This blog was started in late April as a response to the vote at ADM for a boycott of Israeli goods. At least five hundred NUJ members, through petitions or branch meetings, got involved in calls for a ballot on the issue. While we failed to get a ballot - the rules were always going to make that difficult to achieve - we did succeed in persuading the National Executive to issue a clear statement that the boycott would not be implemented. Here's the Guardian's account:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2123001,00.html
Some NUJ officials - notably a couple who write to this blog - have suggested to me that the whole affair was a waste of time. There never was a boycott - merely a call for the TUC to organise one.
This strikes me as a complete misunderstanding of the importance of symbolism in both politics and journalism. The daft motion passed at ADM was never going to result in journalists refusing to buy laptops containing Israeli components or declining drugs developed by the Israeli pharmaceuticals industry. But it did send out a powerful message to the world that British journalists took sides - en masse - in this bitter international conflict.
Incidentally, I see no problem in individual journalists taking sides - unless they, like I do, work for organisations committed to impartiality. The problem is that the NUJ represents all of us - whether we write for a ferociously partisan publication or report for a broadcaster with impartiality rules - and so the union should not be taking stands which will embarrass many of its members.
So if it was important to resist this symbolic boycott, it was also important to recognise and applaud the symbolic climbdown by the NUJ's National Executive.
I have written some harsh words about Jeremy Dear on this blog, but I'd like to put on record my appreciation of the way he handled the conclusion of this affair. I'm told he led the discussions at the National Executive and used quiet diplomacy to bring about a result that should restore some unity to the union.
The 32 people who resigned over this affair - or at least those who contacted the NUJ to inform the union of their reasons for leaving - have now received an email from Jeremy Dear inviting them to rejoin. I'd like to encourage them to respond positively -if only to help reinforce the moderate wing of the union.
Because this is just the first chapter in what should become a campaign to reform the NUJ. Next year's ADM is likely to feature another 200 or so motions on everything from global warming to nuclear power to Venezuela - more issues which most of us feel are for individuals to care about, rather than for NUJ posturing.
Most of us are too busy to spend time at branch meetings, but let's try to make the effort to ensure that the people elected to represent us at ADM concentrate on issues that matter to us.
I think I am unlikely to be posting on this blog again in the near future - too much work to do in the real world, like, errr, buffing up my Facebook profile. So for those who have been - thanks for listening, and arguing. It's been (mostly) enjoyable.
Rory Cellan-Jones
Saturday, 14 July 2007
Sunday, 8 July 2007
VICTORY? NEC SAYS BOYCOTT WON’T BE IMPLEMENTED.
I’ve just heard what happened at the National Executive meeting on Friday – and I think it is cause for celebration. Unsurprisingly, the NEC said the rulebook did not allow a ballot on the boycott – but it then said that the boycott just isn’t going to happen because the TUC does not support it.
The motion passed unanimously by the NEC makes clear that the boycott call at ADM was aimed at persuading the TUC to implement the policy – and that has failed:
“Composite B calls not for an NUJ boycott but on the NUJ to support a labour movement/TUC organised boycott. In implementing Composite B the NUJ has sent the motion to the TUC. NEC notes the response from the TUC International Department setting out the TUC and the majority of affiliates' position on the boycott, in particular, that the "General Council is likely to take the position that this is not a priority for the PGFTU (in Palestine), still less the Histadrut, and would undermine our ability to act as go-betweens", and that "Congress, which has consistently supported the same approach, would also be (likely) to oppose the call".
NEC believes the latter from the TUC gives a decisive and final response to any call made by the NUJ to the labour movement as instructed by ADM.”
And here is the key phrase:
“NEC will take no further action on implementing this boycott call.”
In other words, the boycott is a dead duck.
This has only happened because more than 400 NUJ members at branches and chapels across Britain and Ireland made their voices heard – through branch and chapel meetings and petitions. I think we can be proud of what we have achieved.
I’ve also learnt that 31 people notified the union that they had resigned over the boycott policy. I know a number of us had discussed resigning if the boycott stayed in place. I have now decided that I will be staying in the union – and I would encourage others to stay and work towards making it more responsive to the views of the wider membership.
The motion passed unanimously by the NEC makes clear that the boycott call at ADM was aimed at persuading the TUC to implement the policy – and that has failed:
“Composite B calls not for an NUJ boycott but on the NUJ to support a labour movement/TUC organised boycott. In implementing Composite B the NUJ has sent the motion to the TUC. NEC notes the response from the TUC International Department setting out the TUC and the majority of affiliates' position on the boycott, in particular, that the "General Council is likely to take the position that this is not a priority for the PGFTU (in Palestine), still less the Histadrut, and would undermine our ability to act as go-betweens", and that "Congress, which has consistently supported the same approach, would also be (likely) to oppose the call".
NEC believes the latter from the TUC gives a decisive and final response to any call made by the NUJ to the labour movement as instructed by ADM.”
And here is the key phrase:
“NEC will take no further action on implementing this boycott call.”
In other words, the boycott is a dead duck.
This has only happened because more than 400 NUJ members at branches and chapels across Britain and Ireland made their voices heard – through branch and chapel meetings and petitions. I think we can be proud of what we have achieved.
I’ve also learnt that 31 people notified the union that they had resigned over the boycott policy. I know a number of us had discussed resigning if the boycott stayed in place. I have now decided that I will be staying in the union – and I would encourage others to stay and work towards making it more responsive to the views of the wider membership.
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
TIME FOR THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE TO LISTEN
This Friday the National Executive of the NUJ meets – and the row over the Israel boycott will be on the agenda.
We have spent the last two and a half months expressing our dismay at our union’s foolish decision to take a one-sided view of the conflict in the Middle East - just the latest excursion into politics by a union which should be concentrating on looking after the interests of journalists.
Just as a reminder, this was the key paragraph in the motion passed at ADM:
“This ADM calls for a boycott of Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa led by trade unions and the TUC to demand sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government and the United Nations.”
A number of branches responded by passing motions critical of the policy, and the Broadcasting Industrial Council also condemned the boycott. Over 350 NUJ members have signed an online petition with this wording:
"As NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of a profession which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with this policy. We believe motions that take sides on geopolitical matters divide the union's membership and undermine the solidarity it needs to defend our professional interests and campaign for the freedom, safety and welfare of fellow journalists around the world. We call on the union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British and Irish journalists are viewed at home and abroad."
We now wait to hear whether the National Executive will respond to the genuine concerns of many members who believe their reputation for impartial reporting is endangered when their union is so obviously seen to take sides.
We are already being warned that the Executive is powerless to intervene because ADM is the supreme policy-making body of the union. But I don’t think many of the officials understand how strongly members feel – and how damaging it will be if their concerns are ignored. We expect a serious discussion of this issue - and a proper response.
And please tell more NUJ colleagues about the petition - we don't have any access to members' emails so we're very dependent on word-of-mouth to spread it:
BALLOT ON NUJ BOYCOTT Petition
We have spent the last two and a half months expressing our dismay at our union’s foolish decision to take a one-sided view of the conflict in the Middle East - just the latest excursion into politics by a union which should be concentrating on looking after the interests of journalists.
Just as a reminder, this was the key paragraph in the motion passed at ADM:
“This ADM calls for a boycott of Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa led by trade unions and the TUC to demand sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government and the United Nations.”
A number of branches responded by passing motions critical of the policy, and the Broadcasting Industrial Council also condemned the boycott. Over 350 NUJ members have signed an online petition with this wording:
"As NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of a profession which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with this policy. We believe motions that take sides on geopolitical matters divide the union's membership and undermine the solidarity it needs to defend our professional interests and campaign for the freedom, safety and welfare of fellow journalists around the world. We call on the union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British and Irish journalists are viewed at home and abroad."
We now wait to hear whether the National Executive will respond to the genuine concerns of many members who believe their reputation for impartial reporting is endangered when their union is so obviously seen to take sides.
We are already being warned that the Executive is powerless to intervene because ADM is the supreme policy-making body of the union. But I don’t think many of the officials understand how strongly members feel – and how damaging it will be if their concerns are ignored. We expect a serious discussion of this issue - and a proper response.
And please tell more NUJ colleagues about the petition - we don't have any access to members' emails so we're very dependent on word-of-mouth to spread it:
BALLOT ON NUJ BOYCOTT Petition
Thursday, 21 June 2007
WHY WE JOINED THE NUJ
This article in the Journalist by my BBC colleague Nick Serpell - who is on the NUJ's National Executive - sums up better than I could what we believe about the direction our union is taking:
I joined the NUJ for a variety of reasons. I wanted the assurance that I would have help and support if anything went wrong at work. The NUJ negotiates my annual pay deal and I did not believe it was right to take advantage of this without contributing to the union. I also believe in a free press and the right of all journalists to report the truth and keep the public informed without the fear of threats, intimidation or worse. Journalism matters and, long before the campaign of that name, it has always mattered to the NUJ.
What I and thousands of NUJ members did not do was join because we wanted to be political activists or have our subscriptions and the name of our union linked to campaigns and organisations which we either do not support, or which have nothing to do with journalists or journalism.
The recent decision by ADM to call for a boycott of Israel is just the latest in an attempt by some members to use the NUJ to pursue their own political beliefs. The same applies to the move to get us to affiliate to CND, happily defeated, or the current call for a ballot as to whether we should affiliate to the Campaign for Climate Change.
I have two main objections to those who would use the name of my union to support their own causes. Firstly impartiality and independence should be the watchwords of any journalist and it is particularly important for your fellow members who work in public service broadcasting. It undermines our ability to do our job if our union is taking a public stance on contentious issues.
Secondly, I do not want the money I pay each month to this union to be diverted into organisations which I do not support. If you, as an individual, want to join the Stop the War Coalition, boycott Israel or join CND you have every right to do so. But, don’t assume all your fellow members feel the same and don’t use my subscription, and link my name to your campaigns. I want my union to be concentrating on journalism and journalists, not acting as some sort of quasi political party.
