THE BBC’S DERELICTION OF DUTY

The allegations against Corbyn could hardly be more serious. So why’s the BBC ignoring them?

What could be more serious than the allegation that the possible future Prime Minister of Great Britain worked for Sovietbacked Czechoslovakia during the 1980s at the height of the Cold War?

this is the grievous charge made by former Czech spy Jan Sarkocy, who claims he met Jeremy Corbyn ‘more than ten times’ between 1986 and 1989 while at the Czechoslovak embassy in London. he says that, as a young MP, Corbyn – codenamed ‘Cob’ – was a Czech ‘asset’ approved by the Russians.

It is perfectly possible that Sarkocy is a fantasist, or wishes to damage the Labour leader for some unknown reason. But there are separate Czech archival records, whose authenticity has not been challenged, of three meetings between Corbyn and Sarkocy during this period.

Moreover, the allegation has at least surface plausibility in view of Corbyn’s well-known anti-americanism at this time, and his unfriendly attitude towards the British State, evinced by his association with members of the IRA during the ‘troubles’.

a number of newspapers including the Mail have been following up Sarkocy’s story, broken by the Sun last thursday. Some have steered clear of it, notably the Leftist, Labour- supporting Guardian, which has so far not carried a single word. that is what one would expect.

FAR more worrying is the way the all- powerful BBC has hitherto avoided Sarkocy’s allegations, which have been met with vehement denials by the Labour Party. If you relied on our public service broadcaster for your news, as about half the nation does, you wouldn’t know anything about ‘Cob’.

I watch and listen to the news on BBC television and radio almost obsessively, and I have picked up only two fleeting references to the extremely grave charges against Mr Corbyn. all I can find on auntie’s voluminous website is a tiny mention of a newspaper report.

the first broadcast allusion was a brief and jocular final item in the Press review on the today programme last thursday. During its three hours of airtime, today did not look into the allegation, and at the time of writing has not done so.

the second mention came yesterday on BBC1, when andrew Marr on his eponymous show hurriedly cited a Sunday telegraph article. this included a claim that Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London, was a frequent visitor to the Czechoslovak embassy in the 1980s, and that the shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, met a Soviet KGB agent several times.

Marr responded to the paper’s front page piece with the moral distaste of a vicar confronted by a pornographic magazine. he hastened to assure us that it had been ‘ comprehensively and absolutely denied by all the politicians concerned, and it does seem reading through it rather thin’.

there may have been other passing references, but it can be fairly stated that the BBC has done its utmost not to give this story wider circulation even though it contains the mindboggling suggestion, of course unproven, that as a young MP Jeremy Corbyn betrayed his country.

Why has auntie been so coy? I can think of two possible reasons. the first is that she was pilloried by the Corbynistas in 2015 for what they regarded as hostile reporting of their newly elected hero. Political editor Laura Kuenssberg became a particular hate figure for the trollers. So the Corporation is treading carefully.

Probably even more to the point, many news editors and political journalists at the Beeb regard Jeremy Corbyn with more favour than they did, not least, perhaps, because he appears increasingly opposed to the kind of ‘hard’ Brexit they abominate.

Whatever the explanation, there is little doubt the Labour leader has been given a much softer ride than would have been accorded the Prime Minister if claims of undesirable political affiliations had emerged from her past.

Imagine – incredible thought – that a former spy who served South africa under the apartheid regime stepped forward to allege he had more than ten friendly meetings with the young theresa May in the 1980s. Imagine, too, that there were authentic records of three encounters having taken place.

In such an eventuality, I suggest, the BBC would go ballistic, and repeat the allegations, however implausible, around the clock. I should add that although apartheid South africa was a disgusting regime, it didn’t pose a military threat to Britain – unlike Czechoslovakia and the Soviet bloc.

the BBC’s refusal to report either the allegations against Corbyn, or the unequivocal denials of his aides, amounts to a dereliction of duty. It recalls the political bias it showed in the early Blair years until – following the manifest half-truths of the Iraq War – some even-handedness was restored.

I remember how, before Peter Mandelson resigned from the Labour Cabinet in 2001 for the second time, the BBC was lamentably slow in giving airtime to the charges against him. after he was sacked, it treated him almost as a blameless martyr during an episode of Newsnight so one- sided that it was later obliged to apologise.

and the Beeb sat on its hands in 2001 while the Press (particularly this newspaper) investigated Cherie Blair’s friendship with the convicted conman Peter Foster, who had helped her to buy two flats in Bristol at a discount.

OF course, the Corporation could even now be belatedly limbering into action, and may have despatched a reporter to Slovakia to interview Jan Sarkocy and make further investigations. We can only hope so.

But it isn’t the first time it has looked the other way where Corbyn is concerned. In the weeks before last June’s election, it seemed deliberately to avoid reminding people of his discreditable past.

this includes asking two former IRA convicts to speak in the house of Commons a fortnight after the IRA had tried to blow up Margaret thatcher, killing five people in the process; and, as recently as 2009, describing the Islamic terrorists of hezbollah and hamas as his ‘friends’.

Now the BBC turns a blind eye to a truly shocking allegation – that Jeremy Corbyn consorted with this country’s enemies while holding public office. It may be false. But if it is even partly true, the implications are appalling.

Will we ever find out what really happened? Not if the mighty broadcaster which controls so many of our airwaves has anything to do with it.