ weaselly. It could be said to imply (if only faintly, and not necessarily deliberately) some kind of parity between those who object to Charlie Hebdo and those who raised concerns about Wilcox. ‘Freedom of expression’ doesn’t mean that those with professional responsibilities, such as journalists, should be allowed to get away with antisemitic (or sexist, or homophobic) language while carrying out their jobs without being reprimanded.

  4. Pingback: Report of All-Party inquiry into Antisemitism adduces BBC content | BBC Watch

Comments are closed.