I don’t think I am alone in this view. At the time of writing over 300 NUJ members in the BBC have signed a petition calling for the vote on the Israeli boycott to be reversed. That’s five times the number of people who supported it at ADM.
Other unions may want to play politics, but, in my view, we are not other unions. By all means follow your own beliefs in your own time, but let’s keep this union politically independent. We will be the stronger for it.
Keep signing the petition:
BALLOT ON NUJ BOYCOTT Petition
I joined the NUJ for a variety of reasons. I wanted the assurance that I would have help and support if anything went wrong at work. The NUJ negotiates my annual pay deal and I did not believe it was right to take advantage of this without contributing to the union. I also believe in a free press and the right of all journalists to report the truth and keep the public informed without the fear of threats, intimidation or worse. Journalism matters and, long before the campaign of that name, it has always mattered to the NUJ.
What I and thousands of NUJ members did not do was join because we wanted to be political activists or have our subscriptions and the name of our union linked to campaigns and organisations which we either do not support, or which have nothing to do with journalists or journalism.
The recent decision by ADM to call for a boycott of Israel is just the latest in an attempt by some members to use the NUJ to pursue their own political beliefs. The same applies to the move to get us to affiliate to CND, happily defeated, or the current call for a ballot as to whether we should affiliate to the Campaign for Climate Change.
I have two main objections to those who would use the name of my union to support their own causes. Firstly impartiality and independence should be the watchwords of any journalist and it is particularly important for your fellow members who work in public service broadcasting. It undermines our ability to do our job if our union is taking a public stance on contentious issues.
Secondly, I do not want the money I pay each month to this union to be diverted into organisations which I do not support. If you, as an individual, want to join the Stop the War Coalition, boycott Israel or join CND you have every right to do so. But, don’t assume all your fellow members feel the same and don’t use my subscription, and link my name to your campaigns. I want my union to be concentrating on journalism and journalists, not acting as some sort of quasi political party.
I don’t think I am alone in this view. At the time of writing over 300 NUJ members in the BBC have signed a petition calling for the vote on the Israeli boycott to be reversed. That’s five times the number of people who supported it at ADM.
Other unions may want to play politics, but, in my view, we are not other unions. By all means follow your own beliefs in your own time, but let’s keep this union politically independent. We will be the stronger for it.
Keep signing the petition:
BALLOT ON NUJ BOYCOTT Petition
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
WHERE IS THE NUJ?
...by which I mean the leadership.
I've just taken part in "World Have Your Say",a programme on the BBC World Service, which was debating boycotts. I was there as an NUJ member - not as a BBC reporter - stressing that my concern was not Middle Eastern politics but the fact that my union was taking sides in a bitter conflict, putting those members who value their reputation for impartiality in an impossible position.
And that conflict raged around the studio, with accusations flying back and forth between the pro and anti-boycotters, while I tried to keep my head down.
But there was one empty chair in the studio - it had been offered to the NUJ but over a period of two days the union failed to find anyone from the General Secretary downwards to fill it. It seems clear that the leadership just hopes this issue will go away. It won't.
Oh - and keep signing the petition:
BALLOT ON NUJ BOYCOTT Petition
I've just taken part in "World Have Your Say",a programme on the BBC World Service, which was debating boycotts. I was there as an NUJ member - not as a BBC reporter - stressing that my concern was not Middle Eastern politics but the fact that my union was taking sides in a bitter conflict, putting those members who value their reputation for impartiality in an impossible position.
And that conflict raged around the studio, with accusations flying back and forth between the pro and anti-boycotters, while I tried to keep my head down.
But there was one empty chair in the studio - it had been offered to the NUJ but over a period of two days the union failed to find anyone from the General Secretary downwards to fill it. It seems clear that the leadership just hopes this issue will go away. It won't.
Oh - and keep signing the petition:
BALLOT ON NUJ BOYCOTT Petition
Friday, 15 June 2007
DEBATING THE NUJ's FUTURE
Jeremy Dear, Tony Benn and David Aaronovitch debated the role of the NUJ in a new media world in a meting at the Frontline Club in Paddington on Friday evening. The discussion was lively, at times heated. The small audience was, by my reckoning, largely made up of NUJ officials or activists – and mostly sympathetic to the boycott. Here is an impartial (and we can debate that til the cows come home ) account of what was said.
David Aaronovitch warned that the NUJ had to be careful about a situation where “activists pull clear of where the members are.” He recalled his far-off days as President of the National Union of Students (I’m old enough to remember this former Communist as student leader). He said he would have seen a problem like the boycott coming and would have headed it off, and suggested it had got out of hand because of Jeremy Dear’s failure of leadership, Later he mounted an attack on Dear’s whole political approach to the job, accusing him of posturing: “You make it sound as if you are Lenin..” He wanted to know where the General Secretary actually stood on the boycott because he had given the impression that he was against it.
Jeremy Dear said others had assumed that was the case because he hadn’t voted for the motion at ADM – but that was simply because he didn’t have a vote. He explained that he was “frustrated” by the motion because it was a “distraction” but made it pretty clear that the rulebook did not allow any possibility of a ballot or any route to changing things. He admitted there were “deficiencies” in the union’s democracy but said he was just carrying out the duties of a General Secretary as set down in the rules: “it’s a no-win situation – I was elected to carry out union policy and ADM is the supreme policy-making body.”
He said the emails he had received about the issue (around 100) were evenly split. While eight branches and chapels had passed motions decrying the boycott, seven “had declined to do that”. (Surely that isn’t the same as being pro-boycott?).. I was no clearer after hearing Jeremy on whether he was for or against a boycott.
Tony Benn could not see what all the fuss was about. Everyone was at liberty to express their personal opinions – a journalist was no different in that from a doctor or a teacher. “this idea that journalists are special is so snobbish..” He personally favoured a boycott.
Speakers from the floor included Tim Gopsill, editor of The Journalist who said the NUJ was more democratic than the society in which it operated but:” The boycott call happened because the level of democratic participation is too low.”
A woman who said she had been a BBC representative at ADM said she had voted for the boycott policy and was proud to have done so: “It is a decision I took democratically. It is their(the opponents') problem.”
I said a few words supporting Aarononvitch’s warning about a union where activists lose touch with the membership and describing the difficulties for colleagues reporting from the Middle East while carrying two cards – a BBC ID which said you were impartial, and an NUJ card which said you were a biased reporter.
A man, who described himself as a former Today programme producer, said you could not be an impartial reporter in the Middle East if you did not understand the need for a boycott.
There followed a sane and interesting debate about what the NUJ’s role should be in setting standards in a new media world. But I found it difficult to concentrate, so shocked and depressed was I by the mood of the meeting.
If you believe that the NUJ’s role is to strike postures on everything from Hugo Chavez to the Middle East, then you would have been cheered by the views expressed at the Frontline Club. If, like me, you believe that the wider membership needs to reclaim the union and focus it on what really matters to them, then please sign this petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/NUJBOYC/petition.html
David Aaronovitch warned that the NUJ had to be careful about a situation where “activists pull clear of where the members are.” He recalled his far-off days as President of the National Union of Students (I’m old enough to remember this former Communist as student leader). He said he would have seen a problem like the boycott coming and would have headed it off, and suggested it had got out of hand because of Jeremy Dear’s failure of leadership, Later he mounted an attack on Dear’s whole political approach to the job, accusing him of posturing: “You make it sound as if you are Lenin..” He wanted to know where the General Secretary actually stood on the boycott because he had given the impression that he was against it.
Jeremy Dear said others had assumed that was the case because he hadn’t voted for the motion at ADM – but that was simply because he didn’t have a vote. He explained that he was “frustrated” by the motion because it was a “distraction” but made it pretty clear that the rulebook did not allow any possibility of a ballot or any route to changing things. He admitted there were “deficiencies” in the union’s democracy but said he was just carrying out the duties of a General Secretary as set down in the rules: “it’s a no-win situation – I was elected to carry out union policy and ADM is the supreme policy-making body.”
He said the emails he had received about the issue (around 100) were evenly split. While eight branches and chapels had passed motions decrying the boycott, seven “had declined to do that”. (Surely that isn’t the same as being pro-boycott?).. I was no clearer after hearing Jeremy on whether he was for or against a boycott.
Tony Benn could not see what all the fuss was about. Everyone was at liberty to express their personal opinions – a journalist was no different in that from a doctor or a teacher. “this idea that journalists are special is so snobbish..” He personally favoured a boycott.
Speakers from the floor included Tim Gopsill, editor of The Journalist who said the NUJ was more democratic than the society in which it operated but:” The boycott call happened because the level of democratic participation is too low.”
A woman who said she had been a BBC representative at ADM said she had voted for the boycott policy and was proud to have done so: “It is a decision I took democratically. It is their(the opponents') problem.”
I said a few words supporting Aarononvitch’s warning about a union where activists lose touch with the membership and describing the difficulties for colleagues reporting from the Middle East while carrying two cards – a BBC ID which said you were impartial, and an NUJ card which said you were a biased reporter.
A man, who described himself as a former Today programme producer, said you could not be an impartial reporter in the Middle East if you did not understand the need for a boycott.
There followed a sane and interesting debate about what the NUJ’s role should be in setting standards in a new media world. But I found it difficult to concentrate, so shocked and depressed was I by the mood of the meeting.
If you believe that the NUJ’s role is to strike postures on everything from Hugo Chavez to the Middle East, then you would have been cheered by the views expressed at the Frontline Club. If, like me, you believe that the wider membership needs to reclaim the union and focus it on what really matters to them, then please sign this petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/NUJBOYC/petition.html
GUARDIAN LETTER
Here is a letter which the Guardian published this morning:
The UCU has called for discussion of an academic boycott of Israel. Its general secretary, Sally Hunt, makes it clear (Letters, June 14) that she opposes a boycott and would like the issue put to a ballot of all members. My own union the National Union of Journalists has gone much further. A motion passed at its conference calling for a boycott of Israeli goods is now union policy. Yet our general secretary sits on his hands, refusing to give leadership on this issue. Many NUJ members who value their reputations as impartial journalists are dismayed and embarrassed by their union's stance. Don't they at least deserve a ballot?
