Comments on: Dispatches from the UCU

By: Gordon Bennet

Gordon Bennet — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:16:43 +0000

Spittle-flecked antisemitic garbage is now ‘arguments’, according to Henshaw.
The entire Enlightenment has passed people like him by.

By: David Henshaw

David Henshaw — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:04:51 +0000

Oddly, and unlike some of you, I do not spend my entire life locked on to a computer screen. David All – if he can be bothered – should take a look at the three films highly critical of Saudi Arabia that my company has made in the past six years: but that would mean using critical faculties rather than just mouthing off. I have defended HP in the past, but this stream of comment is rather heart-sinking in its one dimensional and repetitive failure to address the arguments put forward in Monday’s programme.

By: David All

David All — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:36:40 +0000

Ah, the Sounds of Silence.

Apparently David Henshaw has found something more urgent to do then to defend his slanted documentary on supporters of Israel.

By: David All

David All — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:40:58 +0000

David Henshaw: When will you be doing an equally conspiratorary type documentary on the Saudi Lobby? Can we look forward to critics of the Saudi Ruling Family being interviewed? Will you talk about Saudi funding of extremist preachers that influenced terrorists around the world from 9/11 to Major Hasan? When will Channel 4 be broadcasting it?

By: Lynne T

Lynne T — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:16:36 +0000

David Henshaw:

The problem I have with investigations into the existence of pro-Israel lobbies in the US and UK, two countries that are not highly reliant on middle eastern oil or investment, is that these are done without any consideration into the reasons for such lobbies coming into existence.

A very powerful propaganda machine has been in action since the mid-1960s that has done much to harm not only Israel, but the Palestinians as well. The latter with few exceptions like Khalid Abu Toameh, unfortunately, by and large, still don’t realize this.

http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/11/what-does-pro-palestinian-really-mean.php

By: Gordon Bennet

Gordon Bennet — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:08:08 +0000

the significant and eloquent contributions to Monday’s film by Jewish intellectuals

Talk about pathetic and desperate scraping of the bottom of the barrel. But then, this IS the pathetic and desperate C4.

Being an ‘as a Jew’ gives one no more entitlement to spout Jew-hating drivel that it gives such an entitlement to anybody else, boy.
A racist lie is a racist lie, even if one has been circumcised.

By: amie

amie — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:26:26 +0000

Not so much Jewish intellectuals, Mr Henshaw, as the usual suspects with personal bones to pick. There are many Jewish intellectuals (you know how overrpresented they are) who are not uncritical of Israel but would be critical of the mission and sleazy juxtapositions of your piece, so how come your search for Voices was confined to this convenient coterie?

By: vildechaye

vildechaye — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:17:31 +0000

RE: anything that can unite Harrys Place, Melanie Phillips & Guido Fawkes in disgust is a good thing by me!

Who cares, Flotsam

By: David Henshaw

David Henshaw — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:12:25 +0000

Here’s a strange thing. A year ago, I was something of a hero to you guys, after my bizarre Press TV confrontation with an evasive and humourless George Galloway, defending our second UNDERCOVER MOSQUE investigation. I was, of course, accused of ‘Islamophobia’. Now its ‘anti-semitism.’ The fact remains that gathering evidence of homophobic, misogynistic, and racist preaching in supposedly ‘moderate’ mosques – and investigating the transparency, influence, and interests of a major foreign lobby in UK politics are BOTH legitimate bases for an investigation. I note that no-one – as was the cas in the UM films with regard to Muslim voices – paid any attention to the significant and eloquent contributions to Monday’s film by Jewish intellectuals wholly supportive of the programme’s right to ask awkward questions.

By: Paul Frenkel

Paul Frenkel — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:08:14 +0000

Just watched it. Among a number of comments I could make, I found the presence of Sir Richard Dalton particularly amusing. Dalton was featured as an ‘objective’ critic of the supposed pressure brought to bear by the lobby on William Hague. Dalton, a former consul-general in Jerusalem, has the sort of views that we know and love from the British foreign office in general and holders of that position in particular. For some reason, the program forgot to point out that he had held this position.

More importantly it also forgot to point out that his daughter, Chloe, is a senior adviser to William Hague, with views known to be similar to daddy’s. One imagines that Chloe might be upset that her boss doesn’t always share her views. Perhaps Sir Richard should have declared an interest. After all, one wouldnt like to be thought to be behaving in the sneaky fashion of the you-know-who’s, would one.

On a more serious note, those of you who belong to the public that this disgusting program was targeting, dont forget that we’d be happy to have you here. Seriously.