Notebook
The Conservative Party is still at war with the BBC. Its director-general, Mr Alasdair Milne, met Mr John Selwyn Gum- mier, the party chairman, again this week to refute yet more specific complaints — the total exceeds 40 — about the Panorama Programme of a few weeks ago on racialist elements within the party. A joint statement after a meeting at Downing Street last week been not a sign of cordial relations having ueen re-established or even of a 'frank and constructive dialogue'. 'The BBC remains Convinced that the programme was well founded. The Conservative Party remains convinced that it was not.' That was all; and it was followed at the weekend by writs for libel, served by two Conservative MPs, Mr Neil Hamilton and Mr Gerald Howarth, on the BBC and on the national chairman of
. the Young Conservatives, whose com-
mittee of inquiry produced a report (as yet tunpublished) on which the Panorama pro- gramme was based. Since the matter is now sub judice it would clearly be invidious to discuss what Mr Gummer is on about, or to Comment on the television programme (Which, unfortunately, I did not see). However, one or two points arise. Mr Gum- Eller was probably under pressure to do spmething from the five MPs accused of right-wing extremism, and from Mr Edward du Cann, chairman of the 1922 Committee For all the charges of left-wing bias which can, sometimes legitimately, be made against the BBC, it is worth pointing Out that the reporter on the offending pro- frairinte, Michael Cockerel], was also the first Person to do a television report, several Years ago, on the Militant Tendency within the he Party. And it is interesting to being made by the chairman of the party Which has made such effective use of the medium during the term of Mrs Thatcher 's government. By most accounts, Mr Gum- per s own performance on the Panorama i,°gramme and when speaking at the yo me
Conservatives Conference left some
5room for improvement — if Saatchi and stchi cannot polish him up then perhaps old friend Andrew Lloyd-Webber might be able to help.
Poor old Sir Richard Attenborough.
Last year, when he went to South
,'%friea, he was accused of racism for atten- ding the premiere of the film Gandhi. Now he has been stumbling around there again, With. a view to making a film about South Afnc. a and — by his own admission — making a fool of himself. During his visit he Met. the widow of Steve Biko, who died in police custody in 1977, and the wife of Congress Mandela, the African National 'ongress leader who is inrison. Then he
p agreed to an interview with the South
African broadcasting corporation which, he said, was 'manipulated' and obtained by 'blatant dishonesty'. While reading of this, I found myself wishing that it was Sir Richard's brother David who was to make the film of South Africa. Of course, it may be said that Sir Richard has the more dif- ficult job, trying (without much success in Gandhi) to interpret great events, while David merely observes and records what goes on in the natural world, largely free of human influence. Yet there is David, in the outstanding series The Living Planet now being shown on television, talking with in- fectious enthusiasm, sure of his subject and of communicating its fascination to us. Sir Richard, on the other hand, takes sides, gets in a muddle, admits to being naive. (He should be all right with the film of A Chorus Line, which he is to direct next.) I can only wonder at the fact that it is Sir Richard, not David, who has got a knighthood.
At long last, Sir Geoffrey Howe and Sr Fernando Moran, the Spanish foreign minister, got together this week — the first ministerial meeting for about a year — to talk about the future of Gibraltar. Very lit- tle has happened since the Falklands war put a stop to negotiations on this other little colonial difficulty, and the frontier remains closed, to all except residents crossing on foot, 15 years after Franco first imposed the blockade. The British Government has ap- parently told Spain, as it continues to insist to President Alfonsin of Argentina, that the question of sovereignty is not open for discussion. However, it seems that the fron- tier restrictions will be lifted once Britain agrees to allow Spaniards to work in Gibraltar and to buy property there. This
would represent a first step towards im- plementing the Lisbon agreement of April 1980 (signed by Lord Carrington), which talks of future cooperation 'on the basis of reciprocity and full equality of rights'. (This is all very well, but it begs the tricky ques- tion whether Spanish workers on the Rock should belong to a Spanish union or to the Transport & General Workers Union; the leader of the Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party, Mr Joe Bossano, which holds seven of the 15 seats in the House of Assembly, is a branch officer of the TGWU.) The Lisbon agreement also talked of complying with UN resolutions, one of which told Bri- tain that Spain's territorial integrity must be respected. And so it should be: it is high time that the question of sovereignty was settled — if not by a straight transfer, then by according some status to Gibraltar under the joint authority of Spain and Britain, or within NATO (Secretary-General, Lord Carrington). Harold Wilson's pledge to Gibraltar that it would never be handed to Spain, or to anyone else, against the 'freely and democratically expressed wishes' of the people just cannot be upheld for ever. And if the Gibraltarians are anxious to keep the rights of full British citizenship which they now enjoy, these could surely be protected. (Something has got to happen before, or very soon after, Spain joins the EEC, which could be early in 1986.) Mrs That- cher may not wish it — and she would cer- tainly not wish to be remembered for it -- but it would be a considerable achievement if under her government it was agreed, with suitable safeguards for the people of those colonies, to return Hong Kong to China, and the Falklands and Gibraltar to the democracies of Argentina and Spain.
Every now and then some popular newspaper publishes a report about the outrageous slaughter of and cruelty to animals 'in the name of science', often ac- companied by pictures which are rather less distressing than any that might be taken in an abattoir. The latest 'shocking truth on animal tests' was told last Sunday in the Mail on Sunday, under the front-page heading, 'Porton Down's file of horror'. This was taken up during the week by the Daily Express — a curious association of two right-wing newspapers with the Animal Liberation Front — and animal-loving readers were invited to give their 'verdicts'. I suppose there is a case for a less hysterical debate on vivisection from time to time, but I find it difficult to get very upset at reports that sheep and pigs are shot at Porton Down's chemical research unit, if as a result more human lives are saved. (I would think
rather differently if, as alleged, dogs are also shot.) Then I read that guinea pigs are exposed to CS nerve gas, and a shameful thought came to me. My daughter has a guinea pig at her school near Porton Down; and I think it is pregnant ...
Simon Courtauld
Previous page