Rory Cellan-Jones
London
If you want to sign the petition calling for a ballot click here:
BALLOT ON NUJ BOYCOTT Petition
The UCU has called for discussion of an academic boycott of Israel. Its general secretary, Sally Hunt, makes it clear (Letters, June 14) that she opposes a boycott and would like the issue put to a ballot of all members. My own union the National Union of Journalists has gone much further. A motion passed at its conference calling for a boycott of Israeli goods is now union policy. Yet our general secretary sits on his hands, refusing to give leadership on this issue. Many NUJ members who value their reputations as impartial journalists are dismayed and embarrassed by their union's stance. Don't they at least deserve a ballot?
Rory Cellan-Jones
London
If you want to sign the petition calling for a ballot click here:
BALLOT ON NUJ BOYCOTT Petition
Thursday, 14 June 2007
LECTURERS' GEN SEC FAVOURS BALLOT - WHAT ABOUT NUJ?
Sally Hunt, General Secretary of the lecturers' union the UCU, makes clear in a letter to the Guardian that she thinks her members deserve a ballot on any boycott. Why doesn't Jeremy Dear tell us where he stands on this issue? Here's the letter:
Following a recent debate on your letters page and a full-page advert about the University and College Union's congress decision to discuss an academic boycott of Israel I feel it is important I clarify the position. The union is bringing forward proposals to allow a debate to take place within our branches on the arguments for and against an academic boycott of Israel. This does not mean an academic boycott is in place, or that UCU is committed to such a boycott in the future.
My contribution to the debate is to say, as I have many times, that I do not believe an academic boycott of Israel is supported by the majority of UCU's membership. Nor do I believe that it is an issue that members want the union to prioritise.
Following the debates, which need to happen and be concluded as soon as possible, we will need to make sure that the majority of UCU members support whatever position is reached. The best way to do this, in my view, is to hold a ballot of our full membership on the issue.
Sally Hunt
So why don't journalists deserve a ballot? Please add your names here if you think they do:
http://www.petitiononline.com/NUJBOYC/petition.html
Following a recent debate on your letters page and a full-page advert about the University and College Union's congress decision to discuss an academic boycott of Israel I feel it is important I clarify the position. The union is bringing forward proposals to allow a debate to take place within our branches on the arguments for and against an academic boycott of Israel. This does not mean an academic boycott is in place, or that UCU is committed to such a boycott in the future.
My contribution to the debate is to say, as I have many times, that I do not believe an academic boycott of Israel is supported by the majority of UCU's membership. Nor do I believe that it is an issue that members want the union to prioritise.
Following the debates, which need to happen and be concluded as soon as possible, we will need to make sure that the majority of UCU members support whatever position is reached. The best way to do this, in my view, is to hold a ballot of our full membership on the issue.
Sally Hunt
So why don't journalists deserve a ballot? Please add your names here if you think they do:
http://www.petitiononline.com/NUJBOYC/petition.html
Monday, 11 June 2007
SIGN FOR A BALLOT ON THE BOYCOTT
BALLOT ON NUJ BOYCOTT Petition
I've been contacted by quite a few people who wanted to sign the petition - but couldn't work out how to do it on this blog. So I've now made it into an online petition - just click on the link and it will take you there. It's another way of showing the National Executive that they can't just sit on their hands at their July meeting.
Once again, here is the text:
"As NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of a profession which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with this policy. We believe motions that take sides on geopolitical matters divide the union's membership and undermine the solidarity it needs to defend our professional interests and campaign for the freedom, safety and welfare of fellow journalists around the world. We call on the union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British and Irish journalists are viewed at home and abroad."
NB Please remember - NUJ members only.
Saturday, 9 June 2007
IS THIS DEMOCRACY?
I've been getting involved in arguments on another blog - an NUJ group on Facebook - with people who accuse me and other broadcasters of being undemocratic. They maintain that it is only BBC staff who are making a fuss about the boycott of Israel and that we have no right to try to overturn what was a democratic decision taken at ADM. I have pointed out that Reuters, The Observer, Manchester and Belfast branches are among those who've also joined this campaign. If I felt that this policy was backed by the majority of NUJ members - those who don't make it to branch meetings - then I would have kept quiet. But I believe most union members would rather the NUJ left them to decide themselves where they stood on international - and domestic - political conflicts. Am I right?
Here's an example of the criticism:
"Simply because not every member or delegate to ADM works at a major broadcaster doesn't make them less aware of the subject matter or a bunch of radicals with some 'agenda'. The fact that the campaign to overturn this democratically taken decision is overwhelmingly led and followed by BBC workers is getting a little worrisome. Frankly, whatever one's opinion on this matter, who are the BBC workers in the NUJ to have some veto over the rest of the union?
The motion was taken in a democratic fashion, as was the election of the delegates who voted for or against the motion. The motion was in the agenda, which every member was sent (electronically) and one can only assume thus that in fact the membership did support the motion if they elected delegates who then voted in its favour. That's representative democracy. Going outside democratic channels, as this campaign is doing, is the real threat to democracy in the union.
In the end, for Pete's sake, a boycott is completely non-violent. We're talking Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. here. It's not like we've passed a motion to organise fundraising disco house-parties for Hezbollah or something.
I really don't understand what all the fuss is about."
Here's an example of the criticism:
"Simply because not every member or delegate to ADM works at a major broadcaster doesn't make them less aware of the subject matter or a bunch of radicals with some 'agenda'. The fact that the campaign to overturn this democratically taken decision is overwhelmingly led and followed by BBC workers is getting a little worrisome. Frankly, whatever one's opinion on this matter, who are the BBC workers in the NUJ to have some veto over the rest of the union?
The motion was taken in a democratic fashion, as was the election of the delegates who voted for or against the motion. The motion was in the agenda, which every member was sent (electronically) and one can only assume thus that in fact the membership did support the motion if they elected delegates who then voted in its favour. That's representative democracy. Going outside democratic channels, as this campaign is doing, is the real threat to democracy in the union.
In the end, for Pete's sake, a boycott is completely non-violent. We're talking Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. here. It's not like we've passed a motion to organise fundraising disco house-parties for Hezbollah or something.
I really don't understand what all the fuss is about."
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
DEMOCRACY IN THE NUJ
Last week I sent an email to around 70 NUJ branch officials across the UK and Ireland, politely asking them to pass on a message to members in their areas about this campaign - and directing them towards this blog. I was concerned that, while members in the BBC and at a number of other chapels had made their feelings about the boycott abundantly clear, the National Executive would ignore them unless there was a wider call for a rethink from right across the union.
Unfortunately, I've so far received just three replies, one of them from an official who made it clear he supported the boycott and saw it as the union's job to pursue all kinds of political causes.
My worry is that this whole affair is showing the huge hole in the democratic structure of the union. Sparsely attended branch meetings elect delegates who go to ADM to vote through policies which most of their colleagues would not support if they knew about them in advance. But when I ask officials to give their members a chance to express their views on this issue, they seem strangely reluctant.
I've had other comments from activists who say people who cannot be bothered to attend branch meetings have no right to complan. But if that covers 99% of members (as it does) then the NUJ has a problem which it needs to address.
I've also emailed a number of friends at various newspapers to ask them to get involved in this issue. Most have replied that they have already resigned from the union in disgust. If we want to keep this union in good shape, then we need to make sure that journalists are proud to be members and believe their voices will be heard in union affairs - isn't, that, after all, the point?
Unfortunately, I've so far received just three replies, one of them from an official who made it clear he supported the boycott and saw it as the union's job to pursue all kinds of political causes.
My worry is that this whole affair is showing the huge hole in the democratic structure of the union. Sparsely attended branch meetings elect delegates who go to ADM to vote through policies which most of their colleagues would not support if they knew about them in advance. But when I ask officials to give their members a chance to express their views on this issue, they seem strangely reluctant.
I've had other comments from activists who say people who cannot be bothered to attend branch meetings have no right to complan. But if that covers 99% of members (as it does) then the NUJ has a problem which it needs to address.
I've also emailed a number of friends at various newspapers to ask them to get involved in this issue. Most have replied that they have already resigned from the union in disgust. If we want to keep this union in good shape, then we need to make sure that journalists are proud to be members and believe their voices will be heard in union affairs - isn't, that, after all, the point?
Sunday, 3 June 2007
NEW YORK TIMES - "SHAMEFUL" NUJ
The University and College Union, a newly formed British union of college teachers, shamefully called last week for a boycott on contacts and exchanges with Israeli academic institutions. That follows on the shameful call in April by the National Union of Journalists in Britain to boycott Israeli goods.
It is hard to imagine two organizations that should be less given to such nonsense. Who would respect the judgment of a scholar who selects or rejects colleagues on political grounds? Who would trust the dispatches of a reporter who has been openly engaged against one side of a conflict? The unions argue that they have an obligation to demonstrate labor-union solidarity with the oppressed, as they did in opposing apartheid. That is absurd.
First, Israeli journalists and academics are among the most dedicated critics of their own society. Second, the lack of similar “solidarity” by these unions with any other oppressed or suffering people in the world, and there are plenty, reduces these gestures to an exercise in hypocrisy, or worse.
It is good to see that most respected British journalists, scholars and students — including the preponderance of British editorial writers and the heads of Oxford, Cambridge and 20 other top universities — as well as representatives of all major political parties condemned these malicious gestures.
Critical thinking and well-thought-out criticism are intrinsic to good scholarship and good journalism. These boycotts represent neither. Posturing like this only alienates the very forces in Israeli society that should be encouraged and offends the calling and honor of journalism and academia.
OBSERVER LEADER ON "ABSURD GESTURE"
Here is to day's Observer leader on the UCU and NUJ boycotts:
"This week sees the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War between Israel and an alliance of Arab states. It was the ultimate Pyrrhic victory. Israel saved itself from annihilation, but condemned itself to decades of further conflict by seizing land from its neighbours. It also condemned millions of Palestinians to a life in exile or under military occupation.
By coincidence, British academics, as represented by the University and College Union, last week passed their judgment on the Six Day War. They voted to recommend a boycott of Israeli universities in protest at the occupation of Palestinian land. The union will now debate the matter over a year.
Apart from the fact that the timing was quite good, there is nothing positive to be said about this decision. It will not ease the suffering of Palestinians and it will not soften Israeli policy. In fact, by snubbing even liberal Israeli academics, a boycott strengthens the case of hard-line politicians who prefer isolation since it justifies unilateralism and disengagement from the peace process.
This is not the first such vote by a British trade union. University lecturers debated a similar move last year. Last month, the National Union of Journalists voted for a boycott of everything Israeli, an absurd gesture since, if implemented, it would make reporting from Jerusalem impossible. All that motion achieved was to send a signal worldwide that, collectively, British journalists take a partisan view of Middle East news. Likewise, British universities have shown that they cannot distinguish between the policies of a state and the opinions of individuals within that state. They believe in the collective punishment of academics simply for being Israeli.
That would be sad enough, were it not that Israeli universities and media are among the freest in the Middle East. If British unions are in the business of solidarity, they might consider flinging gestures at Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria or Egypt where journalists and academics are imprisoned and tortured for expressing dissent. But they target only Israel.
Forty years after the Six Day War, the prospects for lasting peace in the Middle East are bleak. It is depressing that, for what paltry influence they carry, British trade unions have done what little they can to make matters worse. "
So journalists at the Observer - and we know their chapel rejected the boycott - are now writing pretty trenchant criticisms of their own union. That's not enough - what are we going to do to change matters?
"This week sees the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War between Israel and an alliance of Arab states. It was the ultimate Pyrrhic victory. Israel saved itself from annihilation, but condemned itself to decades of further conflict by seizing land from its neighbours. It also condemned millions of Palestinians to a life in exile or under military occupation.
By coincidence, British academics, as represented by the University and College Union, last week passed their judgment on the Six Day War. They voted to recommend a boycott of Israeli universities in protest at the occupation of Palestinian land. The union will now debate the matter over a year.
Apart from the fact that the timing was quite good, there is nothing positive to be said about this decision. It will not ease the suffering of Palestinians and it will not soften Israeli policy. In fact, by snubbing even liberal Israeli academics, a boycott strengthens the case of hard-line politicians who prefer isolation since it justifies unilateralism and disengagement from the peace process.
This is not the first such vote by a British trade union. University lecturers debated a similar move last year. Last month, the National Union of Journalists voted for a boycott of everything Israeli, an absurd gesture since, if implemented, it would make reporting from Jerusalem impossible. All that motion achieved was to send a signal worldwide that, collectively, British journalists take a partisan view of Middle East news. Likewise, British universities have shown that they cannot distinguish between the policies of a state and the opinions of individuals within that state. They believe in the collective punishment of academics simply for being Israeli.
That would be sad enough, were it not that Israeli universities and media are among the freest in the Middle East. If British unions are in the business of solidarity, they might consider flinging gestures at Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria or Egypt where journalists and academics are imprisoned and tortured for expressing dissent. But they target only Israel.
Forty years after the Six Day War, the prospects for lasting peace in the Middle East are bleak. It is depressing that, for what paltry influence they carry, British trade unions have done what little they can to make matters worse. "
So journalists at the Observer - and we know their chapel rejected the boycott - are now writing pretty trenchant criticisms of their own union. That's not enough - what are we going to do to change matters?
Friday, 1 June 2007
SORRY - NUJ MEMBERS ONLY
Quite a few anonymous posters have sent messages to this blog, nearly all of them attacking the union over the boycott. I have not published them - not because I want to censor their comments - but because I cannot be sure they are NUJ members. As I've made clear, the only function of this blog is to act as a forum for union members discussing the boycott policy.
So please give your names. And if you don't want them to appear on the blog, email me direct at work. I won't post my email address here for obvious reasons - but it isn't hard to guess.
Rory Cellan-Jones
So please give your names. And if you don't want them to appear on the blog, email me direct at work. I won't post my email address here for obvious reasons - but it isn't hard to guess.
Rory Cellan-Jones
Thursday, 31 May 2007
NEW PETITION FOR ALL NUJ MEMBERS
We have just emailed branch officials across the union(relying on NUJ website for details, which may be optimistic) asking them to tell members about the campaign and, in the interests of democracy, organise branch meetings about the issue. We have also asked them to point members towards this blog - and this amended version of our original petition, which takes in part of a motion carried by the Reuters chapel:
"As NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of a profession which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with this policy. We believe motions that take sides on geopolitical matters divide the union's membership and undermine the solidarity it needs to defend our professional interests and campaign for the freedom, safety and welfare of fellow journalists around the world. We call on the union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British journalists are viewed at home and abroad."
Please sign below
"As NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of a profession which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with this policy. We believe motions that take sides on geopolitical matters divide the union's membership and undermine the solidarity it needs to defend our professional interests and campaign for the freedom, safety and welfare of fellow journalists around the world. We call on the union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British journalists are viewed at home and abroad."
Please sign below
LECTURERS BACK BOYCOTT - BUT MEMBERS GET A SAY
The lecturers' union the UCU has voted through a boycott of Israeli academic institutions; Here's the PA version:
ACADEMICS VOTE TO BACK BOYCOTT OF ISRAELI UNIVERSITIES
By Tim Ross, PA Education Correspondent
Academics provoked outrage from the Jewish community tonight after voting to
back calls for a boycott of Israeli universities in protest at the treatment of
Palestinians.
The University and College Union (UCU) passed a motion urging lecturers to
consider their consciences and boycott Israeli institutions.
But Jewish leaders condemned the vote as a "frightening" assault on academic
freedom.
The motion, which was passed by a margin of two-to-one after more than an
hour's debate, came two years after the UCU's predecessor union, the Association
of University Teachers, backed a similar boycott.
That decision, in 2005, drew an angry response from diplomats, academics and
writers around the world.
Today's vote at the union's annual congress in Bournemouth reopened the
controversy and sparked immediate demands for the policy to be reversed.
Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews said:
"Now is the time to strengthen the kinds of relationships that will bring all
sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict together.
"We call upon the union's leadership and all members who are rightly outraged
by the decision to work towards a reversal of this policy."
Jeremy Newmark, chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, branded the
motion "an assault on academic freedom".
He said: "While the vast majority of academics do not support a boycott, this
decision damages the credibility of British academia as a whole."
Tamar Shchory, chair of the World Union of Jewish Students, described the vote
as "frightening", adding: "The climate of hostility towards the state of
Israel and Jewish students is getting stronger.
"It seems UCU has chosen a one-sided position in a very complex and sensitive
issue."
Conference delegates backed the motion by 158 votes to 99, with 17
abstentions.
The motion urged lecturers to "consider the moral implications of existing and
proposed links with Israeli academic institutions".
And the union's leadership must now circulate calls from Palestinians for a
boycott of Israeli universities to all branches throughout the country for
discussion, the motion said.
But here's the difference - unlike the NUJ, where unrepresentative people at ADM can impose a policy most members do not support, the UCU has more democratic mechanisms. So their boycott will have to clear a number of hurdles - including discussions at branch meetings. What's more their General Secretary Sally Hunt said in her election manifesto that she thought an issue of this improtance ought to be put to a ballot of all members. Would that our own General Secretary had shown such leadership.
ACADEMICS VOTE TO BACK BOYCOTT OF ISRAELI UNIVERSITIES
By Tim Ross, PA Education Correspondent
Academics provoked outrage from the Jewish community tonight after voting to
back calls for a boycott of Israeli universities in protest at the treatment of
Palestinians.
The University and College Union (UCU) passed a motion urging lecturers to
consider their consciences and boycott Israeli institutions.
But Jewish leaders condemned the vote as a "frightening" assault on academic
freedom.
The motion, which was passed by a margin of two-to-one after more than an
hour's debate, came two years after the UCU's predecessor union, the Association
of University Teachers, backed a similar boycott.
That decision, in 2005, drew an angry response from diplomats, academics and
writers around the world.
Today's vote at the union's annual congress in Bournemouth reopened the
controversy and sparked immediate demands for the policy to be reversed.
Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews said:
"Now is the time to strengthen the kinds of relationships that will bring all
sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict together.
"We call upon the union's leadership and all members who are rightly outraged
by the decision to work towards a reversal of this policy."
Jeremy Newmark, chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, branded the
motion "an assault on academic freedom".
He said: "While the vast majority of academics do not support a boycott, this
decision damages the credibility of British academia as a whole."
Tamar Shchory, chair of the World Union of Jewish Students, described the vote
as "frightening", adding: "The climate of hostility towards the state of
Israel and Jewish students is getting stronger.
"It seems UCU has chosen a one-sided position in a very complex and sensitive
issue."
Conference delegates backed the motion by 158 votes to 99, with 17
abstentions.
The motion urged lecturers to "consider the moral implications of existing and
proposed links with Israeli academic institutions".
And the union's leadership must now circulate calls from Palestinians for a
boycott of Israeli universities to all branches throughout the country for
discussion, the motion said.
But here's the difference - unlike the NUJ, where unrepresentative people at ADM can impose a policy most members do not support, the UCU has more democratic mechanisms. So their boycott will have to clear a number of hurdles - including discussions at branch meetings. What's more their General Secretary Sally Hunt said in her election manifesto that she thought an issue of this improtance ought to be put to a ballot of all members. Would that our own General Secretary had shown such leadership.
Friday, 25 May 2007
WHERE IS THE CAMPAIGN GOING?
Just some quick thoughts on how much progress our campaign for a ballot on the boycott has made. Our petition to the National Executive has now been signed by more than 300 BBC members.
BBC London branch has passed a motion calling for a ballot - and other motions calling for the policy to be dropped have been passed by chapels or branches in Manchester, Belfast, the Observer, and ITN. The Broadcasting Industrial Council has also described the boycott as "problematic".
The policy committee of the National Executive will discuss the issue in June - but the full National Executive will not consider our motion until July. Plenty of union officials are suggesting that nothing can be done, that ADM is the supreme policy-making body, and that we will just have to wait until next year's conference to try to reverse the policy. We need to get more branches to pass motions before July to convince the executive that they can't get away with just sitting on their hands.
Here is some news from the Times Higher Education Supplement illustrating the damage done to our reputation for impartiality:
"Steven Weinberg, who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1979, was planning to visit Imperial College London in July to speak in honour of Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam and to give a talk at a conference on particle physics.
But in a letter, reproduced in today's Times Higher, to his host at Imperial, Michael Duff, Professor Weinberg said he already had mixed feelings about visiting the UK because he perceived a "widespread anti-Israel and anti-Semitic current" running through British opinion.
He decided to cancel the engagement after the National Union of Journalists voted to boycott Israeli products at its annual meeting in April. "
On another matter, I have rejected a number of comments to this blog - not because I wanted to censor them but because they were anonymous and so not clearly from NUJ members. This is meant to be a forum for union members - whatever their views on the issue.
BBC London branch has passed a motion calling for a ballot - and other motions calling for the policy to be dropped have been passed by chapels or branches in Manchester, Belfast, the Observer, and ITN. The Broadcasting Industrial Council has also described the boycott as "problematic".
The policy committee of the National Executive will discuss the issue in June - but the full National Executive will not consider our motion until July. Plenty of union officials are suggesting that nothing can be done, that ADM is the supreme policy-making body, and that we will just have to wait until next year's conference to try to reverse the policy. We need to get more branches to pass motions before July to convince the executive that they can't get away with just sitting on their hands.
Here is some news from the Times Higher Education Supplement illustrating the damage done to our reputation for impartiality:
"Steven Weinberg, who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1979, was planning to visit Imperial College London in July to speak in honour of Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam and to give a talk at a conference on particle physics.
But in a letter, reproduced in today's Times Higher, to his host at Imperial, Michael Duff, Professor Weinberg said he already had mixed feelings about visiting the UK because he perceived a "widespread anti-Israel and anti-Semitic current" running through British opinion.
He decided to cancel the engagement after the National Union of Journalists voted to boycott Israeli products at its annual meeting in April. "
On another matter, I have rejected a number of comments to this blog - not because I wanted to censor them but because they were anonymous and so not clearly from NUJ members. This is meant to be a forum for union members - whatever their views on the issue.
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
NUJ BiC SAYS BOYCOTT "PROBLEMATIC"
Tne Broadcasting Industrial Council (BiC)met on 21st May and discussed the Israeli boycott issue at length. Here are some notes from one of those present:
" BiC decided that
- the debate following the vote to boycott Israeli goods is an issue which the BiC takes a view on
- it feels that reform of the union's structures is needed so that chapels play a larger part at ADM as chapels are more representative of the members at large than branches are
- ADM should focus more on industrial relations in the media and the terms and conditions relating to journalists, including press freedom
- issues such as the boycott of Israeli goods are more problematic for broadcasting, as a sector, as we have many members working abroad and, in particular, in the Middle East
- the majority of broadcasting members who have communicated with the union on the boycott believe the action is a mistake ".
" BiC decided that
- the debate following the vote to boycott Israeli goods is an issue which the BiC takes a view on
- it feels that reform of the union's structures is needed so that chapels play a larger part at ADM as chapels are more representative of the members at large than branches are
- ADM should focus more on industrial relations in the media and the terms and conditions relating to journalists, including press freedom
- issues such as the boycott of Israeli goods are more problematic for broadcasting, as a sector, as we have many members working abroad and, in particular, in the Middle East
- the majority of broadcasting members who have communicated with the union on the boycott believe the action is a mistake ".
Saturday, 19 May 2007
NORTHERN IRELAND BACKS BALLOT
The Northern Ireland Broadcasting Branch whose membership is made up
mainly of BBC chapel members in Belfast and Radio Foyle passed the
following motion on Wednesday 16th May:-
"As broadcasting journalists and NUJ members we are dismayed at the
passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. We
cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in
any conflict. This branch calls on the National Executive Council to
hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken
at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all
British and Irish journalists are viewed at home and abroad."
mainly of BBC chapel members in Belfast and Radio Foyle passed the
following motion on Wednesday 16th May:-
"As broadcasting journalists and NUJ members we are dismayed at the
passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. We
cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in
any conflict. This branch calls on the National Executive Council to
hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken
at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all
British and Irish journalists are viewed at home and abroad."
Thursday, 17 May 2007
MANCHESTER BRANCH VICTORY
On Thursday evening the NUJ Manchester branch passed the following motion:
AT A TIME WHEN THE UNION IS SEEKING TO GAIN PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE ‘JOURNALISM MATTERS’ CAMPAIGN AND THE ‘DAY OF ACTION’, THIS DIVISIVE AND CONTROVERSIAL ADM RESOLUTION, CALLING ON NUJ MEMBERS TO BOYCOTT ISRAELI GOODS, HAS BROUGHT THE UNION INTO NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL DISREPUTE.
ALTHOUGH IT IS ALREADY BRANCH POLICY IN MANCHESTER TO OPPOSE COMPOSITE B, WE JOIN WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE BBC, ITN, OBSERVER AND FOREIGN PRESS ASSOCIATION IN ARGUING THIS RESOLUTION ALSO SERIOUSLY DAMAGES BRITISH JOURNALISTS’ REPUTATION FOR IMPARTIALITY AND INDEPENDENCE.
AS JEREMY DEAR IS ON RECORD SAYING THE EXECUTIVE DID NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION AND HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS OPEN TO MEMBERS TO RE-OPEN THE ISSUE, WE URGE THE NEC AT THEIR NEXT MEETING TO DO ALL THEY CAN TO PREVENT THE ENACTMENT OF THIS RESOLUTION.
This was passed by 12 votes to 9 after what one member described as a hard-fought battle with opponents using "every procedural trick in the book" to try to block the motion.
I think this is a sobering example of how our union normally operates. If the meeting had not attracted a bigger crowd than normal, the motion would have been lost. Policies are drafted by a handful of dedicated activists at a branch meeting - who really fancies going along at 7.30pm on a wet Thursday evening ?- and that means they often fail to reflect the views of the mass of members who never have and never will attend these meetings. So how do we change this structure to make it more democratic?
AT A TIME WHEN THE UNION IS SEEKING TO GAIN PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE ‘JOURNALISM MATTERS’ CAMPAIGN AND THE ‘DAY OF ACTION’, THIS DIVISIVE AND CONTROVERSIAL ADM RESOLUTION, CALLING ON NUJ MEMBERS TO BOYCOTT ISRAELI GOODS, HAS BROUGHT THE UNION INTO NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL DISREPUTE.
ALTHOUGH IT IS ALREADY BRANCH POLICY IN MANCHESTER TO OPPOSE COMPOSITE B, WE JOIN WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE BBC, ITN, OBSERVER AND FOREIGN PRESS ASSOCIATION IN ARGUING THIS RESOLUTION ALSO SERIOUSLY DAMAGES BRITISH JOURNALISTS’ REPUTATION FOR IMPARTIALITY AND INDEPENDENCE.
AS JEREMY DEAR IS ON RECORD SAYING THE EXECUTIVE DID NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION AND HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS OPEN TO MEMBERS TO RE-OPEN THE ISSUE, WE URGE THE NEC AT THEIR NEXT MEETING TO DO ALL THEY CAN TO PREVENT THE ENACTMENT OF THIS RESOLUTION.
This was passed by 12 votes to 9 after what one member described as a hard-fought battle with opponents using "every procedural trick in the book" to try to block the motion.
I think this is a sobering example of how our union normally operates. If the meeting had not attracted a bigger crowd than normal, the motion would have been lost. Policies are drafted by a handful of dedicated activists at a branch meeting - who really fancies going along at 7.30pm on a wet Thursday evening ?- and that means they often fail to reflect the views of the mass of members who never have and never will attend these meetings. So how do we change this structure to make it more democratic?
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
BBC MANCHESTER CHAPEL CALLS FOR BALLOT
The BBC Manchester NUJ chapel has passed a motion supporting the call for a ballot on the Israel boycott. Just a reminder - the NUJ Manchester branch meets on Thursday to debate the issue. Details here:
Thursday 17 May at the NUJ regional office at Arthur House, Chorlton Street, Manchester. If you arrive after 7.30pm call 0161 237 5020 and someone will let you in.
Thursday 17 May at the NUJ regional office at Arthur House, Chorlton Street, Manchester. If you arrive after 7.30pm call 0161 237 5020 and someone will let you in.
Tuesday, 15 May 2007
REUTERS CALLS FOR REVERSAL OF BOYCOTT
The NUJ chapel at Reuters passed the following motion unanimously:
"This Chapel rejects the motion, passed at the Annual Delegates Meeting of the National Union of Journalists in April, calling for a boycott of Israeli goods.
This chapel takes no position whatsoever on the underlying issue addressed by the motion, believing that all such political positioning by the union runs counter to our commitment as Reuters journalists to maintain professional objectivity and freedom from bias.
This chapel notes that such positioning threatens to undermine our ability to work in harmony with colleagues of various nationalities and opinions.
This chapel believes motions that take sides on geopolitical matters divide the union's membership and undermine the solidarity it needs to defend our professional interests and campaign for the freedom, safety and welfare of fellow journalists around the world.
The Chapel mandates its representatives to inform the NUJ of its decision and to advocate and vote for a reversal of the motion at the first opportunity. It mandates its representatives to bring this decision to the attention of the Reuters trustees. "
"This Chapel rejects the motion, passed at the Annual Delegates Meeting of the National Union of Journalists in April, calling for a boycott of Israeli goods.
This chapel takes no position whatsoever on the underlying issue addressed by the motion, believing that all such political positioning by the union runs counter to our commitment as Reuters journalists to maintain professional objectivity and freedom from bias.
This chapel notes that such positioning threatens to undermine our ability to work in harmony with colleagues of various nationalities and opinions.
This chapel believes motions that take sides on geopolitical matters divide the union's membership and undermine the solidarity it needs to defend our professional interests and campaign for the freedom, safety and welfare of fellow journalists around the world.
The Chapel mandates its representatives to inform the NUJ of its decision and to advocate and vote for a reversal of the motion at the first opportunity. It mandates its representatives to bring this decision to the attention of the Reuters trustees. "
Thursday, 10 May 2007
MANCHESTER BRANCH TO DEBATE BOYCOTT
The NUJ Manchester branch will debate the Israeli boycott at its May meeting - here are the details:
Thursday 17 May at the NUJ regional office at Arthur House, Chorlton Street, Manchester. If you arrive after 7.30pm call 0161 237 5020 and someone will let you in.
And Gita Conn - a Life Member has written this in Quorum - NUJ Manchester's newsletter:
BAN THE BOYCOTT
Howls of outrage can be heard all over the land, and from abroad, at the passing of a motion at ADM to boycott Israeli goods.
At a time when journalists are seriously concerned about pay, job security, new media and pensions, i.e. Union matters, why is our Union becoming embroiled in the political fallout of a motion that has been described as ‘daft and dangerous’?
Wimpier members have torn up their membership cards in disgust… and in a useless, self-righteous gesture.
Hardier souls are using every democratic means to persuade the NEC to neuter a motion that should never have been passed.
Hundreds of members from BBC and ITV have already signed a petition condemning the motion. ITN broadcasters, expressing their dismay, stated: ‘As members of organisations which take pride in providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict.’
The Observer NUJ Chapel is adamant: ‘If Observer journalists come out for any side in any conflict, we do so after researching and thinking about it for ourselves. We are angered that reports have gone round the world that “British journalists” have democratically agreed to single out Israel - and only Israel - for sanctions. We call on the Union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue that could have a profound effect on the way the independence of British journalists is viewed at home and abroad.’
Leading public figures (including the Editor of the Guardian and Jon Snow) have criticised a motion that bears factual inaccuracies, discriminatory overtones and a lack of balance abhorrent to every journalist of principle.
Such ill-conceived messages coming from ADM in our name bring the Union and its members into disrepute. We are losing credibility at a time when we need to focus on extremely important issues and are seeking public support for the Journalism Matters campaign and for the Day of Action in November.
Worse still, hyperbole does little to assist the search for peace in the Middle East nor, of immediate urgency (as I write), the freeing from captivity of Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist.
I will be asking the Branch (which mandated its conference delegates to oppose this motion) to make representations to the NEC to do everything in its constitutional powers to negate this unfortunate resolution.
General Secretary Jeremy Dear is on record as saying the NEC did not support the motion and he has made it clear that it is open to members to reopen the issue.
If you share my concern, please come along to the next meeting of the Branch on 17 May and lend your support. If you cannot come, please do add your name to the submission by e-mailing me at gita@gconn.fsbusiness.co.uk <mailto:gita@gconn.fsbusiness.co.uk>
Gita Conn, Life Member
Editor’s note(This is the Editor of Quorum): This is an issue which has aroused strong feelings and should make for an interesting discussion at the next Branch meeting, not least over the question of whether the NEC should overturn a decision made by the democratic will of the Union's membership decision - however unpalatable that decision. The NEC has the constitutional right to do so but this right has been exercised very rarely. As Gita urges, please try and get to the meeting on Thursday 17th May.
Thursday 17 May at the NUJ regional office at Arthur House, Chorlton Street, Manchester. If you arrive after 7.30pm call 0161 237 5020 and someone will let you in.
And Gita Conn - a Life Member has written this in Quorum - NUJ Manchester's newsletter:
BAN THE BOYCOTT
Howls of outrage can be heard all over the land, and from abroad, at the passing of a motion at ADM to boycott Israeli goods.
At a time when journalists are seriously concerned about pay, job security, new media and pensions, i.e. Union matters, why is our Union becoming embroiled in the political fallout of a motion that has been described as ‘daft and dangerous’?
Wimpier members have torn up their membership cards in disgust… and in a useless, self-righteous gesture.
Hardier souls are using every democratic means to persuade the NEC to neuter a motion that should never have been passed.
Hundreds of members from BBC and ITV have already signed a petition condemning the motion. ITN broadcasters, expressing their dismay, stated: ‘As members of organisations which take pride in providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict.’
The Observer NUJ Chapel is adamant: ‘If Observer journalists come out for any side in any conflict, we do so after researching and thinking about it for ourselves. We are angered that reports have gone round the world that “British journalists” have democratically agreed to single out Israel - and only Israel - for sanctions. We call on the Union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue that could have a profound effect on the way the independence of British journalists is viewed at home and abroad.’
Leading public figures (including the Editor of the Guardian and Jon Snow) have criticised a motion that bears factual inaccuracies, discriminatory overtones and a lack of balance abhorrent to every journalist of principle.
Such ill-conceived messages coming from ADM in our name bring the Union and its members into disrepute. We are losing credibility at a time when we need to focus on extremely important issues and are seeking public support for the Journalism Matters campaign and for the Day of Action in November.
Worse still, hyperbole does little to assist the search for peace in the Middle East nor, of immediate urgency (as I write), the freeing from captivity of Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist.
I will be asking the Branch (which mandated its conference delegates to oppose this motion) to make representations to the NEC to do everything in its constitutional powers to negate this unfortunate resolution.
General Secretary Jeremy Dear is on record as saying the NEC did not support the motion and he has made it clear that it is open to members to reopen the issue.
If you share my concern, please come along to the next meeting of the Branch on 17 May and lend your support. If you cannot come, please do add your name to the submission by e-mailing me at gita@gconn.fsbusiness.co.uk <mailto:gita@gconn.fsbusiness.co.uk>
Gita Conn, Life Member
Editor’s note(This is the Editor of Quorum): This is an issue which has aroused strong feelings and should make for an interesting discussion at the next Branch meeting, not least over the question of whether the NEC should overturn a decision made by the democratic will of the Union's membership decision - however unpalatable that decision. The NEC has the constitutional right to do so but this right has been exercised very rarely. As Gita urges, please try and get to the meeting on Thursday 17th May.
Wednesday, 9 May 2007
LONDON BRANCH VOTE - CORRECTION
I am told that the vote on the motion calling for a ballot yesterday was actually 43 in favour, 1 abstention, none against.
We now have to encourage other branches across the country to vote for similar motions.
We now have to encourage other branches across the country to vote for similar motions.
Tuesday, 8 May 2007
LONDON BRANCH CALLS FOR BALLOT
In a meeting addressed by the General Secretary Jeremy Dear, the BBC London branch heard strong views from members about the NUJ's Israel boycott policy. One member, who works frequently in the Middle East said "I don't want to pay my dues, only to have my views misrepresented by the union." Jeremy Dear explained that the National Executive might find it difficult to find anything in the rulebook allowing for a ballot - but he admittted that the executive could take that decision and accept the risk of censure at next year's ADM. The branch then passed the following motion:
“As BBC journalists and NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of a corporation which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict. This branch calls on the Executive to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British journalists are viewed at home and abroad.”
43 were in favour, 1 against - with no abstentions. It was the best attended branch meeting in recent years - by contrast, the meeting that sent our delegates to ADM was attended by 3 people.
“As BBC journalists and NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of a corporation which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict. This branch calls on the Executive to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British journalists are viewed at home and abroad.”
43 were in favour, 1 against - with no abstentions. It was the best attended branch meeting in recent years - by contrast, the meeting that sent our delegates to ADM was attended by 3 people.
Monday, 7 May 2007
BRANCH MEETING – WHAT KIND OF MOTION?
Just a reminder:
BBC London NUJ Branch meeting:
Tuesday 8th May. 1:30 pm,
in room B551 in the basement of the main TVC donut
What kind of motion should we try to pass at the branch meeting on Tuesday if we want our union to act quickly to reverse the boycott policy? I still favour the original call for a ballot as outlined in our petition:
“As BBC journalists and NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of a corporation which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict. This branch calls on the Executive to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British journalists are viewed at home and abroad.”
Some are suggesting there is no mechanism for a ballot – but I have been told by one official that there could be. He points to provision for a ballot if the union is seen to be signing up to a political campaign.
“The union shall not affiliate to any body, other than those promoting the principles of press freedom and/or workers rights until the proposal to do so has been submitted to a ballot of the members in which a simple majority of those voting shall decide the issue.” (Rule 9c)
It could be argued that an ADM motion which, amongst other things, “instructs the NEC to support organisations including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign” should trigger a ballot. But some are convinced that this won’t work – and that we should instead have a broader motion…:
“to instruct delegates to oppose (or abstain from) any resolutions at the next ADM which seek to link the NUJ to, or which support, any political issues or campaigns which do not directly relate to journalism, press freedom/safety or industrial relations within the British/Irish media….”
This would, in effect, kick the issue into the long grass until next April’s ADM, but I suppose it would put down a marker that we did not want our delegates to assume that we wanted to sign up to any kind of political campaign. Perhaps we should pass both motions?
BBC London NUJ Branch meeting:
Tuesday 8th May. 1:30 pm,
in room B551 in the basement of the main TVC donut
What kind of motion should we try to pass at the branch meeting on Tuesday if we want our union to act quickly to reverse the boycott policy? I still favour the original call for a ballot as outlined in our petition:
“As BBC journalists and NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of a corporation which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict. This branch calls on the Executive to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British journalists are viewed at home and abroad.”
Some are suggesting there is no mechanism for a ballot – but I have been told by one official that there could be. He points to provision for a ballot if the union is seen to be signing up to a political campaign.
“The union shall not affiliate to any body, other than those promoting the principles of press freedom and/or workers rights until the proposal to do so has been submitted to a ballot of the members in which a simple majority of those voting shall decide the issue.” (Rule 9c)
It could be argued that an ADM motion which, amongst other things, “instructs the NEC to support organisations including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign” should trigger a ballot. But some are convinced that this won’t work – and that we should instead have a broader motion…:
“to instruct delegates to oppose (or abstain from) any resolutions at the next ADM which seek to link the NUJ to, or which support, any political issues or campaigns which do not directly relate to journalism, press freedom/safety or industrial relations within the British/Irish media….”
This would, in effect, kick the issue into the long grass until next April’s ADM, but I suppose it would put down a marker that we did not want our delegates to assume that we wanted to sign up to any kind of political campaign. Perhaps we should pass both motions?
Friday, 4 May 2007
OBSERVER CHAPEL CALLS FOR BALLOT
The NUJ chapel at the Observer has passed the following motion - as I understand there was just one abstention.
'This chapel is dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. If Observer journalists come out for any side in any conflict, we do so after researching and thinking about it for ourselves. We are angered that reports have gone round the world that 'British journalists' have democratically agreed to single out Israel - and only Israel - for sanctions. We call on the union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue that could have a profound effect on the way the independence of British journalists is viewed at home and abroad'
'This chapel is dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. If Observer journalists come out for any side in any conflict, we do so after researching and thinking about it for ourselves. We are angered that reports have gone round the world that 'British journalists' have democratically agreed to single out Israel - and only Israel - for sanctions. We call on the union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue that could have a profound effect on the way the independence of British journalists is viewed at home and abroad'
WHAT ADM SAID ON ISRAEL
Just so that everyone is clear, here is the composite motion passed at ADM last month:
ADM condemns the savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel. ADM notes that the vast majority of those killed in 2006 have been Lebanese together with Palestinians in the Israeli occupied territories.
This ADM condemns the slaughter of civilians by Israeli troops in Gaza and the IDF’s continued attacks inside Lebanon following the defeat of its army by Hezbollah.
This ADM calls for the end of Israeli aggression in Gaza and other occupied territories.
This ADM calls for a boycott of Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa led by trade unions and the TUC to demand sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government and the United Nations.
This ADM instructs the NEC to support organisations including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding and continue supporting the programme of safety training and union building set out by the IFJ with its affiliate, the Syndicate of Palestinian Journalists.
ADM encourages branches to find ways to support their Palestinian colleagues, noting as an example the ‘Reporting under Occupation’ meeting organised by the Oxford branch, which gave a platform to Al Hayat’s West Bank correspondent to explain the dangers, restrictions and limitations faced by Palestinian – and to a lesser extent non-Palestinian – journalists operating in the West Bank and Gaza.
ADM condemns the savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel. ADM notes that the vast majority of those killed in 2006 have been Lebanese together with Palestinians in the Israeli occupied territories.
This ADM condemns the slaughter of civilians by Israeli troops in Gaza and the IDF’s continued attacks inside Lebanon following the defeat of its army by Hezbollah.
This ADM calls for the end of Israeli aggression in Gaza and other occupied territories.
This ADM calls for a boycott of Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa led by trade unions and the TUC to demand sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government and the United Nations.
This ADM instructs the NEC to support organisations including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding and continue supporting the programme of safety training and union building set out by the IFJ with its affiliate, the Syndicate of Palestinian Journalists.
ADM encourages branches to find ways to support their Palestinian colleagues, noting as an example the ‘Reporting under Occupation’ meeting organised by the Oxford branch, which gave a platform to Al Hayat’s West Bank correspondent to explain the dangers, restrictions and limitations faced by Palestinian – and to a lesser extent non-Palestinian – journalists operating in the West Bank and Gaza.
Thursday, 3 May 2007
LONDON BRANCH MEETING
The NUJ's BBC London branch will be meeting on Tuesday to discuss the Israeli boycott - Jeremy Dear will be there. The detaills are:
Tuesday 8th May
at 1:30 pm,
in room B551 at TVC,
in the basement of the main TVC donut
We are invited to submit a motion to the branch meeting - and it has been suggested to me that calling for a ballot will not fit in with the NUJ's rulebook. Anyone got any thoughts as to whether we should ignore that - or draft an alternative motion which could for example call for a recall conference?
Rory Cellan-Jones
Tuesday 8th May
at 1:30 pm,
in room B551 at TVC,
in the basement of the main TVC donut
We are invited to submit a motion to the branch meeting - and it has been suggested to me that calling for a ballot will not fit in with the NUJ's rulebook. Anyone got any thoughts as to whether we should ignore that - or draft an alternative motion which could for example call for a recall conference?
Rory Cellan-Jones
Tuesday, 1 May 2007
JEREMY DEAR RESPONDS
Jeremy Dear has emailed to say that he has received our petition and will make the motion available to the Executive. He says it will first be discussed by the Policy Committee on 8 June and then by the Executive later in June. He promises to keep us updated on any outcome.
Monday, 30 April 2007
ITN JOINS IN
A number of NUJ members at ITN are also supporting the campaign for a ballot on the policy. Their motion reads:
As broadcasters and NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of organisations which take pride in providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict. We call on the union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British journalists are viewed at home and abroad.
Dan Wright
John Ray
Nick Scott Plummer
David Weissbloom
Jon Snow
Malcolm Boughen
Ed Perkins
Benjamin Cohen
Lindsey Hilsum
Jonathan Rugman
Felicity Spector
Rob White
Mark Power
Julian Rush
Lucy Manning
Jonathan Miller
David Stanley
Tom Clarke
Ken Hayes
Jason Mills
Nick Paton Walsh
Ben Monro-Davies
Rachel Defriez
Chris Watkins
As broadcasters and NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of organisations which take pride in providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict. We call on the union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British journalists are viewed at home and abroad.
Dan Wright
John Ray
Nick Scott Plummer
David Weissbloom
Jon Snow
Malcolm Boughen
Ed Perkins
Benjamin Cohen
Lindsey Hilsum
Jonathan Rugman
Felicity Spector
Rob White
Mark Power
Julian Rush
Lucy Manning
Jonathan Miller
David Stanley
Tom Clarke
Ken Hayes
Jason Mills
Nick Paton Walsh
Ben Monro-Davies
Rachel Defriez
Chris Watkins
Sunday, 29 April 2007
PETITION NAMES
Hugh Sykes
Rebecca Newman
Lucinda Moore
Kate Ferrand
James Read
Maxine Mawhinney
Andrew North
Gary O’Donoghue
Greg Wood
Kevin Bishop
Bridget Kendall
Matt Barbet
Guy Pelham
Ming Tsang
Dan Kelly
Mandy Baker
Dougie Dalgleish
Sean Klein
Lorna Donlon
Robert Chaundy
Fiona Anderson
Lucy Wilkins
Lesley Curwen
Khalid Javed
Rowan Bridge
Jonathan Whitney
Chris Eakin
Alan Reed
Ben Thomas
Abigail Simmons
Piers Parry-Crooke
Sanchia Berg
John Curran
Christine McGourty
Elaine Lester
Mark Sanders
Arif Ansari
Gill Pulsford
Mark D’Arcy
Laura Trevelyan
Geraint Owen
Alison Macdonald
Ken Wilson
Sarah Parrish
Rachel Horne
Mike Embley
Jane Ashley
James Hardy
Claire Hughes
Jon Devitt
Daniel Mann
Tim Allman
Nick Edser
Judith Burns
James Menendez
Joanna Carr
Nicola Kohn
Adam Porter
Frances Lass
Dominic Hughes
Mark Lobel
Monica Soriano
Lucy Crystal
Ben Bevington
Wietske Burema
Jon Brain
Hanna White
Catherine Miller
Jon Cronin
Ben Ando
John Shields
Nicholas Wallis
Jo Parsons
Andy Lewis
Tim Franks
Ian Pannell
Eleanor Moritz
Kenneth Payne
Manjushri Mitra
Mike Costello
Andrew Hosken
David Crawford
Adam Brimelow
Gail Ashton
Jonathan Aspinwall
Jenny Baxter
Jonathan Paterson
Richard Colebourn
Sue Oates
Katie Finigan
Louise Cotton
Georgina Pattinson
Mike Sergeant
Neil Strickland
Ben Brown
Lizzi Watson
Malcolm Senior
Mick Robson
Olivia Macleod
Madeleine Morris
Richard Jarrett
Elliot Choueka
Andy Tighe
Sue Emmett
Robyn Hunter
David Hannah
Lucy Rodgers
Tim Whewell
Patrick Jackson
Jane Corbin
Parv Ramchurn
Tom Giles
Cathie Mahoney
Sally Heptonstall
Caroline Alton
Gaetan Portal
Poonam Taneja
Alison Mann
Patricia Daganskaia
Jasmin Buttar
Andrew Walker
Carolyn Rice
Peter Machin
Angie Nehring
Daniel Boettcher
Fiona Blair
Nicola Dann
Lesley Taylor
Anita Coulson
Krista Beighton
Alex Millar
Zillah Watson
Robert Corp
Terry Dignan
Helen Wade
Finlo Nelson Rohrer
Kate Goldberg
Ben Fell
Simon Bendle
Neil Heathcote
Johanna Howitt
Shelley Charlesworth
Tim Samuels
Dan Simmons
Gillian Hargreaves
Geoff Stayton
Matthew Leach
David Shukman
Gerry Kiernan
Ros Tamblyn
Robert Greenall
Iain Carter
Margaret Skinner
Richard Watson
Nathalie Knowles
Norman Smith
Amber Dawson
Angus Crawford
Paul Jones
Alicia McCarthy
John Beesley
Ian Lauchlan
Emma Jane Kirby
Darryl Chamberlain
Tim Haynes
Lucy Barrick
Liz Shaw
Ray Alexander
Huw Edwards
Rob Shepherd
Stephanie Power
Karen Wightman
Pete Jump
Philippa Busby
Gordon Farquhar
Sarah Teasdale
Sarah Tempest
Melanie Parry
Michael O’Connor
Richard Danbury
Gary Eason
Clive Myrie
Michele Grant
Philip Palmer
Andrew Fletcher
Jonathan Chapman
Helena Wilkinson
James Robbins
Allan Little
Pallab Ghosh
Susan Hulme
Jonny Dymond
Gordon Corera
Nora Dennehy
Karen Hoggan
Jonty Bloom
Joanne Hilditch
Jo Coburn
Branwen Jeffreys
Rebecca Marston
Caroline Bayley
Michael Voss
James Reynolds
Jo Floto
MikeWooldridge
Robin Chrystal
Anthony Massey
Rachel Hooper
Reeta Chakrabarti
Nick Higham
Gillian Lacey-Solymar
Rory Maclean
Carolyn Quinn
Will Walden
Vikki Clein
David Thompson
Carole Walker
Hugh Pym
Oggy Boytchev
Adele Tobe
Jonathan Marcus
Jonathan Charles
Doug Dalgleish
Rob Watson
Andrew Burroughs
Deborah Dwek
Danny Shaw
Judith Moritz
Jenny Culshaw
Michele Grant
Stephen Evans
Tom Symonds
Jane Peel
Candida Watson
Jane Dreaper
Paul Danahar
Nils Blythe
Nicholas Blakemore
Ian Jolly
Caroline Alton
Pauline McCole
Rory Cellan-Jones
Martin Shankleman
Catherine Norris-Trent
Magnus McGrandle
John Moylan
Philippa Goodrich
Tom Geoghegan
Alison Francis
Martin Fookes
Mandy Stokes
Jennifer Sneesby
Nigel Pankhurst
Katya Adler
Andrew Webb
Paul Waters
Samantha Smith
Jo-Anne Pugh
Paul Kirby
Adrian Dalingwater
Roxanne Panthaki
Tamsin Curnow
Keith Hindell
Martin Rosenbaum
Clare Csonka
Jane Hughes
Lisa Hampele
Ben Shore
Charlotte Smith
Claudia Allen
Anna Holford
Kate Ford
Tory Scott
Nick Tarry
Gareth Jones
Richard Pattinson
Phil Hendry
Sarah Deech
Dharshini David
Marianne Degen
Tom Butler
Tony Smith
Mark Mitchell
Ruth Cobbe
David Gibson
Oliver Del Mar
David Lennon
Caroline Donne
Jacey Normand
Laurence Inwood
Peter Trollope
Ann Wrights
Connie Pollard
Alex Gerlis
Nick Ravenscroft
Sue Polhill
Mary Gahan
Adam Cumiskey
Crispin Thorold
Jenny Matthews
Charlotte Nicol
Neil Churchman
Katy Hickman
John Sweeney
Natalie Lisbona
Ian Kenyon
Andrea Chipman
Colin Hazelden
Martin Morgan
Haoyu Zhang
Ian Rose
Kirsteen Knight
Kavitha Prasad
Polly Billington
Rebecca Newman
Lucinda Moore
Kate Ferrand
James Read
Maxine Mawhinney
Andrew North
Gary O’Donoghue
Greg Wood
Kevin Bishop
Bridget Kendall
Matt Barbet
Guy Pelham
Ming Tsang
Dan Kelly
Mandy Baker
Dougie Dalgleish
Sean Klein
Lorna Donlon
Robert Chaundy
Fiona Anderson
Lucy Wilkins
Lesley Curwen
Khalid Javed
Rowan Bridge
Jonathan Whitney
Chris Eakin
Alan Reed
Ben Thomas
Abigail Simmons
Piers Parry-Crooke
Sanchia Berg
John Curran
Christine McGourty
Elaine Lester
Mark Sanders
Arif Ansari
Gill Pulsford
Mark D’Arcy
Laura Trevelyan
Geraint Owen
Alison Macdonald
Ken Wilson
Sarah Parrish
Rachel Horne
Mike Embley
Jane Ashley
James Hardy
Claire Hughes
Jon Devitt
Daniel Mann
Tim Allman
Nick Edser
Judith Burns
James Menendez
Joanna Carr
Nicola Kohn
Adam Porter
Frances Lass
Dominic Hughes
Mark Lobel
Monica Soriano
Lucy Crystal
Ben Bevington
Wietske Burema
Jon Brain
Hanna White
Catherine Miller
Jon Cronin
Ben Ando
John Shields
Nicholas Wallis
Jo Parsons
Andy Lewis
Tim Franks
Ian Pannell
Eleanor Moritz
Kenneth Payne
Manjushri Mitra
Mike Costello
Andrew Hosken
David Crawford
Adam Brimelow
Gail Ashton
Jonathan Aspinwall
Jenny Baxter
Jonathan Paterson
Richard Colebourn
Sue Oates
Katie Finigan
Louise Cotton
Georgina Pattinson
Mike Sergeant
Neil Strickland
Ben Brown
Lizzi Watson
Malcolm Senior
Mick Robson
Olivia Macleod
Madeleine Morris
Richard Jarrett
Elliot Choueka
Andy Tighe
Sue Emmett
Robyn Hunter
David Hannah
Lucy Rodgers
Tim Whewell
Patrick Jackson
Jane Corbin
Parv Ramchurn
Tom Giles
Cathie Mahoney
Sally Heptonstall
Caroline Alton
Gaetan Portal
Poonam Taneja
Alison Mann
Patricia Daganskaia
Jasmin Buttar
Andrew Walker
Carolyn Rice
Peter Machin
Angie Nehring
Daniel Boettcher
Fiona Blair
Nicola Dann
Lesley Taylor
Anita Coulson
Krista Beighton
Alex Millar
Zillah Watson
Robert Corp
Terry Dignan
Helen Wade
Finlo Nelson Rohrer
Kate Goldberg
Ben Fell
Simon Bendle
Neil Heathcote
Johanna Howitt
Shelley Charlesworth
Tim Samuels
Dan Simmons
Gillian Hargreaves
Geoff Stayton
Matthew Leach
David Shukman
Gerry Kiernan
Ros Tamblyn
Robert Greenall
Iain Carter
Margaret Skinner
Richard Watson
Nathalie Knowles
Norman Smith
Amber Dawson
Angus Crawford
Paul Jones
Alicia McCarthy
John Beesley
Ian Lauchlan
Emma Jane Kirby
Darryl Chamberlain
Tim Haynes
Lucy Barrick
Liz Shaw
Ray Alexander
Huw Edwards
Rob Shepherd
Stephanie Power
Karen Wightman
Pete Jump
Philippa Busby
Gordon Farquhar
Sarah Teasdale
Sarah Tempest
Melanie Parry
Michael O’Connor
Richard Danbury
Gary Eason
Clive Myrie
Michele Grant
Philip Palmer
Andrew Fletcher
Jonathan Chapman
Helena Wilkinson
James Robbins
Allan Little
Pallab Ghosh
Susan Hulme
Jonny Dymond
Gordon Corera
Nora Dennehy
Karen Hoggan
Jonty Bloom
Joanne Hilditch
Jo Coburn
Branwen Jeffreys
Rebecca Marston
Caroline Bayley
Michael Voss
James Reynolds
Jo Floto
MikeWooldridge
Robin Chrystal
Anthony Massey
Rachel Hooper
Reeta Chakrabarti
Nick Higham
Gillian Lacey-Solymar
Rory Maclean
Carolyn Quinn
Will Walden
Vikki Clein
David Thompson
Carole Walker
Hugh Pym
Oggy Boytchev
Adele Tobe
Jonathan Marcus
Jonathan Charles
Doug Dalgleish
Rob Watson
Andrew Burroughs
Deborah Dwek
Danny Shaw
Judith Moritz
Jenny Culshaw
Michele Grant
Stephen Evans
Tom Symonds
Jane Peel
Candida Watson
Jane Dreaper
Paul Danahar
Nils Blythe
Nicholas Blakemore
Ian Jolly
Caroline Alton
Pauline McCole
Rory Cellan-Jones
Martin Shankleman
Catherine Norris-Trent
Magnus McGrandle
John Moylan
Philippa Goodrich
Tom Geoghegan
Alison Francis
Martin Fookes
Mandy Stokes
Jennifer Sneesby
Nigel Pankhurst
Katya Adler
Andrew Webb
Paul Waters
Samantha Smith
Jo-Anne Pugh
Paul Kirby
Adrian Dalingwater
Roxanne Panthaki
Tamsin Curnow
Keith Hindell
Martin Rosenbaum
Clare Csonka
Jane Hughes
Lisa Hampele
Ben Shore
Charlotte Smith
Claudia Allen
Anna Holford
Kate Ford
Tory Scott
Nick Tarry
Gareth Jones
Richard Pattinson
Phil Hendry
Sarah Deech
Dharshini David
Marianne Degen
Tom Butler
Tony Smith
Mark Mitchell
Ruth Cobbe
David Gibson
Oliver Del Mar
David Lennon
Caroline Donne
Jacey Normand
Laurence Inwood
Peter Trollope
Ann Wrights
Connie Pollard
Alex Gerlis
Nick Ravenscroft
Sue Polhill
Mary Gahan
Adam Cumiskey
Crispin Thorold
Jenny Matthews
Charlotte Nicol
Neil Churchman
Katy Hickman
John Sweeney
Natalie Lisbona
Ian Kenyon
Andrea Chipman
Colin Hazelden
Martin Morgan
Haoyu Zhang
Ian Rose
Kirsteen Knight
Kavitha Prasad
Polly Billington
WHAT THIS BLOG IS ABOUT
This blog is simply aimed at managing a campaign by NUJ members at the BBC (and other broadcasters) to persuade the union to reverse a policy calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. The following motion, with over 250 names attached, was sent to the General Secretary on April 26th:
As BBC journalists and NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of a corporation which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict. We call on the union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British journalists are viewed at home and abroad.
Since then, more people have asked to add their names. So the next entry on the blog will be a list of all the current names - and those who want theirs added can either make an entry (NUJ members only please) or email Rory Cellan-Jones or Martin Shankleman.
As BBC journalists and NUJ members we are dismayed at the passing of a motion at ADM calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. As members of a corporation which prides itself on providing impartial news coverage, we cannot associate ourselves with a move which involves taking sides in any conflict. We call on the union to hold a ballot of all members to see whether they support the view taken at ADM on an issue which could have a profound effect on the way all British journalists are viewed at home and abroad.
Since then, more people have asked to add their names. So the next entry on the blog will be a list of all the current names - and those who want theirs added can either make an entry (NUJ members only please) or email Rory Cellan-Jones or Martin Shankleman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)